How have we got to a place where we think it is okay for people to sit on hoards of wealth like a dragon? Seriously, if this were a story for kids you would talk about people working all week, 9 - 5 going to food banks versus the evil dragon who could literally own the entire NFL and still have billions left over.
Gates is giving away almost all of his fortune though ?
But how is accumulating in the first place acceptable? Even if they are sincerely interested in giving much of it away, why is okay for wealth to automatically be siphoned towards those who need it the least rather than those who need it the most.
He only accumulated his wealth because the small company he started turned into a big company, and now he’s giving the vast majority of it to charity and encouraging other wealthy people to join his endeavours. An unusual choice to target.
Part of me wonders whether all this ultra-expensive, ultra-lefty nonsense policy stuff we are getting this week is a sign that they don't think they can win an election so they might as well promise jam today, jam tomorrow and forever more because they have no expectation of having to put the unaffordable and unenforceable into operation.
How have we got to a place where we think it is okay for people to sit on hoards of wealth like a dragon? Seriously, if this were a story for kids you would talk about people working all week, 9 - 5 going to food banks versus the evil dragon who could literally own the entire NFL and still have billions left over.
Gates is giving away almost all of his fortune though ?
But how is accumulating in the first place acceptable? Even if they are sincerely interested in giving much of it away, why is okay for wealth to automatically be siphoned towards those who need it the least rather than those who need it the most.
Because he created things that help other businesses, governments and charities every day, and then managed to run the related business incredibly successfully.
Someone has to be the richest, someone the poorest. For someone amongst the richest Gates is self made and committed to social giving. Seems like a good example.
How have we got to a place where we think it is okay for people to sit on hoards of wealth like a dragon? Seriously, if this were a story for kids you would talk about people working all week, 9 - 5 going to food banks versus the evil dragon who could literally own the entire NFL and still have billions left over.
Is Labour really proposing to actually abolish private schools, nationalise them or just make life very hard for them? It's not clear.
Surely the consequences of this policy must have a lot of negative knock-on effects. Seems daft to me
I can;t afford to buy a brand new NIssan, only a richer few can, so will Labour be campaigning to close the factory down in Sunderland?
Surely this bunch cannot win
The policy is confused, but I think the aim is to get rid of them altogether.
I presume that Conservatives here are comfortable with the fact that a local private secondary school here has been allowed to convert to free school status, thus leaving bills to be paid for by taxpayers instead of parents, but leaving the school free to continue to pick and choose those it admits and solicit additional "voluntary" donations from well-heeled parents.
The bill to the taxpayer would of course be much bigger if Labour integrated the entire private school system into the state sector, at a reported cost of about £3.5 billion. So Labour's policy is quite similar to the free school conversion that the Conservatives were so keen to encourage here, except that the process is forced and the private schools would lose control of their admissions.
Provided that it meets all the obligations and requirements for a free school why wouldn’t you want it to become such?
I’d have thought private schools opting in to the state system by choice is a sign of success of the latter.
It’s a free system that works by supply and demand both ways.
It will be interesting to see what you think of the school system in about 3 or 4 years....
There are less people in poverty in the world than ever before. In the past 100 years the decrease in poverty, children dying etc etc etc are all way way down.
Labour have to be stopped. Two McDonnell policies to show what the Corbyn project has in mind: 1) Theft of private property held legally. If you don't like something or someone, simply expropriate their property and "democratically distribute" their assets 2) The end of private business. A 32 Hour working week with no loss of salary. Have they seen the productivity numbers? Have they seen how many businesses have gone bust or operate on wafer thin margins? Job shares, more rights ti work flexibly, a 21st Century groovy Google approach with tax breaks for office beanbags - sure. But this is Mental.
I left the Labour Party still absolutely clear that I would not only vote for my MP but would actively campaign for him. Now urgently rethinking this. The lunatics have literally taken over the asylum.
A member of shadow cabinet was on r5 this morning. When asked how would labour pay for everything, her response was basically profitable companies. Wont be many of those left of jonny M introduces all this stuff on businesses.
With some of it like Adult Social Care how you pay for it is by not burdoning the NHS with clearing up the mess of not paying for it up front. We can't NOT afford thinks like ASC and "how do we pay for it" is the question that someone who doesn't care if people starve to death in their own homes asks. You are right on the second point though. I know the Tories said "Fuck Business" and launched No Deal to implement the policy - and that needs to be stopped. But when the Labour policy is just as damaging and isn't just a one time disaster like Brexit, that also has to be stopped. So on paper, I should now join the LibDems. So why haven't I?
I suspect you are too conservative, my friend. With a small c, of course. I would suggest you have a look a what Lib Dems are saying themselves about how they see the world and what they want to do, rather than what Labour and Tory spinners are making up about them.
The scenario that it would be more interesting to model would be something like:
"if held after the Conservatives tried to leave without a deal on 31st October but were prevented from doing so by votes in parliament by Labour, LD, SNP and other MPs"
Given the stunning inaccuracy of previous ComRes hypothetical polls, as judged by their current polls, I think this is with ignoring.
Serious point this actually. Brexit does give us the chance to adopt a new national anthem for a new country in a new area. I'm going to add that to my list of Brexit positives. It's been stuck at 2 entries for ages so I do need to remember where I put it.
Rule Britannia is surely the best choice: rousing, Britain-wide and entirely distinctive. Also the line about Britons never being slaves seems appropriate for when we leave the EU.
Interestingly, and it seems almost incredible now given how far the BBC’s values have moved in that time, but BBC1 was still playing the national anthem every night over closedown until 1997.
