That would seem to suggest the union is more important to the Lib Dems than the EU. Would be interesting to see whether there are unintended consequences of that, such as Lib Dems who are much keener on Europe and more ambivalent about the union breaking towards SNP instead of Tory. There might even be some Tories under that banner too, that would have broken towards the Lib Dems but might be forced to the SNP if the Lib Dems stand down. Detailed polling needed I think.
One obvious potential problem is any clash with London HQ - esp as the mass media tend to emphasise the London message rather than the local party message - the Labour Party in Scotland has fallen foul of that in recent months.
Another is that the LDs may feel they have more to lose than gain from an alliance with the Tories - I should think there is a prima facie market for a pro-union, pro-remain party in Scotland.
Indeed the coalition with the Tories damaged the LDs very badly in Scotland and Ms Swinson has plenty of history from that episode that could be deployed against her if there was a suggestion of an alliance with the Tories.
I would be interested to know more about the legality of such things. It depends how up front the parties are. A formal coupon Unionist alliance is one thing, but quietly dialling down campaigning in specific seats is another. The situation in Aberdeen City Council gives a third possibility - deny up front, but enjoy the benefits de facto.
I'm certain that a quiet soft-pedalling in certain constituencies happened in 2017. The comments from Kezia Dugdale before the election seemed to indicate that mindset was abound, and the literature distribution was reportedly quite uneven in a few parts of the country (I've heard a few examples but one example is Edinburgh South West, which neighbours a main Labour target and a separate main Lib Dem target apparently had very little unionist activity other than the Tories).
That would seem to suggest the union is more important to the Lib Dems than the EU. Would be interesting to see whether there are unintended consequences of that, such as Lib Dems who are much keener on Europe and more ambivalent about the union breaking towards SNP instead of Tory. There might even be some Tories under that banner too, that would have broken towards the Lib Dems but might be forced to the SNP if the Lib Dems stand down. Detailed polling needed I think.
One obvious potential problem is any clash with London HQ - esp as the mass media tend to emphasise the London message rather than the local party message - the Labour Party in Scotland has fallen foul of that in recent months.
Another is that the LDs may feel they have more to lose than gain from an alliance with the Tories - I should think there is a prima facie market for a pro-union, pro-remain party in Scotland.
Indeed the coalition with the Tories damaged the LDs very badly in Scotland and Ms Swinson has plenty of history from that episode that could be deployed against her if there was a suggestion of an alliance with the Tories.
I would be interested to know more about the legality of such things. It depends how up front the parties are. A formal coupon Unionist alliance is one thing, but quietly dialling down campaigning in specific seats is another. The situation in Aberdeen City Council gives a third possibility - deny up front, but enjoy the benefits de facto.
I'm certain that a quiet soft-pedalling in certain constituencies happened in 2017. The comments from Kezia Dugdale before the election seemed to indicate that mindset was abound, and the literature distribution was reportedly quite uneven in a few parts of the country (I've heard a few examples but one example is Edinburgh South West, which neighbours a main Labour target and a separate main Lib Dem target apparently had very little unionist activity other than the Tories).
Oh, and there's nothing illegal about that, surely? Parties are at liberty to focus their attention. Whether it's politically a good idea is my main question.
That would seem to suggest the union is more important to the Lib Dems than the EU. Would be interesting to see whether there are unintended consequences of that, such as Lib Dems who are much keener on Europe and more ambivalent about the union breaking towards SNP instead of Tory. There might even be some Tories under that banner too, that would have broken towards the Lib Dems but might be forced to the SNP if the Lib Dems stand down. Detailed polling needed I think.
One obvious potential problem is any clash with London HQ - esp as the mass media tend to emphasise the London message rather than the local party message - the Labour Party in Scotland has fallen foul of that in recent months.
Another is that the LDs may feel they have more to lose than gain from an alliance with the Tories - I should think there is a prima facie market for a pro-union, pro-remain party in Scotland.
Indeed the coalition with the Tories damaged the LDs very badly in Scotland and Ms Swinson has plenty of history from that episode that could be deployed against her if there was a suggestion of an alliance with the Tories.
I would be interested to know more about the legality of such things. It depends how up front the parties are. A formal coupon Unionist alliance is one thing, but quietly dialling down campaigning in specific seats is another. The situation in Aberdeen City Council gives a third possibility - deny up front, but enjoy the benefits de facto.
The Ruth Davidson faction is probably seducable by the LDs, and probably would feel quite at home. I don't think many SLDs would be keen on the BoZo faction.
On topic, I can imagine a scenario where following an election, it is clear the sitting PM has been turfed out. So as the results come in, he goes to the Palace and prorogues Parliament for five years. That would clearly be an abuse of the right to prorogue. But equally, it is such an obvious abuse that you would feel the Monarch would be entirely within their powers to refuse that prorogation.
And therein lies my point - that prorogation already has an inbuilt mechanism to prevent abuse, without resorting to the courts. It is Her Majesty's Government - if it abuses power vested in it, Her Majesty could remedy that abuse. The Sovereign in this case might have had qualms about shutting down Parliament for six weeks over the conference period - but not enough to intervene to reduce it.
I think if prorogation had been until 1st November, with the obvious intent of ensuring that Brexit happened because any Parliamentary intervention was blocked, then HM the Q might well have intervened. But it wasn't, there is really nothing happening until after the EU summit for Parliament to get its teeth into -and so I would be seriously disquieted if the SC were to overturn the prorogation in this instance.
I'm uncomfortable giving the monarch that much power. I think David has it absolutely right: the government should not have the right to prorouge to avoid being No Confidenced, or the like. But at the same time, there will frequently be times when Parliament doesn't need to sit. I would have thought some formalisation of the maximum period of prorogation would be a sensible way forward.
Aaaand the medication my partner needs is on there. Great. Thanks a lot, Brexiters.
My blood pressure pills too, though there are substitutes for that (though sudden switches of demand can cause secondary shortages).
The most problematic ones to me look to be Metformin, Prednisolone and Sodium Valproate. All are frequently prescribed and are not easily substituted.
In that list, I take Amlodipine, Ramipril , Metformin. I think all are produced in the UK. So I am surprised. I did not see Gliclazide or Dapagliflozin. Atorvastatin is also not there.
That would seem to suggest the union is more important to the Lib Dems than the EU. Would be interesting to see whether there are unintended consequences of that, such as Lib Dems who are much keener on Europe and more ambivalent about the union breaking towards SNP instead of Tory. There might even be some Tories under that banner too, that would have broken towards the Lib Dems but might be forced to the SNP if the Lib Dems stand down. Detailed polling needed I think.
One obvious potential problem is any clash with London HQ - esp as the mass media tend to emphasise the London message rather than the local party message - the Labour Party in Scotland has fallen foul of that in recent months.
Another is that the LDs may feel they have more to lose than gain from an alliance with the Tories - I should think there is a prima facie market for a pro-union, pro-remain party in Scotland.
Indeed the coalition with the Tories damaged the LDs very badly in Scotland and Ms Swinson has plenty of history from that episode that could be deployed against her if there was a suggestion of an alliance with the Tories.
I would be interested to know more about the legality of such things. It depends how up front the parties are. A formal coupon Unionist alliance is one thing, but quietly dialling down campaigning in specific seats is another. The situation in Aberdeen City Council gives a third possibility - deny up front, but enjoy the benefits de facto.
