I do love the way that simultaneously the NHS is "destroyed" and yet costs £115 billion a year.
Yes, that will convince all the patients and their relatives that there are no waiting lists. Although it did not work when Virginia Bottomley tried it in 1997 but I'm sure we've moved on since then. And we can soon tell patients that their GPs and pharmacists are lying if they cannot fill prescriptions owing to post-Brexit drug shortages.
Destroyed = £115 billion on NHS England alone, and £200 billion (~10% of GDP) on healthcare across the UK. Do you not think it's a tad hyperbolic to say that the NHS has been destroyed?
How much money is enough? To me £200 billion pound sounds like a lot of money, and it makes me wonder if the problem is not the level of resources, but where and how it is spent.
The Europeans spend more than we do. Fance is about 12% IIRC
£200bn is a lot, but it looks like more is needed.
The ONS has recently published an analysis of UK healthcare spending compared with its international peers.
Yep, the US figures are always shocking. Well over double what we spend per head and worse outcomes. It's astonishing in that context that there was so much pushback against Obama's modest reforms and perhaps shows the power of a very strong lobbying movement.
But then, Brexit, I guess - it's powerful to sell something as alien to the values of a country (value for money universal healthcare in the US, EU membership here) even when there are demonstrable downsides.
Both sides use the NHS as a whipping boy. Tories say it is useless and inefficient and this is down to the Labour Party's constant championing of it whereas it should have been reformed years ago; Labour say the Tories are underfunding it and it would be perfect but for more money.
Of course both are right. And wrong.
In fact these days ALL parties are allowed to say only good things about the NHS.
'Angels' - 'Our Wonderful' - 'The incredibly dedicated and hardworking' - etc.
Along with PL football it is the nearest to a religion that we have.
I have to wonder, though... who will be actually leading the leave campaign in the Labour Brexit referendum? Presuming it is a version of leave with CU + SM. Caroline Flint? Stephen Kinnock? Possibly even Rory Stewart? I presume no one involved with the ERG or Brexit Party will have anything to do with it.
Theresa May would be the obvious candidate. After all she's been advocating leaving with an almost indistinguishable deal for three years.
With the Greens, I think you have confirmed my point. Across the UK, it is indeed hard to see widespread standing down by the LDs in favour of the Greens. What would the Greens' response be? Lucas is clearly peed off by the prospects of a repeat of 2017 and so it is conceivable that we could see the Greens standing in more rather than less seats than then.
Yep, certainly possible. I suspect it will be down to local deals again. I could see the Greens standing down for Layla Moran in OxWAb again - she's a environmentally-minded social liberal, so not that far from many Greens, and there's ongoing cooperation between the parties in Oxfordshire. Similarly I can see the Lib Dems standing down in Sheffield Central in return for a free pass in Sheffield Hallam. But nationally it's a tougher call.
She was interviewed on the radio during one of my drives; I thought I would listen in, as I don’t know much about her, but my mind kept wandering and even looking out the window at the lack of scenery in Minnesota proved more interesting.
In the few clips I saw of the last debate, Kamala Harris seemed tired and distracted, so I'm not sure what is going on there. Perhaps she will be fired up for the next month's.
I have to wonder, though... who will be actually leading the leave campaign in the Labour Brexit referendum? Presuming it is a version of leave with CU + SM. Caroline Flint? Stephen Kinnock? Possibly even Rory Stewart? I presume no one involved with the ERG or Brexit Party will have anything to do with it.
Theresa May would be the obvious candidate. After all she's been advocating leaving with an almost indistinguishable deal for three years.
"We're going to negotiate the best deal we can, based on Labour rather than Tory values, and then we're going to give the public the final say on whether to go ahead with it"
She was interviewed on the radio during one of my drives; I thought I would listen in, as I don’t know much about her, but my mind kept wandering and even looking out the window at the lack of scenery in Minnesota proved more interesting.
Baemy wants you to pay attention to Minnesota, she stands up for her state
I do love the way that simultaneously the NHS is "destroyed" and yet costs £115 billion a year.
Yes, that will convince all the patients and their relatives that there are no waiting lists. Although it did not work when Virginia Bottomley tried it in 1997 but I'm sure we've moved on since then. And we can soon tell patients that their GPs and pharmacists are lying if they cannot fill prescriptions owing to post-Brexit drug shortages.