I'm certain that a quiet soft-pedalling in certain constituencies happened in 2017. The comments from Kezia Dugdale before the election seemed to indicate that mindset was abound, and the literature distribution was reportedly quite uneven in a few parts of the country (I've heard a few examples but one example is Edinburgh South West, which neighbours a main Labour target and a separate main Lib Dem target apparently had very little unionist activity other than the Tories).
Oh, and there's nothing illegal about that, surely? Parties are at liberty to focus their attention. Whether it's politically a good idea is my main question.
I recall being very surprised by Ian Murray's interview with the Guardian before the 2017 election in which he said e supported voting Tory and LD to get the SNP out where necessary (so long as their voters reciprocated, especially in Edinburgh South). Can't find the interview in a hurry, but the main point is confirmed here
On topic, I can imagine a scenario where following an election, it is clear the sitting PM has been turfed out. So as the results come in, he goes to the Palace and prorogues Parliament for five years. That would clearly be an abuse of the right to prorogue. But equally, it is such an obvious abuse that you would feel the Monarch would be entirely within their powers to refuse that prorogation.
And therein lies my point - that prorogation already has an inbuilt mechanism to prevent abuse, without resorting to the courts. It is Her Majesty's Government - if it abuses power vested in it, Her Majesty could remedy that abuse. The Sovereign in this case might have had qualms about shutting down Parliament for six weeks over the conference period - but not enough to intervene to reduce it.
I think if prorogation had been until 1st November, with the obvious intent of ensuring that Brexit happened because any Parliamentary intervention was blocked, then HM the Q might well have intervened. But it wasn't, there is really nothing happening until after the EU summit for Parliament to get its teeth into -and so I would be seriously disquieted if the SC were to overturn the prorogation in this instance.
I'm uncomfortable giving the monarch that much power. I think David has it absolutely right: the government should not have the right to prorouge to avoid being No Confidenced, or the like. But at the same time, there will frequently be times when Parliament doesn't need to sit. I would have thought some formalisation of the maximum period of prorogation would be a sensible way forward.
It's important not to assume the monarch is a fair-minded arbiter whose interest lies in the democratic health of the country. Historically, monarchs have tended in other directions. A constitution that relies on there not being a conspiracy of two people is vulnerable, even if you have faith in the current head of state. And what happens if she is incapacitated by illness. If the queen was suffering from dementia, who would be taking the decision turf the PM out? The heir apparent? Some other regent? Nobody?
I recall being very surprised by Ian Murray's interview with the Guardian before the 2017 election in which he said e supported voting Tory and LD to get the SNP out where necessary (so long as their voters reciprocated, especially in Edinburgh South). Can't find the interview in a hurry, but the main point is confirmed here
Bugger. Nathan Lyon bowls pies all morning and then that happens.
And he's an annoying sort of bowler who can get on a roll. England need a good batsman to come in and go big.
Unfortunately they've got Joe Root.
Why did Australia drop Starc ? He has only played one test. Bowled very well in the 2nd innings at Old Trafford and his footmarks would have assisted Lyon. Puzzling !
Aaaand the medication my partner needs is on there. Great. Thanks a lot, Brexiters.
My blood pressure pills too, though there are substitutes for that (though sudden switches of demand can cause secondary shortages).
The most problematic ones to me look to be Metformin, Prednisolone and Sodium Valproate. All are frequently prescribed and are not easily substituted.
In that list, I take Amlodipine, Ramipril , Metformin. I think all are produced in the UK. So I am surprised. I did not see Gliclazide or Dapagliflozin. Atorvastatin is also not there.
Bristol Laboratories manufacture Metformin in the UK. I suppose the issue is whether they have the capacity to make up the gap.
Feedstocks could be an issue too, I suppose. Many of these are imported.
That would seem to suggest the union is more important to the Lib Dems than the EU. Would be interesting to see whether there are unintended consequences of that, such as Lib Dems who are much keener on Europe and more ambivalent about the union breaking towards SNP instead of Tory. There might even be some Tories under that banner too, that would have broken towards the Lib Dems but might be forced to the SNP if the Lib Dems stand down. Detailed polling needed I think.
One obvious potential problem is any clash with London HQ - esp as the mass media tend to emphasise the London message rather than the local party message - the Labour Party in Scotland has fallen foul of that in recent months.
Another is that the LDs may feel they have more to lose than gain from an alliance with the Tories - I should think there is a prima facie market for a pro-union, pro-remain party in Scotland.
Indeed the coalition with the Tories damaged the LDs very badly in Scotland and Ms Swinson has plenty of history from that episode that could be deployed against her if there was a suggestion of an alliance with the Tories.
I would be interested to know more about the legality of such things. It depends how up front the parties are. A formal coupon Unionist alliance is one thing, but quietly dialling down campaigning in specific seats is another. The situation in Aberdeen City Council gives a third possibility - deny up front, but enjoy the benefits de facto.
The Ruth Davidson faction is probably seducable by the LDs, and probably would feel quite at home. I don't think many SLDs would be keen on the BoZo faction.
I'm not sure there ever was a very permanent Ruth Davidson faction within the party, if only because she seems to have changed doctrine so radically - but certainly a lot of voters were attracted by her persona and the marketing as the Ruth Davidson Party. I agree, another non-sandal-wearing and vaguely right wing mildly social liberal young parent could slip very well into the mental slot Ms D vacated.
I suppose the acceptabiloity of the Tories would enter a steeper nosedive if they went for hard brexit and above all if they entered into an alliance with Mr Farage's party.
The key point here is that Johnson's government literally has no workable Brexit policy. Other parties' policies might not be what we want. But at least they are actionable.
But Benn has shown that Parliament can whizz legislation through Parliament.....
That was a short Bill .
The WAIB is going to be huge and needs proper scrutiny and debate . This is desperation from Johnson . I doubt the public are going to riot if a deal is passed and it needs an extra month to go through .
He’s obsessed with the 31st October . I also doubt the BP are going to clean up if the UK is definitely going to leave but the legislation needs a few more weeks .
Yes, since the prorogation has happened, and there is the Queens Speech too (couldn't that have waited until November?) Parliamentary time is to short for any "revised" Deal. Hence we either extend, or No Deal Brexit.
Interesting that taking No Deal off the table seems to have accelerated rather than retarded efforts at negotiations. Only 5 of BoZos 30 days left by my count...
Yes Bozo is now desperate for a deal to avoid an extension . The fact he got the prorogation whilst parliament was in recess counts against him . That alone suggests he thought the Commons might act to stop him .
On topic, I can imagine a scenario where following an election, it is clear the sitting PM has been turfed out. So as the results come in, he goes to the Palace and prorogues Parliament for five years. That would clearly be an abuse of the right to prorogue. But equally, it is such an obvious abuse that you would feel the Monarch would be entirely within their powers to refuse that prorogation.
And therein lies my point - that prorogation already has an inbuilt mechanism to prevent abuse, without resorting to the courts. It is Her Majesty's Government - if it abuses power vested in it, Her Majesty could remedy that abuse. The Sovereign in this case might have had qualms about shutting down Parliament for six weeks over the conference period - but not enough to intervene to reduce it.
I think if prorogation had been until 1st November, with the obvious intent of ensuring that Brexit happened because any Parliamentary intervention was blocked, then HM the Q might well have intervened. But it wasn't, there is really nothing happening until after the EU summit for Parliament to get its teeth into -and so I would be seriously disquieted if the SC were to overturn the prorogation in this instance.
I'm uncomfortable giving the monarch that much power. I think David has it absolutely right: the government should not have the right to prorouge to avoid being No Confidenced, or the like. But at the same time, there will frequently be times when Parliament doesn't need to sit. I would have thought some formalisation of the maximum period of prorogation would be a sensible way forward.
It's important not to assume the monarch is a fair-minded arbiter whose interest lies in the democratic health of the country. Historically, monarchs have tended in other directions. A constitution that relies on there not being a conspiracy of two people is vulnerable, even if you have faith in the current head of state. And what happens if she is incapacitated by illness. If the queen was suffering from dementia, who would be taking the decision turf the PM out? The heir apparent? Some other regent? Nobody?
Don’t like the monarchy? Stick the abolition of it in a manifesto and win an election.
Aaaand the medication my partner needs is on there. Great. Thanks a lot, Brexiters.
My blood pressure pills too, though there are substitutes for that (though sudden switches of demand can cause secondary shortages).
The most problematic ones to me look to be Metformin, Prednisolone and Sodium Valproate. All are frequently prescribed and are not easily substituted.
In that list, I take Amlodipine, Ramipril , Metformin. I think all are produced in the UK. So I am surprised. I did not see Gliclazide or Dapagliflozin. Atorvastatin is also not there.
Bristol Laboratories manufacture Metformin in the UK. I suppose the issue is whether they have the capacity to make up the gap.
Feedstocks could be an issue too, I suppose. Many of these are imported.
Facile panic-mongering.
Fact is, we got through the Black Death, and actually came out of it - whatever the naysayers claim - a much stronger, happier country: a land where it was much easier to park.
Was it easy? Not always. Apocalyptic plague is notoriously tricky. But we prospered afterwards, just as will prosper after Brexit.
Aaaand the medication my partner needs is on there. Great. Thanks a lot, Brexiters.
My blood pressure pills too, though there are substitutes for that (though sudden switches of demand can cause secondary shortages).
The most problematic ones to me look to be Metformin, Prednisolone and Sodium Valproate. All are frequently prescribed and are not easily substituted.
In that list, I take Amlodipine, Ramipril , Metformin. I think all are produced in the UK. So I am surprised. I did not see Gliclazide or Dapagliflozin. Atorvastatin is also not there.
Bristol Laboratories manufacture Metformin in the UK. I suppose the issue is whether they have the capacity to make up the gap.
Feedstocks could be an issue too, I suppose. Many of these are imported.
Facile panic-mongering.
Fact is, we got through the Black Death, and actually came out of it - whatever the naysayers claim -,a much stronger, happier country: where it was much easier to park. Was it easy? Not always. Nothing worth doing is ever easy, apocalyptic plague is notoriously tricky. But we prospered afterwards, just as will prosper after Brexit.
Let’s move on.
Brexit - not as bad as a pandemic that killed 40% of the population.
Doesn't do it for me as a slogan. Has anyone put it on a bus yet?
Bloody hell, Joe Root, you are not supposed to DO what I post!
The key difference between Root Mk1 and Root Mk2 was Mk1 would make a pretty fifty and throw away his wicket. Now, he just throws away his wicket.
You know England haven't had a great morning when Joe Denly has been the standout batsman. He's about overdue to throw away his wicket as well.
Blame cricinfo: Right, back comes Lyon, with just over ten minutes to go until lunch. Interesting little passage of play. Do they go after him again? I guess just play him on merit ...or lack of, to judge by his recent returns...
BBC Parliament now showing First Minister's Questions from Holyrood recorded and have to say I am impressed by interim Scottish Conservative leader Jackson Carlaw, confident and fluent and putting Sturgeon under pressure. He looks a good bet to me to succeed Ruth Davidson
LDs to vote today on replacing their previous policy of EUref2 and campaigning for Remain with one of revoking Article 50 and scrapping Brexit if they win a majority.
Swinson also ruled out a coalition with either the Tories or Labour in a Guardian interview saying 'In an interview with the Guardian, Ms Swinson ruled out any kind of coalition with the Conservatives or Labour. She said neither Conservative leader Boris Johnson nor Labour's Jeremy Corbyn were fit to be prime minister. Mr Johnson did not care about anyone but himself, she said, and she criticised Mr Corbyn's failure to tackle anti-Semitism in his own party'
LDs to vote today on replacing their previous policy of EUref2 and campaigning for Remain with one of revoking Article 50 and scrapping Brexit if they win a majority.
So they know better than 17.4m voters then, huh?
At least they aren't pretending to be democrats in the Liberal Demo - oh.......
But how wide the latitude? Here’s how to become a dictator (of the UK) 1. Make yourself appealing to the small number of UK citizens who are paid up members of your Party at a time when election to its leadership means you’ll become P.M. 2. Prorogue Parliament at a time and for such period as you find it to be in your interests to govern unfettered. 3. Have no fear of your prorogation being found illegal. Here you need to rely on the highest Court deciding that there’s no legal question about its propriety. 4. Have no fear that there might be cries to change the law in view of the manifest democratic impropriety of your prorogation. There’s no need to fear this: it’s simple for you to prevent the law being changed. Only Parliament can change the law, and you can now prorogue Parliament to suit your own purposes. (At this point, the Courts have set a precedent ensuring that this isn’t a judiciable matter.) 5. Appreciate that if you’d like to govern unfettered for a protracted period, then you only have to prorogue Parliament for a goodly long while. 6. You might find that a bloody insurrection stands in your way. So you must get the police and the troops on your side. (Bribery might help: you set their pay.)
LDs to vote today on replacing their previous policy of EUref2 and campaigning for Remain with one of revoking Article 50 and scrapping Brexit if they win a majority.
So they know better than 17.4m voters then, huh?
At least they aren't pretending to be democrats in the Liberal Demo - oh.......
I suppose the LDs would say if they won a majority of Westminster seats that would be their mandate to revoke Article 50, this policy could be attractive to diehard Remainers, especially with Corbyn still refusing to commit to back Remain even if there is EUref2
One of the SC judges is married to the former deputy president of the SC who is now retired.
Of the current judges sitting next week 4 upheld the High Court decision in the GM case , 2 dissented from the majority opinion .
Looking at the balance adding the new judges to the mix , I’d expect 5 to be more sympathetic to the Scottish Court .
The 4 judges in the previous GM case and 1 from the new intake .
The 2 that dissented in the original GM case are very unlikely to support the Scottish Court decision .
So just for fun , that’s say 5 to 2 .
I still haven’t read enough about the others yet . Of course these judges view each case on its own merits , I’m merely using their past opinions as a guide and in come cases their writings in law journals etc .
The Times headline about Cameron: "I'm sorry, I failed"
No. You promised a referendum when the LibDems and Labour were intent on not allowing us a voice on the EU.
You delivered that Referendum. Nothing to apologise for there.
Maybe deriding your natural supporters as "Little Englanders" when they didn't buy your shite renegotiation. You could apologise to them. But I'm not seeing that....
There is that. An Alistair Carmichael denial always fuels speculation though.
'In an interview with the Press and Journal, Mr Carmichael also denied rumours that the Lib Dems were looking at forming a non-aggression pact with certain Scottish Tories at the next election. Tory sources have told the P&J that talks are “ongoing” between the parties to ensure the SNP do not have a “clean sweep” of Westminster seats.