Destroyed = £115 billion on NHS England alone, and £200 billion (~10% of GDP) on healthcare across the UK. Do you not think it's a tad hyperbolic to say that the NHS has been destroyed?
How much money is enough? To me £200 billion pound sounds like a lot of money, and it makes me wonder if the problem is not the level of resources, but where and how it is spent.
The Europeans spend more than we do. Fance is about 12% IIRC
£200bn is a lot, but it looks like more is needed.
The ONS has recently published an analysis of UK healthcare spending compared with its international peers.
Yep, the US figures are always shocking. Well over double what we spend per head and worse outcomes. It's astonishing in that context that there was so much pushback against Obama's modest reforms and perhaps shows the power of a very strong lobbying movement.
But then, Brexit, I guess - it's powerful to sell something as alien to the values of a country (value for money universal healthcare in the US, EU membership here) even when there are demonstrable downsides.
We need to be a bit careful with America, since, like wealth, their medical care is wildly uneven. We should also be grateful that all those dollars slushing about have produced almost all recent innovations.
I do love the way that simultaneously the NHS is "destroyed" and yet costs £115 billion a year.
Yes, that will convince all the patients and their relatives that there are no waiting lists. Although it did not work when Virginia Bottomley tried it in 1997 but I'm sure we've moved on since then. And we can soon tell patients that their GPs and pharmacists are lying if they cannot fill prescriptions owing to post-Brexit drug shortages.
Destroyed = £115 billion on NHS England alone, and £200 billion (~10% of GDP) on healthcare across the UK. Do you not think it's a tad hyperbolic to say that the NHS has been destroyed?
How much money is enough? To me £200 billion pound sounds like a lot of money, and it makes me wonder if the problem is not the level of resources, but where and how it is spent.
The Europeans spend more than we do. Fance is about 12% IIRC
£200bn is a lot, but it looks like more is needed.
The ONS has recently published an analysis of UK healthcare spending compared with its international peers.
Longevity is the driver. Most working adults don’t use much healthcare from aged 20 to 50, aside from check-ups and the odd prescription for antibiotics. In the USA it’s much higher because they’re all on meds and sue each other.
It’s the very young and very old. Very young get to adulthood at a static rate. Our lifespan keeps punting out the other end due to ability to extend it, but requires significant medical mitigation.
Interesting things happening in the Supreme Court. It seems the government is making it difficult for the court to take a compromise decision that prerogative powers are justiciable but no unlawful act took place this time. It's going very hard on the government having absolute discretion to do whatever it wants, now and in the future.
Prorogue 2 the sequel coming to a parliament near you soon!
Isn’t it, in essence, a rebadged version of what Wilson offered in 1975: a bit of renegotiation, members of the party free to campaign on either side, the leader staying above the fray?
Yes.
Ironic that Corbyn ends up triangulating like the sorts of Labour leaders he, I assume, dislikes: Blair and Wilson.
Still, much as it may surprise some on here, to me it doesn’t seem like that bad a policy. Not brilliant. But not bad.
At what point will one of the lawyers advising Labour point out to them the provisions of Articles 8, 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 2 of one of the protocols to the Convention?
It would be rather funny if Labour campaigned to Remain and it was then shot by the ECJ* as being incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
(Yes, I know the ECHR would still apply if we left, and the HRA was repealed and we withdrew from the convention and the ECtHR, but it’d be slightly easier to circumscribe)
What the manifesto, and the Party can't do is abnegate the responsibility of telling voters what it thinks is best for the country. Because the two outcomes currently suggested by Jeremy Corbyn (remain, soft-Brexit) are at odds with each other and would have significantly different outcomes for the country.
Why not? If you accept the idea of giving people a choice, it makes sense to make both options reasonable. As you say, they would be distinctively different - otherwise, there would be no point in having a referendum. The party can express a preference, or stay neutral, but ultimately the voters decide. That's how referenda work in every system that uses them.
I think that at heart you're still thinking that we shouldn't have referenda - the Government should decide what it wants and push it through. But that's not a viable position for a national government in the middle of a process started by referendum.
Interesting things happening in the Supreme Court. It seems the government is making it difficult for the court to take a compromise decision that prerogative powers are justiciable but no unlawful act took place this time. It's going very hard on the government having absolute discretion to do whatever it wants, now and in the future.