Similar talks are understood to have taken place at a senior level in Holyrood at the 2016 election. But Mr Carmichael said: “We all talk to each other of course, but there’s no pact. It’s not actually necessary, voters in Scotland are pretty good at working that out for themselves who to vote for if they want to remain in the UK.”'
There is that. An Alistair Carmichael denial always fuels speculation though.
'In an interview with the Press and Journal, Mr Carmichael also denied rumours that the Lib Dems were looking at forming a non-aggression pact with certain Scottish Tories at the next election. Tory sources have told the P&J that talks are “ongoing” between the parties to ensure the SNP do not have a “clean sweep” of Westminster seats.
Similar talks are understood to have taken place at a senior level in Holyrood at the 2016 election. But Mr Carmichael said: “We all talk to each other of course, but there’s no pact. It’s not actually necessary, voters in Scotland are pretty good at working that out for themselves who to vote for if they want to remain in the UK.”'
At the moment I expect the Scottish LDs to come second in seats in Scotland at the next general election but the Scottish Conservatives to stay second on votes in Scotland.
I expect Scottish Labour to collapse to 4th place on both votes and seats
LDs to vote today on replacing their previous policy of EUref2 and campaigning for Remain with one of revoking Article 50 and scrapping Brexit if they win a majority.
So they know better than 17.4m voters then, huh?
At least they aren't pretending to be democrats in the Liberal Demo - oh.......
I suppose the LDs would say if they won a majority of Westminster seats that would be their mandate to revoke Article 50, this policy could be attractive to diehard Remainers, especially with Corbyn still refusing to commit to back Remain even if there is EUref2
80% of Labour members will vote Remain in a EURef2
Except Boris got his upper second in Classics, not PPE like Cameron
So they both got degrees in pointless non-subjects?
Ban hammer from TSE incoming in 3...2...1
Pointless or not I would say Classics is a harder degree at Oxford than PPE (especially if you majored in the politics rather than economics bit of the latter as Cameron did)
LDs to vote today on replacing their previous policy of EUref2 and campaigning for Remain with one of revoking Article 50 and scrapping Brexit if they win a majority.
So they know better than 17.4m voters then, huh?
At least they aren't pretending to be democrats in the Liberal Demo - oh.......
I suppose the LDs would say if they won a majority of Westminster seats that would be their mandate to revoke Article 50, this policy could be attractive to diehard Remainers, especially with Corbyn still refusing to commit to back Remain even if there is EUref2
80% of Labour members will vote Remain in a EURef2
Yet the leadership may not campaign for it or without any enthusiasm even if they did like 2016
Lindsay Hoyle is MPs favoured candidate for next speaker a YouGov survey of 100 MPs finds, Hoyle got 35%, Eleanor Laing was second on 6% and Harriet Harman third with 5%
I'm uncomfortable giving the monarch that much power. I think David has it absolutely right: the government should not have the right to prorouge to avoid being No Confidenced, or the like. But at the same time, there will frequently be times when Parliament doesn't need to sit. I would have thought some formalisation of the maximum period of prorogation would be a sensible way forward.
Such as setting the normal period of prorogation that would normally take place during the party conference season, allowing for an extra period of, say, 4 sitting days in cases where there has been a change of PM in the interim, or where the duration of the parliament since the previous prorogation has been exceptionally long?
And if we are going to formalise it, shouldn't a prorogation be forced under some circumstances, to avoid emulating the last 2 years as the longest post war period that didn't see a prorogation?
I'm uncomfortable giving the monarch that much power. I think David has it absolutely right: the government should not have the right to prorouge to avoid being No Confidenced, or the like. But at the same time, there will frequently be times when Parliament doesn't need to sit. I would have thought some formalisation of the maximum period of prorogation would be a sensible way forward.
Such as setting the normal period of prorogation that would normally take place during the party conference season, allowing for an extra period of, say, 4 sitting days in cases where there has been a change of PM in the interim, or where the duration of the parliament since the previous prorogation has been exceptionally long?
And if we are going to formalise it, shouldn't a prorogation be forced under some circumstances, to avoid emulating the last 2 years as the longest post war period that didn't see a prorogation?
The Party conference season is NOT a prorogation for Parliament. It is a recess and it is voted on every year.
But how wide the latitude? Here’s how to become a dictator (of the UK) 1. Make yourself appealing to the small number of UK citizens who are paid up members of your Party at a time when election to its leadership means you’ll become P.M. 2. Prorogue Parliament at a time and for such period as you find it to be in your interests to govern unfettered. 3. Have no fear of your prorogation being found illegal. Here you need to rely on the highest Court deciding that there’s no legal question about its propriety. 4. Have no fear that there might be cries to change the law in view of the manifest democratic impropriety of your prorogation. There’s no need to fear this: it’s simple for you to prevent the law being changed. Only Parliament can change the law, and you can now prorogue Parliament to suit your own purposes. (At this point, the Courts have set a precedent ensuring that this isn’t a judiciable matter.) 5. Appreciate that if you’d like to govern unfettered for a protracted period, then you only have to prorogue Parliament for a goodly long while. 6. You might find that a bloody insurrection stands in your way. So you must get the police and the troops on your side. (Bribery might help: you set their pay.)
And, like Charles I, you will need to find a way of taxing the people without parliament's consent to pay for it all.
But how wide the latitude? Here’s how to become a dictator (of the UK) 1. Make yourself appealing to the small number of UK citizens who are paid up members of your Party at a time when election to its leadership means you’ll become P.M. 2. Prorogue Parliament at a time and for such period as you find it to be in your interests to govern unfettered. 3. Have no fear of your prorogation being found illegal. Here you need to rely on the highest Court deciding that there’s no legal question about its propriety. 4. Have no fear that there might be cries to change the law in view of the manifest democratic impropriety of your prorogation. There’s no need to fear this: it’s simple for you to prevent the law being changed. Only Parliament can change the law, and you can now prorogue Parliament to suit your own purposes. (At this point, the Courts have set a precedent ensuring that this isn’t a judiciable matter.) 5. Appreciate that if you’d like to govern unfettered for a protracted period, then you only have to prorogue Parliament for a goodly long while. 6. You might find that a bloody insurrection stands in your way. So you must get the police and the troops on your side. (Bribery might help: you set their pay.)
And, like Charles I, you will need to find a way of taxing the people without parliament's consent to pay for it all.
LDs to vote today on replacing their previous policy of EUref2 and campaigning for Remain with one of revoking Article 50 and scrapping Brexit if they win a majority.
So they know better than 17.4m voters then, huh?
At least they aren't pretending to be democrats in the Liberal Demo - oh.......
I suppose the LDs would say if they won a majority of Westminster seats that would be their mandate to revoke Article 50, this policy could be attractive to diehard Remainers, especially with Corbyn still refusing to commit to back Remain even if there is EUref2
80% of Labour members will vote Remain in a EURef2
The chances of it being accidental are 2^a very large number.
26^16. Forty sextillion to one
Your calculation assumes letters are even distributed throughout the alphabet. They aren't.
Indeed in a random distribution using how letters are distributions you'd expect more E, I and other common letters like D, P, M, N etc than X. Yet funnily enough there's only 1 E and 1 I same as the 1 X. There's no D, P, M or N.
So I think it's close enough to let the calculation stand.
I'm uncomfortable giving the monarch that much power. I think David has it absolutely right: the government should not have the right to prorouge to avoid being No Confidenced, or the like. But at the same time, there will frequently be times when Parliament doesn't need to sit. I would have thought some formalisation of the maximum period of prorogation would be a sensible way forward.