Prorogue 2 the sequel coming to a parliament near you soon!
Yes. The government's legal strategy seems high risk to me, but if they win they can and will prorogue till Kingdom come.
Edit. Presumably the SC can ignore both side's arguments and come to their own compromise position.
Totally off-topic, But I'm spending a few days in Leipzig week after next to take in the Champions League game and would welcome any recommendations from PBers for eating and drinking.
Isn’t it, in essence, a rebadged version of what Wilson offered in 1975: a bit of renegotiation, members of the party free to campaign on either side, the leader staying above the fray?
Yes.
Ironic that Corbyn ends up triangulating like the sorts of Labour leaders he, I assume, dislikes: Blair and Wilson.
Still, much as it may surprise some on here, to me it doesn’t seem like that bad a policy. Not brilliant. But not bad.
If only there was a brilliant policy that could be devised to get us out of the Brexit debacle. But there isn't. There are only "not bad" policies and worse policies. And IMHO Labour's policy is probably the least bad of any on offer just at the moment.
What the manifesto, and the Party can't do is abnegate the responsibility of telling voters what it thinks is best for the country. Because the two outcomes currently suggested by Jeremy Corbyn (remain, soft-Brexit) are at odds with each other and would have significantly different outcomes for the country.
Why not? If you accept the idea of giving people a choice, it makes sense to make both options reasonable. As you say, they would be distinctively different - otherwise, there would be no point in having a referendum. The party can express a preference, or stay neutral, but ultimately the voters decide. That's how referenda work in every system that uses them.
I think that at heart you're still thinking that we shouldn't have referenda - the Government should decide what it wants and push it through. But that's not a viable position for a national government in the middle of a process started by referendum.
"Push it through" is surely a simile for use our majority to enable it? I don't agree that what started with a referendum should end with one. And yes, representative democracy must now take hold and people can choose at the election.
The policy as presented is preventing Labour voters from voting for any policy. They would, rather, be voting for a process because the strategy as is doesn't give any certainty of outcome. If you were a hard Brexiter you wouldn't vote for Labour because they aren't offering that; if you were a remainer you wouldn't vote for Labour because you might end up leaving; and if you were a soft Brexiter you wouldn't vote for Labour because you might end up remaining.
The Labour Brexit policy is for people who want a decision to be made and get on with it.
I don't assume that's most people yet. They may say they want to move on, but what they mean is, other people should agree with them or there is no decision to be made.
I'm still not convinced about Labour's Brexit offer.
It seems far too evasive to survive a GE campaign and will fool nobody about its true purpose of trying to hold together either end of their support.
It will get mullered from both sides by the LD's and BXP.
Yes, but on the other hand it's probably the least bad fudge available to them, given where they are.
Isn’t it, in essence, a rebadged version of what Wilson offered in 1975: a bit of renegotiation, members of the party free to campaign on either side, the leader staying above the fray?
It's a great plan. Puts Corbyn in a great position to arbitrate and to implement. If anything could ever make him look like a responsible leader, putting the country's interests above partisanship, it's exactly this.
Both sides use the NHS as a whipping boy. Tories say it is useless and inefficient and this is down to the Labour Party's constant championing of it whereas it should have been reformed years ago; Labour say the Tories are underfunding it and it would be perfect but for more money.
Of course both are right. And wrong.
In fact these days ALL parties are allowed to say only good things about the NHS.
'Angels' - 'Our Wonderful' - 'The incredibly dedicated and hardworking' - etc.
Along with PL football it is the nearest to a religion that we have.
I do love the way that simultaneously the NHS is "destroyed" and yet costs £115 billion a year.
[snip as quotes apparently too long]
Destroyed = £115 billion on NHS England alone, and £200 billion (~10% of GDP) on healthcare across the UK. Do you not think it's a tad hyperbolic to say that the NHS has been destroyed?
How much money is enough? To me £200 billion pound sounds like a lot of money, and it makes me wonder if the problem is not the level of resources, but where and how it is spent.
The Europeans spend more than we do. Fance is about 12% IIRC
£200bn is a lot, but it looks like more is needed.
The ONS has recently published an analysis of UK healthcare spending compared with its international peers.