Such as setting the normal period of prorogation that would normally take place during the party conference season, allowing for an extra period of, say, 4 sitting days in cases where there has been a change of PM in the interim, or where the duration of the parliament since the previous prorogation has been exceptionally long?
And if we are going to formalise it, shouldn't a prorogation be forced under some circumstances, to avoid emulating the last 2 years as the longest post war period that didn't see a prorogation?
The Party conference season is NOT a prorogation for Parliament. It is a recess and it is voted on every year.
I'm uncomfortable giving the monarch that much power. I think David has it absolutely right: the government should not have the right to prorouge to avoid being No Confidenced, or the like. But at the same time, there will frequently be times when Parliament doesn't need to sit. I would have thought some formalisation of the maximum period of prorogation would be a sensible way forward.
Such as setting the normal period of prorogation that would normally take place during the party conference season, allowing for an extra period of, say, 4 sitting days in cases where there has been a change of PM in the interim, or where the duration of the parliament since the previous prorogation has been exceptionally long?
And if we are going to formalise it, shouldn't a prorogation be forced under some circumstances, to avoid emulating the last 2 years as the longest post war period that didn't see a prorogation?
The Party conference season is NOT a prorogation for Parliament. It is a recess and it is voted on every year.
Yes but there have been proroguations over what would have been recesses in recent years so not unprecedented.
The chances of it being accidental are 2^a very large number.
26^16. Forty sextillion to one
Your calculation assumes letters are even distributed throughout the alphabet. They aren't.
Indeed in a random distribution using how letters are distributions you'd expect more E, I and other common letters like D, P, M, N etc than X. Yet funnily enough there's only 1 E and 1 I same as the 1 X. There's no D, P, M or N.
So I think it's close enough to let the calculation stand.
The distribution of letters at the beginning and end of words differs from the general frequency. How many words, for example, end in Z, J, Q or V ?
LDs just voted for same sex marriage in NI in first session of their conference just finished on BBC Parliament
I was about to be impressed that you were watching, then I remembered that you’ll be checking the audience to make sure that all the people you told to go there, actually went.
The chances of it being accidental are 2^a very large number.
26^16. Forty sextillion to one
Your calculation assumes letters are even distributed throughout the alphabet. They aren't.
Indeed in a random distribution using how letters are distributions you'd expect more E, I and other common letters like D, P, M, N etc than X. Yet funnily enough there's only 1 E and 1 I same as the 1 X. There's no D, P, M or N.
So I think it's close enough to let the calculation stand.
Ok, I've been and done the calculations, using a corpus of English words, assuming each one has an equal chance of being chosen (not an assumption I'm comfortable with, but I can't think of a quick way to weight them -- certainly usage frequencies wouldn't be good either)
The results are: approx 1 in 8016439773687690193159837 That compares with random letter choices of 26^16 = 1 in 43608742899428874059776
In other words, given the distribution of letters in English, it's about 200 times less likely to stumble upon BOLLOCKS TO BREXIT than simply pulling random letters out of a bag.
Pointless or not I would say Classics is a harder degree at Oxford than PPE (especially if you majored in the politics rather than economics bit of the latter as Cameron did)
Getting a First in Greats probably is tougher than getting a First in PPE. But - and I say this with personal experience - getting a lower class Greats degree is a doddle.
One of Britain's best kept secrets is how much of the Greats course is a rerun of A level Latin and Greek -or how relatively easy A level Latin is for those brought up as Catholics or educated (as Johnson was) in a multilingual school. So it's perfect for someone with a high IQ, a bent for languages, no interest in a First and a determination not to waste valuable student time on academic work.
One of Britain's best kept secrets is how much of the Greats course is a rerun of A level Latin and Greek -or how relatively easy A level Latin is for those brought up as Catholics or educated (as Johnson was) in a multilingual school. So it's perfect for someone with a high IQ, a bent for languages, no interest in a First and a determination not to waste valuable student time on academic work.
It's not kept that well, Flanner, it's just I become unpopular when I point it out.
Aaaand the medication my partner needs is on there. Great. Thanks a lot, Brexiters.
My blood pressure pills too, though there are substitutes for that (though sudden switches of demand can cause secondary shortages).
The most problematic ones to me look to be Metformin, Prednisolone and Sodium Valproate. All are frequently prescribed and are not easily substituted.
In that list, I take Amlodipine, Ramipril , Metformin. I think all are produced in the UK. So I am surprised. I did not see Gliclazide or Dapagliflozin. Atorvastatin is also not there.
Bristol Laboratories manufacture Metformin in the UK. I suppose the issue is whether they have the capacity to make up the gap.
Feedstocks could be an issue too, I suppose. Many of these are imported.
Even though I'm Mr Remainy McRemainyface, I don't buy the drug shortage idea. Even a really big drug isn't huge in terms of the actual volume of stuff involved, and we have plenty of expertise in this sector in the UK. Indeed there's a few hundred that have just been laid off from EMA.
The trouble is all the time we are messing around doing this sort of thing our competitors around the world are using their expertise to come up with new and profitable products, services and ways of doing things. That's sufficiently bad for anyone who voted leave to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Pointless or not I would say Classics is a harder degree at Oxford than PPE (especially if you majored in the politics rather than economics bit of the latter as Cameron did)
Getting a First in Greats probably is tougher than getting a First in PPE. But - and I say this with personal experience - getting a lower class Greats degree is a doddle.
One of Britain's best kept secrets is how much of the Greats course is a rerun of A level Latin and Greek -or how relatively easy A level Latin is for those brought up as Catholics or educated (as Johnson was) in a multilingual school. So it's perfect for someone with a high IQ, a bent for languages, no interest in a First and a determination not to waste valuable student time on academic work.
Yes it worked for Boris on that front certainly as he became Union President etc but I agree had Cameron studied Greats rather than PPE I doubt he would have got a First either
LDs just voted for same sex marriage in NI in first session of their conference just finished on BBC Parliament
I was about to be impressed that you were watching, then I remembered that you’ll be checking the audience to make sure that all the people you told to go there, actually went.
I was certainly scanning the audience for TSE and Richard Navabi (though I have a university friend who is a LD activist and former London Assembly candidate so was also looking out for him too)
The chances of it being accidental are 2^a very large number.
26^16. Forty sextillion to one
Your calculation assumes letters are even distributed throughout the alphabet. They aren't.
Indeed in a random distribution using how letters are distributions you'd expect more E, I and other common letters like D, P, M, N etc than X. Yet funnily enough there's only 1 E and 1 I same as the 1 X. There's no D, P, M or N.
So I think it's close enough to let the calculation stand.
Ok, I've been and done the calculations, using a corpus of English words, assuming each one has an equal chance of being chosen (not an assumption I'm comfortable with, but I can't think of a quick way to weight them -- certainly usage frequencies wouldn't be good either)
The results are: approx 1 in 8016439773687690193159837 That compares with random letter choices of 26^16 = 1 in 43608742899428874059776
In other words, given the distribution of letters in English, it's about 200 times less likely to stumble upon BOLLOCKS TO BREXIT than simply pulling random letters out of a bag.
The marginal effort exceeds the marginal enlightenment by some margin, there.
Aaaand the medication my partner needs is on there. Great. Thanks a lot, Brexiters.