Yep, the US figures are always shocking. Well over double what we spend per head and worse outcomes. It's astonishing in that context that there was so much pushback against Obama's modest reforms and perhaps shows the power of a very strong lobbying movement.
But then, Brexit, I guess - it's powerful to sell something as alien to the values of a country (value for money universal healthcare in the US, EU membership here) even when there are demonstrable downsides.
We need to be a bit careful with America, since, like wealth, their medical care is wildly uneven. We should also be grateful that all those dollars slushing about have produced almost all recent innovations.
Yep, if you've good insurance then you get good care* and quickly. The well insured get good thought expensive care. The poorly insured get poor care. On a population level it's not very good.
Any reference for 'almost all recent innovations' coming from US? There's a lot of good medical research in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. A lot of the big pharaceutical companies are US-based if that's what you mean?
*although there are some studies suggesting that you might also get perhaps not necessary and potentially even harmful treatment, particularly around childbirth.
I'm still not convinced about Labour's Brexit offer.
It seems far too evasive to survive a GE campaign and will fool nobody about its true purpose of trying to hold together either end of their support.
It will get mullered from both sides by the LD's and BXP.
Yes, but on the other hand it's probably the least bad fudge available to them, given where they are.
Isn’t it, in essence, a rebadged version of what Wilson offered in 1975: a bit of renegotiation, members of the party free to campaign on either side, the leader staying above the fray?
It's a great plan. Puts Corbyn in a great position to arbitrate and to implement....
Isn’t it, in essence, a rebadged version of what Wilson offered in 1975: a bit of renegotiation, members of the party free to campaign on either side, the leader staying above the fray?
Yes.
Ironic that Corbyn ends up triangulating like the sorts of Labour leaders he, I assume, dislikes: Blair and Wilson.
Still, much as it may surprise some on here, to me it doesn’t seem like that bad a policy. Not brilliant. But not bad.
If only there was a brilliant policy that could be devised to get us out of the Brexit debacle. But there isn't. There are only "not bad" policies and worse policies. And IMHO Labour's policy is probably the least bad of any on offer just at the moment.
I would agree, the 48.1 % -51.9 % , imo would eventually lead to this type of compromise in how to honour the result and eventually re-unite the country.
Why forced? Why not incentivize? Say yes you can be a charity if you give 25% of school places away for free, otherwise your a business? If you let the local schools use your sports facilities and libraries you can be exempt from business rates, otherwise you pay them?
I really dont understand the desire to use force when the same outcomes can be delivered through incentives. The desired outcomes would be much more likely to be delivered with incentives as they would have wider consent, are consistent with legal norms, and also are far more stable and long lasting than a brief period of Corbynism followed by a right wing nationalist government who would simply reverse anything that seems extreme.
That sounds a reasonable idea too. Although given many private schools could not survive if they went beyond tokenism on free places perhaps the difference in practice is not so great.
But, sure, more than one way to skin this particular cat.
However be in no doubt - unless it provokes squeals of anguish from certain quarters it will be too insipid to achieve the objective.
Why forced? Why not incentivize? Say yes you can be a charity if you give 25% of school places away for free, otherwise your a business? If you let the local schools use your sports facilities and libraries you can be exempt from business rates, otherwise you pay them?
I really dont understand the desire to use force when the same outcomes can be delivered through incentives. The desired outcomes would be much more likely to be delivered with incentives as they would have wider consent, are consistent with legal norms, and also are far more stable and long lasting than a brief period of Corbynism followed by a right wing nationalist government who would simply reverse anything that seems extreme.
That sounds a reasonable idea too. Although given many private schools could not survive if they went beyond tokenism on free places perhaps the difference in practice is not so great.
But, sure, more than one way to skin this particular cat.
However be in no doubt - unless it provokes squeals of anguish from certain quarters it will be too insipid to achieve the objective.
What the manifesto, and the Party can't do is abnegate the responsibility of telling voters what it thinks is best for the country. Because the two outcomes currently suggested by Jeremy Corbyn (remain, soft-Brexit) are at odds with each other and would have significantly different outcomes for the country.
Why not? If you accept the idea of giving people a choice, it makes sense to make both options reasonable. As you say, they would be distinctively different - otherwise, there would be no point in having a referendum. The party can express a preference, or stay neutral, but ultimately the voters decide. That's how referenda work in every system that uses them.