My blood pressure pills too, though there are substitutes for that (though sudden switches of demand can cause secondary shortages).
The most problematic ones to me look to be Metformin, Prednisolone and Sodium Valproate. All are frequently prescribed and are not easily substituted.
In that list, I take Amlodipine, Ramipril , Metformin. I think all are produced in the UK. So I am surprised. I did not see Gliclazide or Dapagliflozin. Atorvastatin is also not there.
Bristol Laboratories manufacture Metformin in the UK. I suppose the issue is whether they have the capacity to make up the gap.
Feedstocks could be an issue too, I suppose. Many of these are imported.
Even though I'm Mr Remainy McRemainyface, I don't buy the drug shortage idea. Even a really big drug isn't huge in terms of the actual volume of stuff involved, and we have plenty of expertise in this sector in the UK. Indeed there's a few hundred that have just been laid off from EMA.
The trouble is all the time we are messing around doing this sort of thing our competitors around the world are using their expertise to come up with new and profitable products, services and ways of doing things. That's sufficiently bad for anyone who voted leave to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
It's about transport routes getting gummed up. If traffic isn't flowing through ports, stuff runs out. You can't ramp up domestic production of everything that could run out. So if there's miles of queues at the border, medicines are just one thing that gets delayed. In short, it's not about the product itself (other things will be in short supply), it's about the seriousness of supply problems. Nobody will die if we run out of tomatoes for a few months, but people will definitely die if certain drugs becomes scarce.
Aaaand the medication my partner needs is on there. Great. Thanks a lot, Brexiters.
My blood pressure pills too, though there are substitutes for that (though sudden switches of demand can cause secondary shortages).
The most problematic ones to me look to be Metformin, Prednisolone and Sodium Valproate. All are frequently prescribed and are not easily substituted.
In that list, I take Amlodipine, Ramipril , Metformin. I think all are produced in the UK. So I am surprised. I did not see Gliclazide or Dapagliflozin. Atorvastatin is also not there.
Bristol Laboratories manufacture Metformin in the UK. I suppose the issue is whether they have the capacity to make up the gap.
Feedstocks could be an issue too, I suppose. Many of these are imported.
Even though I'm Mr Remainy McRemainyface, I don't buy the drug shortage idea. Even a really big drug isn't huge in terms of the actual volume of stuff involved, and we have plenty of expertise in this sector in the UK. Indeed there's a few hundred that have just been laid off from EMA.
The trouble is all the time we are messing around doing this sort of thing our competitors around the world are using their expertise to come up with new and profitable products, services and ways of doing things. That's sufficiently bad for anyone who voted leave to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
It's about transport routes getting gummed up. If traffic isn't flowing through ports, stuff runs out. You can't ramp up domestic production of everything that could run out. So if there's miles of queues at the border, medicines are just one thing that gets delayed. In short, it's not about the product itself (other things will be in short supply), it's about the seriousness of supply problems. Nobody will die if we run out of tomatoes for a few months, but people will definitely die if certain drugs becomes scarce.
Yet no one screams about the delays and shortages right now.
I posted earlier this week of 2 actual examples of medicines not being available pre Brexit - others have posted others.
Pointless or not I would say Classics is a harder degree at Oxford than PPE (especially if you majored in the politics rather than economics bit of the latter as Cameron did)
Getting a First in Greats probably is tougher than getting a First in PPE. But - and I say this with personal experience - getting a lower class Greats degree is a doddle.
One of Britain's best kept secrets is how much of the Greats course is a rerun of A level Latin and Greek -or how relatively easy A level Latin is for those brought up as Catholics or educated (as Johnson was) in a multilingual school. So it's perfect for someone with a high IQ, a bent for languages, no interest in a First and a determination not to waste valuable student time on academic work.
Yes it worked for Boris on that front certainly as he became Union President etc but I agree had Cameron studied Greats rather than PPE I doubt he would have got a First either
I wonder whether Cameron would have managed a First in the 1950s or 60s. An interesting article in the Independent - written in 1999 - was titled ' What happened to the Oxbridge Third?'. It pointed out that back in 1960 30% of Oxbridge graduates came out with a Third class degree - but by 1999 a mere 5% did so. Doubtless the figure today is circa 3%. Rampant grade inflation has clearly affected all institutions
Pointless or not I would say Classics is a harder degree at Oxford than PPE (especially if you majored in the politics rather than economics bit of the latter as Cameron did)
Getting a First in Greats probably is tougher than getting a First in PPE. But - and I say this with personal experience - getting a lower class Greats degree is a doddle.
One of Britain's best kept secrets is how much of the Greats course is a rerun of A level Latin and Greek -or how relatively easy A level Latin is for those brought up as Catholics or educated (as Johnson was) in a multilingual school. So it's perfect for someone with a high IQ, a bent for languages, no interest in a First and a determination not to waste valuable student time on academic work.
Yes it worked for Boris on that front certainly as he became Union President etc but I agree had Cameron studied Greats rather than PPE I doubt he would have got a First either
I wonder whether Cameron would have managed a First in the 1950s or 60s. An interesting article in the Independent - written in 1999 - was titled ' What happened to the Oxbridge Third?'. It pointed out that back in 1960 30% of Oxbridge graduates came out with a Third class degree - but by 1999 a mere 5% did so. Doubtless the figure today is circa 3%. Rampant grade inflation has clearly affected all institutions
I rather think it's at least partly because Oxford is less of a social finishing school and networking centre for the upper classes than it used to be (along its role as an Anglican seminary). People are expected to work nowadays, lest their universities fail to meet the bureaucratic targets set, ironically, by the governments of the last couple of decades.
Aaaand the medication my partner needs is on there. Great. Thanks a lot, Brexiters.
My blood pressure pills too, though there are substitutes for that (though sudden switches of demand can cause secondary shortages).
The most problematic ones to me look to be Metformin, Prednisolone and Sodium Valproate. All are frequently prescribed and are not easily substituted.
In that list, I take Amlodipine, Ramipril , Metformin. I think all are produced in the UK. So I am surprised. I did not see Gliclazide or Dapagliflozin. Atorvastatin is also not there.
Bristol Laboratories manufacture Metformin in the UK. I suppose the issue is whether they have the capacity to make up the gap.
Feedstocks could be an issue too, I suppose. Many of these are imported.
Even though I'm Mr Remainy McRemainyface, I don't buy the drug shortage idea. Even a really big drug isn't huge in terms of the actual volume of stuff involved, and we have plenty of expertise in this sector in the UK. Indeed there's a few hundred that have just been laid off from EMA.
The trouble is all the time we are messing around doing this sort of thing our competitors around the world are using their expertise to come up with new and profitable products, services and ways of doing things. That's sufficiently bad for anyone who voted leave to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
It's about transport routes getting gummed up. If traffic isn't flowing through ports, stuff runs out. You can't ramp up domestic production of everything that could run out. So if there's miles of queues at the border, medicines are just one thing that gets delayed. In short, it's not about the product itself (other things will be in short supply), it's about the seriousness of supply problems. Nobody will die if we run out of tomatoes for a few months, but people will definitely die if certain drugs becomes scarce.
Yet no one screams about the delays and shortages right now.
I posted earlier this week of 2 actual examples of medicines not being available pre Brexit - others have posted others.
You're at liberty to complain about shortages if you see them. My partner says that one of the three medicines needed has experienced some minor shortages meaning we had to accept half the normal amount and go back a few weeks later for the other half. That was not an interruption in supply for us. If you say there have been interruptions elsewhere, I take your word for it.