I think that at heart you're still thinking that we shouldn't have referenda - the Government should decide what it wants and push it through. But that's not a viable position for a national government in the middle of a process started by referendum.
"Push it through" is surely a simile for use our majority to enable it? I don't agree that what started with a referendum should end with one. And yes, representative democracy must now take hold and people can choose at the election.
The policy as presented is preventing Labour voters from voting for any policy. They would, rather, be voting for a process because the strategy as is doesn't give any certainty of outcome. If you were a hard Brexiter you wouldn't vote for Labour because they aren't offering that; if you were a remainer you wouldn't vote for Labour because you might end up leaving; and if you were a soft Brexiter you wouldn't vote for Labour because you might end up remaining.
The Labour policy is for people who don't care what gets decided, as long as something does, so we can move on. It's a distinctive policy. Problem, it seems most people don't want to move on, yet, despite saying they do. The morass continues.
If Labour's task was to move in as europhile a direction as possible while keeping open the option of still leaving the EU under a Labour government then its finalised policy offer delivers that. It's also non toxic to the more europhile opposition parties they would need in a hung parliament. Once you eliminate their first preferences Labour's policy is an attractive second preference. Other than anti second referendum ultras it also offers enough to keep nearly all Labour MPs on board for MV4.
It's the political fudge that Harrods would sell you.
Put it like that, and it sounds almost reasonable. The trouble is it cannot be reduced to a cute sentence, and can be easily ridiculed: "Unlike the useless evil Tories will fight for a better deal in Brussels, and then campaign against our own deal because it will be shit! Vote for us!"
I mean, it's a tough sell, isn't it? And they still haven't found a way of rebutting this.
"We're going to negotiate the best deal we can, based on Labour rather than Tory values, and then we're going to give the public the final say on whether to go ahead with it"
Doesn't seem that complex really.
The "campaigning against the deal you negotiate" bit is the thing that defies common sense.
I can see the logic behind it. I can see how it works, within the constraints that Labour is operating under. It is a lot better than many of the alternatives. If the electorate can be convinced of its merits then I think they are ready for the common sense defying innovation of the Single Stochastic Vote.
One trouble with the policy is that in explaining it you end up alienating both ends of the debate, by reminding them of what Labour is offering the other side. Kinda interesting to have Corbyn play the role of a centrist in between the extremes of Swinson and Johnson though. Who would have thought that was likely?
The NE postcode area was in London until 1866 (along with ‘S’ which was rubbed out 2 years later and ultimately assigned to Sheffield the following century) and there are a few street signs in East London with it still indicated.
r people who don't care what gets decided, as long as something does, so we can move on. It's a distinctive policy. Problem, it seems most people don't want to move on, yet, despite saying they do. The morass continues.
It’s more likely Brits will go to their countries (including working class Brits) than they will come to live here.
That's why it would be political rat poison in Australia.
Similarly the US and Canada. They don’t even allow free movement between each other’s countries, despite being far more culturally similar and economically aligned than we are to either
r people who don't care what gets decided, as long as something does, so we can move on. It's a distinctive policy. Problem, it seems most people don't want to move on, yet, despite saying they do. The morass continues.
People only want to move on if their side wins
A pithy summary of our current problems to be sure.
That's exactly where this is going. We do not end this process with the Supreme court going "the executive can prorpgue parliament for an unlimited period on zero notice" .
That's exactly where this is going. We do not end this process with the Supreme court going "the executive can prorpgue parliament for an unlimited period on zero notice" .
I do agree with the sentiment, but zero notice? They even passed legislation after finding out it was going to be prorogued.
That's exactly where this is going. We do not end this process with the Supreme court going "the executive can prorpgue parliament for an unlimited period on zero notice" .
I do agree with the sentiment, but zero notice? They even passed legislation after finding out it was going to be prorogued.
Not talking about this specific instance of prorogueing more the principle. The end result of this court case is limits on the proroguing power.
That's exactly where this is going. We do not end this process with the Supreme court going "the executive can prorpgue parliament for an unlimited period on zero notice" .
I do agree with the sentiment, but zero notice? They even passed legislation after finding out it was going to be prorogued.
Not talking about this specific instance of prorogueing more the principle. The end result of this court case is limits on the proroguing power.