Aaaand the medication my partner needs is on there. Great. Thanks a lot, Brexiters.
My blood pressure pills too, though there are substitutes for that (though sudden switches of demand can cause secondary shortages).
The most problematic ones to me look to be Metformin, Prednisolone and Sodium Valproate. All are frequently prescribed and are not easily substituted.
In that list, I take Amlodipine, Ramipril , Metformin. I think all are produced in the UK. So I am surprised. I did not see Gliclazide or Dapagliflozin. Atorvastatin is also not there.
Bristol Laboratories manufacture Metformin in the UK. I suppose the issue is whether they have the capacity to make up the gap.
Feedstocks could be an issue too, I suppose. Many of these are imported.
Even though I'm Mr Remainy McRemainyface, I don't buy the drug shortage idea. Even a really big drug isn't huge in terms of the actual volume of stuff involved, and we have plenty of expertise in this sector in the UK. Indeed there's a few hundred that have just been laid off from EMA.
The trouble is all the time we are messing around doing this sort of thing our competitors around the world are using their expertise to come up with new and profitable products, services and ways of doing things. That's sufficiently bad for anyone who voted leave to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
It's about transport routes getting gummed up. If traffic isn't flowing through ports, stuff runs out. You can't ramp up domestic production of everything that could run out. So if there's miles of queues at the border, medicines are just one thing that gets delayed. In short, it's not about the product itself (other things will be in short supply), it's about the seriousness of supply problems. Nobody will die if we run out of tomatoes for a few months, but people will definitely die if certain drugs becomes scarce.
Yet no one screams about the delays and shortages right now.
I posted earlier this week of 2 actual examples of medicines not being available pre Brexit - others have posted others.
The pick n mix racist takes an equally irrational line in relation to drug shortages. Shortages that would be attributable to Brexit are tickety-boo, because, well, because. There may be some compelling reason why existing shortages mean that seeking out new causes of shortages is a good idea, but so far the death cult Leavers have failed to articulate it.
Pointless or not I would say Classics is a harder degree at Oxford than PPE (especially if you majored in the politics rather than economics bit of the latter as Cameron did)
Getting a First in Greats probably is tougher than getting a First in PPE. But - and I say this with personal experience - getting a lower class Greats degree is a doddle.
One of Britain's best kept secrets is how much of the Greats course is a rerun of A level Latin and Greek -or how relatively easy A level Latin is for those brought up as Catholics or educated (as Johnson was) in a multilingual school. So it's perfect for someone with a high IQ, a bent for languages, no interest in a First and a determination not to waste valuable student time on academic work.
Yes it worked for Boris on that front certainly as he became Union President etc but I agree had Cameron studied Greats rather than PPE I doubt he would have got a First either
I wonder whether Cameron would have managed a First in the 1950s or 60s. An interesting article in the Independent - written in 1999 - was titled ' What happened to the Oxbridge Third?'. It pointed out that back in 1960 30% of Oxbridge graduates came out with a Third class degree - but by 1999 a mere 5% did so. Doubtless the figure today is circa 3%. Rampant grade inflation has clearly affected all institutions
I rather think it's at least partly because Oxford is less of a social finishing school and networking centre for the upper classes than it used to be (along its role as an Anglican seminary). People are expected to work nowadays, lest their universities fail to meet the bureaucratic targets set, ironically, by the governments of the last couple of decades.
Perhaps some truth in that, but far more Oxbridge Firsts are being awarded nowadays and that itself doubtless reflects what has happened elsewhere. If other universities now give far more Firsts than 30 or 40 years ago, it must be difficult for Oxbridge to resist that trend. I do sometimes wonder whether back in the 1940s and 50s gaining a place at Oxbridge was as challenging as is the case today. Obviously far fewer would-be students were in the market anyway - at least as far as the state sector was concerned.
In that list, I take Amlodipine, Ramipril , Metformin. I think all are produced in the UK. So I am surprised. I did not see Gliclazide or Dapagliflozin. Atorvastatin is also not there.
Bristol Laboratories manufacture Metformin in the UK. I suppose the issue is whether they have the capacity to make up the gap.
Feedstocks could be an issue too, I suppose. Many of these are imported.
Even though I'm Mr Remainy McRemainyface, I don't buy the drug shortage idea. Even a really big drug isn't huge in terms of the actual volume of stuff involved, and we have plenty of expertise in this sector in the UK. Indeed there's a few hundred that have just been laid off from EMA.
The trouble is all the time we are messing around doing this sort of thing our competitors around the world are using their expertise to come up with new and profitable products, services and ways of doing things. That's sufficiently bad for anyone who voted leave to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
It's about transport routes getting gummed up. If traffic isn't flowing through ports, stuff runs out. You can't ramp up domestic production of everything that could run out. So if there's miles of queues at the border, medicines are just one thing that gets delayed. In short, it's not about the product itself (other things will be in short supply), it's about the seriousness of supply problems. Nobody will die if we run out of tomatoes for a few months, but people will definitely die if certain drugs becomes scarce.
Yet no one screams about the delays and shortages right now.
I posted earlier this week of 2 actual examples of medicines not being available pre Brexit - others have posted others.
The pick n mix racist takes an equally irrational line in relation to drug shortages. Shortages that would be attributable to Brexit are tickety-boo, because, well, because. There may be some compelling reason why existing shortages mean that seeking out new causes of shortages is a good idea, but so far the death cult Leavers have failed to articulate it.
It is really quite extraordinary that we are talking about medicine shortages at all simply because of a desire to have a disorderly withdrawal from the EU to meet an arbitrary deadline imposed on us by others.
No price is too high, it seems, to save Boris's face.
LDs to vote today on replacing their previous policy of EUref2 and campaigning for Remain with one of revoking Article 50 and scrapping Brexit if they win a majority.
So they know better than 17.4m voters then, huh?
At least they aren't pretending to be democrats in the Liberal Demo - oh.......
If they get a fair proportion of 16.1m voters they'll be quite happy.
A plausible explanation of the Cummings "game theory". Presumably the EU will say, No. At that point we will either crash out with Johnson trying to win an election on a manifesto of "we did it and isn't as bad as the Black Death", Johnson caves into the EU and tries to push a sub-May Deal through parliament or there is further delay.
Pointless or not I would say Classics is a harder degree at Oxford than PPE (especially if you majored in the politics rather than economics bit of the latter as Cameron did)
Getting a First in Greats probably is tougher than getting a First in PPE. But - and I say this with personal experience - getting a lower class Greats degree is a doddle.
One of Britain's best kept secrets is how much of the Greats course is a rerun of A level Latin and Greek -or how relatively easy A level Latin is for those brought up as Catholics or educated (as Johnson was) in a multilingual school. So it's perfect for someone with a high IQ, a bent for languages, no interest in a First and a determination not to waste valuable student time on academic work.
That is true of mods, but not so much in Greats, because results in the Greats translation papers are heavily discounted (a straight A is demoted to a straight B, and so on). Experto crede.
A plausible explanation of the Cummings "game theory". Presumably the EU will say, No. At that point we will either crash out with Johnson trying to win an election on a manifesto of "we did it and isn't as bad as the Black Death", Johnson caves into the EU and tries to push a sub-May Deal through parliament or there is further delay.
1) I pointed out that for some politicians "failing and blaming" was a deliberate policy intended to make us personally poorer, make them personally wealthier, encourage hatred, and use that hatred to wage a culture war. 2) I pointed it out beforehand.
Comments
https://e-surgery.com/brexit-crisis-medication-shortage-list/
Several of them are generics and some are OTC, so while more exotic drugs may face challenges, some of them should not.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/19/tory-and-snp-positions-in-scotland-suggest-surge-in-tactical-voting
A constitution that relies on there not being a conspiracy of two people is vulnerable, even if you have faith in the current head of state. And what happens if she is incapacitated by illness. If the queen was suffering from dementia, who would be taking the decision turf the PM out? The heir apparent? Some other regent? Nobody?
Nothing wrong with it. It can be effective, but it also plays into the SNP's hands.
Feedstocks could be an issue too, I suppose. Many of these are imported.
I suppose the acceptabiloity of the Tories would enter a steeper nosedive if they went for hard brexit and above all if they entered into an alliance with Mr Farage's party.
The key difference between Root Mk1 and Root Mk2 was Mk1 would make a pretty fifty and throw away his wicket. Now, he just throws away his wicket.
You know England haven't had a great morning when Joe Denly has been the standout batsman. He's about overdue to throw away his wicket as well.
Fact is, we got through the Black Death, and actually came out of it - whatever the naysayers claim - a much stronger, happier country: a land where it was much easier to park.
Was it easy? Not always. Apocalyptic plague is notoriously tricky. But we prospered afterwards, just as will prosper after Brexit.
Let’s move on.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1172839162434740224
Doesn't do it for me as a slogan. Has anyone put it on a bus yet?
"In an online Drudge poll Andrew Yang was named the winner. Out of 38,691 voters he grabbed 398% of the vote"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7459315/Andrew-Yang-crowned-2020-Democratic-Debate-winner-online-poll.html
Right, back comes Lyon, with just over ten minutes to go until lunch. Interesting little passage of play. Do they go after him again? I guess just play him on merit ...or lack of, to judge by his recent returns...
Swinson also ruled out a coalition with either the Tories or Labour in a Guardian interview saying 'In an interview with the Guardian, Ms Swinson ruled out any kind of coalition with the Conservatives or Labour.
She said neither Conservative leader Boris Johnson nor Labour's Jeremy Corbyn were fit to be prime minister.
Mr Johnson did not care about anyone but himself, she said, and she criticised Mr Corbyn's failure to tackle anti-Semitism in his own party'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49698800
At least they aren't pretending to be democrats in the Liberal Demo - oh.......
Here’s how to become a dictator (of the UK)
1. Make yourself appealing to the small number of UK citizens who are paid up members of your Party at a time when election to its leadership means you’ll become P.M.
2. Prorogue Parliament at a time and for such period as you find it to be in your interests to govern unfettered.
3. Have no fear of your prorogation being found illegal. Here you need to rely on the highest Court deciding that there’s no legal question about its propriety.
4. Have no fear that there might be cries to change the law in view of the manifest democratic impropriety of your prorogation. There’s no need to fear this: it’s simple for you to prevent the law being changed. Only Parliament can change the law, and you can now prorogue Parliament to suit your own purposes. (At this point, the Courts have set a precedent ensuring that this isn’t a judiciable matter.)
5. Appreciate that if you’d like to govern unfettered for a protracted period, then you only have to prorogue Parliament for a goodly long while.
6. You might find that a bloody insurrection stands in your way. So you must get the police and the troops on your side. (Bribery might help: you set their pay.)
Edit: JackW in before me. That joke was old when he was a lad.
One of the SC judges is married to the former deputy president of the SC who is now retired.
Of the current judges sitting next week 4 upheld the High Court decision in the GM case , 2 dissented from the majority opinion .
Looking at the balance adding the new judges to the mix , I’d expect 5 to be more sympathetic to the Scottish Court .
The 4 judges in the previous GM case and 1 from the new intake .
The 2 that dissented in the original GM case are very unlikely to support the Scottish Court decision .
So just for fun , that’s say 5 to 2 .
I still haven’t read enough about the others yet . Of course these judges view each case on its own merits , I’m merely using their past opinions as a guide and in come cases their writings in law journals etc .
No. You promised a referendum when the LibDems and Labour were intent on not allowing us a voice on the EU.
You delivered that Referendum. Nothing to apologise for there.
Maybe deriding your natural supporters as "Little Englanders" when they didn't buy your shite renegotiation. You could apologise to them. But I'm not seeing that....
Laters .....
'In an interview with the Press and Journal, Mr Carmichael also denied rumours that the Lib Dems were looking at forming a non-aggression pact with certain Scottish Tories at the next election.
Tory sources have told the P&J that talks are “ongoing” between the parties to ensure the SNP do not have a “clean sweep” of Westminster seats.
Similar talks are understood to have taken place at a senior level in Holyrood at the 2016 election.
But Mr Carmichael said: “We all talk to each other of course, but there’s no pact. It’s not actually necessary, voters in Scotland are pretty good at working that out for themselves who to vote for if they want to remain in the UK.”'
I expect Scottish Labour to collapse to 4th place on both votes and seats
Ban hammer from TSE incoming in 3...2...1
https://twitter.com/english_yl/status/1172819112889868289?s=21
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/09/12/lindsay-hoyle-mps-favoured-candidate-next-speaker
And if we are going to formalise it, shouldn't a prorogation be forced under some circumstances, to avoid emulating the last 2 years as the longest post war period that didn't see a prorogation?
So I think it's close enough to let the calculation stand.
From memory Brown did it.
Pretty big number, though.
Here’s the Lib Dems ?
With their follow up God Save the Royal Prerogative.
The results are:
approx 1 in 8016439773687690193159837
That compares with random letter choices of 26^16 = 1 in 43608742899428874059776
In other words, given the distribution of letters in English, it's about 200 times less likely to stumble upon BOLLOCKS TO BREXIT than simply pulling random letters out of a bag.
One of Britain's best kept secrets is how much of the Greats course is a rerun of A level Latin and Greek -or how relatively easy A level Latin is for those brought up as Catholics or educated (as Johnson was) in a multilingual school. So it's perfect for someone with a high IQ, a bent for languages, no interest in a First and a determination not to waste valuable student time on academic work.
It was an emergency. what was he supposed to do ?
The trouble is all the time we are messing around doing this sort of thing our competitors around the world are using their expertise to come up with new and profitable products, services and ways of doing things. That's sufficiently bad for anyone who voted leave to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
I shall go and sing One More Step Along the World I Go wondering how he and Denly have managed to get out.
in tests, Denly averages 15 in the first innings and over 40 in the second.
In short, it's not about the product itself (other things will be in short supply), it's about the seriousness of supply problems. Nobody will die if we run out of tomatoes for a few months, but people will definitely die if certain drugs becomes scarce.
I posted earlier this week of 2 actual examples of medicines not being available pre Brexit - others have posted others.
No price is too high, it seems, to save Boris's face.
Miss Cyclefree, the ego of Boris Johnson is the sun around which his entire being and all his actions revolve.
I suspect delay.
https://twitter.com/BEERG/status/1172727318407798784
1) I pointed out that for some politicians "failing and blaming" was a deliberate policy intended to make us personally poorer, make them personally wealthier, encourage hatred, and use that hatred to wage a culture war.
2) I pointed it out beforehand.
I will be pleased to be proven wrong, of course.