Ah, my apologies. I agree, there'll be statutory limitations soon.
What the manifesto, and the Party can't do is abnegate the responsibility of telling voters what it thinks is best for the country. Because the two outcomes currently suggested by Jeremy Corbyn (remain, soft-Brexit) are at odds with each other and would have significantly different outcomes for the country.
Why not? If you accept the idea of giving people a choice, it makes sense to make both options reasonable. As you say, they would be distinctively different - otherwise, there would be no point in having a referendum. The party can express a preference, or stay neutral, but ultimately the voters decide. That's how referenda work in every system that uses them.
I think that at heart you're still thinking that we shouldn't have referenda - the Government should decide what it wants and push it through. But that's not a viable position for a national government in the middle of a process started by referendum.
"Push it through" is surely a simile for use our majority to enable it? I don't agree that what started with a referendum should end with one. And yes, representative democracy must now take hold and people can choose at the election.
The policy as presented is preventing Labour voters from voting for any policy. They would, rather, be voting for a process because the strategy as is doesn't give any certainty of outcome. If you were a hard Brexiter you wouldn't vote for Labour because they aren't offering that; if you were a remainer you wouldn't vote for Labour because you might end up leaving; and if you were a soft Brexiter you wouldn't vote for Labour because you might end up remaining.
The Labour policy is for people who don't care what gets decided, as long as something does, so we can move on. It's a distinctive policy. Problem, it seems most people don't want to move on, yet, despite saying they do. The morass continues.
Labour rising above its own referendum might have flown in the first place. Indeed it is probably what Cammo should have done, rather than give people the chance to give him a kicking by leading the Remain campaign. But it won’t wash now, after three years of polarisation; voters want to cast their vote to influence events, whereas voting Labour is essentially opting to take a Chance card.
That's exactly where this is going. We do not end this process with the Supreme court going "the executive can prorpgue parliament for an unlimited period on zero notice" .
In normal times, I imagine that a Supreme Court carpeting would cause a normal Prime Minister to don dark glasses, take the first flight from Heathrow to anywhere and never be heard from again. The trouble is that these aren't normal times, this isn't a normal PM, and that's largely why this case is happening. Knowing this, what's a court to do?
What the manifesto, and the Party can't do is abnegate the responsibility of telling voters what it thinks is best for the country. Because the two outcomes currently suggested by Jeremy Corbyn (remain, soft-Brexit) are at odds with each other and would have significantly different outcomes for the country.
Why not? If you accept the idea of giving people a choice, it makes sense to make both options reasonable. As you say, they would be distinctively different - otherwise, there would be no point in having a referendum. The party can express a preference, or stay neutral, but ultimately the voters decide. That's how referenda work in every system that uses them.
I think that at heart you're still thinking that we shouldn't have referenda - the Government should decide what it wants and push it through. But that's not a viable position for a national government in the middle of a process started by referendum.
"Push it through" is surely a simile for use our majority to enable it? I don't agree that what started with a referendum should end with one. And yes, representative democracy must now take hold and people can choose at the election.
The policy as presented is preventing Labour voters from voting for any policy. They would, rather, be voting for a process because the strategy as is doesn't give any certainty of outcome. If you were a hard Brexiter you wouldn't vote for Labour because they aren't offering that; if you were a remainer you wouldn't vote for Labour because you might end up leaving; and if you were a soft Brexiter you wouldn't vote for Labour because you might end up remaining.
The Labour policy is for people who don't care what gets decided, as long as something does, so we can move on. It's a distinctive policy. Problem, it seems most people don't want to move on, yet, despite saying they do. The morass continues.
Labour rising above its own referendum might have flown in the first place. Indeed it is probably what Cammo should have done, rather than give people the chance to give him a kicking by leading the Remain campaign. But it won’t wash now, after three years of polarisation; voters want to cast their vote to influence events, whereas voting Labour is essentially opting to take a Chance card.
If Remainers don't want to take the 'Chance' card, then they'll have to resign themselves to a 100% chance of 'No Deal', since the 'Chance' card is the only thing with even the faintest chance of stopping Labour Leave voters defecting to Johnson.
I can’t see CANZUK free movement being vaguely contentious.
Their total population is less than ours, they are thousands of miles away, they’re very wealthy and English speaking.
It’s more likely Brits will go to their countries (including working class Brits) than they will come to live here.
Much as I would like to believe your point, I'm fairly sure they mean for them to be allowed to come here, but NOT for me to be allowed to go there....
Comments
But then, Brexit, I guess - it's powerful to sell something as alien to the values of a country (value for money universal healthcare in the US, EU membership here) even when there are demonstrable downsides.
'Angels' - 'Our Wonderful' - 'The incredibly dedicated and hardworking' - etc.
Along with PL football it is the nearest to a religion that we have.
https://twitter.com/natashakorecki/status/1174299923954774018
I would say that under PM Corbyn the Future Relationship will almost certainly end up being far more closely aligned than it would under PM Johnson.
So NOT fluff.
Must be a real pair of clever clogs, you and I.
NE13 represent.
It’s the very young and very old. Very young get to adulthood at a static rate. Our lifespan keeps punting out the other end due to ability to extend it, but requires significant medical mitigation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8ws_APXilE
Still, much as it may surprise some on here, to me it doesn’t seem like that bad a policy. Not brilliant. But not bad.
(Yes, I know the ECHR would still apply if we left, and the HRA was repealed and we withdrew from the convention and the ECtHR, but it’d be slightly easier to circumscribe)
I think that at heart you're still thinking that we shouldn't have referenda - the Government should decide what it wants and push it through. But that's not a viable position for a national government in the middle of a process started by referendum.
What can be said is that it contains some unicorn which will not survive the talks.
So 'a' CU will become 'the' CU.
And 'close' SM alignment will become SM membership.
In the PD, that is. The WA stays as is.
Their total population is less than ours, they are thousands of miles away, they’re very wealthy and English speaking.
It’s more likely Brits will go to their countries (including working class Brits) than they will come to live here.
Edit. Presumably the SC can ignore both side's arguments and come to their own compromise position.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/18/mayors-buttigieg-endorse-2020-1501635
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?end=2016&locations=GB-US-FR-JP-CA&start=2000&view=chart
Labs best hope would be to try and move the conversation onto almost anything except Brexit.
She's polling 6%.
https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/california-2020-biden-sanders-warren-in-statistical-tie-in-democratic-primary-harris-struggles-in-home-state
Harris has a higher floor still, but Yang maybe has more breakout potential?
READ ALMOST NOTHING INTO WHAT THE JUDGES ARE ASKING.
The policy as presented is preventing Labour voters from voting for any policy. They would, rather, be voting for a process because the strategy as is doesn't give any certainty of outcome. If you were a hard Brexiter you wouldn't vote for Labour because they aren't offering that; if you were a remainer you wouldn't vote for Labour because you might end up leaving; and if you were a soft Brexiter you wouldn't vote for Labour because you might end up remaining.
I don't assume that's most people yet. They may say they want to move on, but what they mean is, other people should agree with them or there is no decision to be made.
If anything could ever make him look like a responsible leader, putting the country's interests above partisanship, it's exactly this.
Any reference for 'almost all recent innovations' coming from US? There's a lot of good medical research in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. A lot of the big pharaceutical companies are US-based if that's what you mean?
*although there are some studies suggesting that you might also get perhaps not necessary and potentially even harmful treatment, particularly around childbirth.
But, sure, more than one way to skin this particular cat.
However be in no doubt - unless it provokes squeals of anguish from certain quarters it will be too insipid to achieve the objective.
Here's Owen on the subject -
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/13/tax-labour-abolish-private-education-schools
I think private schools could be totemic for Labour come the election.
I will go and have a lie down.
NE3 is in NEWCASTLE!
I can see the logic behind it. I can see how it works, within the constraints that Labour is operating under. It is a lot better than many of the alternatives. If the electorate can be convinced of its merits then I think they are ready for the common sense defying innovation of the Single Stochastic Vote.
One trouble with the policy is that in explaining it you end up alienating both ends of the debate, by reminding them of what Labour is offering the other side. Kinda interesting to have Corbyn play the role of a centrist in between the extremes of Swinson and Johnson though. Who would have thought that was likely?
https://londonist.com/2015/08/why-is-there-no-ne-or-s-london-postcode-district
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/18/documentary-follows-pastafarians-strain-for-recognition
If he were to increase the number of allotments available, that would be good too. (Been on a waiting list for about 15 years.....