Fallen off all the front pages and bbc website. Poor Niall.
I am sure it will return. Probably the first of many such scandals. Boris Johnson is as unsuited for PM as Corbyn, just for different reasons. We need to keep being reminded!
pah. your Daily Mail morality kicks in
President Hollande used to nip out for a quickie with an actress and then home to his partner and nobody batted an eyelid.
And Macron has a totally appropriate marriage with his former teacher
Were either of them quizzed by reporters for funnelling public money into the lady's business?
I've no idea. But then again, being asked questions isn't the same as having done wrong. I wonder why no fuss was made in 2013? It's not like this is all some hidden truth suddenly laid bare, it must have been known at the time
Two questions: (1) why is this story coming out now; and (2) how many other similar stories are out there?
Serious point this actually. Brexit does give us the chance to adopt a new national anthem for a new country in a new area. I'm going to add that to my list of Brexit positives. It's been stuck at 2 entries for ages so I do need to remember where I put it.
Rule Britannia is surely the best choice: rousing, Britain-wide and entirely distinctive. Also the line about Britons never being slaves seems appropriate for when we leave the EU.
Presumably we would rewrite one of the lines to read "Britannia waives the rules"...
Something is profoundly broken with opinion polling. The hypotheticals and the extremes of opinion, kantar vs Comres etc are simply not compatible. Something is very wrong somewhere.
Polling companies have got better at asking the questions in a manner that get the results their patrons want. So many of the opinion polls that get into the public domain are biased depending on which vested interests funded them.
That's a disgraceful comment and the sort of thing that once got contributors red-carded.
Polling companies do not screw their reputation on what's a marginal line merely to satisfy a temporary client.
I find that response quite strange. Bias is a human trait, pollsters are commercial organisations.
If the Lib Dems were to poll 21% and Labour 25% (as per that ComRes hypothetical poll), where do you think Labour would drop their 15% vote share from the last election and where do you think the Lib Dems would put on their 14% extra vote share?
.
Given that the LD surge is remain orientated I would have thought that as an initial estimate, the increase in LD votes should be distributed inline with the remain votes at the referendum.
It's almost certain the LDs' growth - and the seats the chaotic mess parties lose to them - won't be evenly spread.
The LDs' strength is in campaigning - which is something the Tories are getting useless at in their core seats, as the archetypical Tory activist in the Shires becomes inactive. Momentum and the Greens are a lot better at shouting about injustice than knocking on doors for Lucas, Corbyn (or Ms Wrong-Daily) on wet autumn evenings - and Farage wrote the book on how to be utterly useless at campaigning in real elections.
But campaigning bods and cash aren't evenly spread. Out of three remain-leaning seats near me that used to be held by decent one-nation Tories (and are now held by latter day Vicars of Bray, prepared to prop up the Fat Spiv on the off chance they'll get a PPS-ship one day), I'd say all three might on a good day plump for the LD's - or, on a not quite so good day, none of them. If we compromise on one: I wouldn't dream of guessing which.
And I'd only trust recent canvass returns for very, very, crude directional data.
If we do get an election in the next six months, Mystic Meg's going to be your best guide.
McDonnell promises UK reparations for our colonial past.
mindless drivel
Someone should ask him how much money we will be paying the US in reparations. After all they were one of our first colonies. Between them and Ireland that should pretty much consume Britain’s entire GDP.
Is Labour really proposing to actually abolish private schools, nationalise them or just make life very hard for them? It's not clear.
Surely the consequences of this policy must have a lot of negative knock-on effects. Seems daft to me
I can;t afford to buy a brand new NIssan, only a richer few can, so will Labour be campaigning to close the factory down in Sunderland?
Surely this bunch cannot win
The policy is confused, but I think the aim is to get rid of them altogether.
I presume that Conservatives here are comfortable with the fact that a local private secondary school here has been allowed to convert to free school status, thus leaving bills to be paid for by taxpayers instead of parents, but leaving the school free to continue to pick and choose those it admits and solicit additional "voluntary" donations from well-heeled parents.
The bill to the taxpayer would of course be much bigger if Labour integrated the entire private school system into the state sector, at a reported cost of about £3.5 billion. So Labour's policy is quite similar to the free school conversion that the Conservatives were so keen to encourage here, except that the process is forced and the private schools would lose control of their admissions.
Provided that it meets all the obligations and requirements for a free school why wouldn’t you want it to become such?
If Corbyn's policy was simply to oblige all private schools to become free schools and no more than that, would you be content to pick up the bill?
No because that involves compulsion
I’ve always been of the view that you should make the state system so good that there is only limited demand for private education
Serious point this actually. Brexit does give us the chance to adopt a new national anthem for a new country in a new area. I'm going to add that to my list of Brexit positives. It's been stuck at 2 entries for ages so I do need to remember where I put it.
Rule Britannia is surely the best choice: rousing, Britain-wide and entirely distinctive. Also the line about Britons never being slaves seems appropriate for when we leave the EU.
If we are going to have a national anthem based on the style of Italian baroque opera we might as well have a classic.
The scenario that it would be more interesting to model would be something like:
"if held after the Conservatives tried to leave without a deal on 31st October but were prevented from doing so by votes in parliament by Labour, LD, SNP and other MPs"
Given the stunning inaccuracy of previous ComRes hypothetical polls, as judged by their current polls, I think this is with ignoring.
Earlier people here were getting very excited about a related ComRes hypothetical poll that told a different story, so I posted that to even things up.
And yes, my perhaps too subtle point is that even if you take any notice of hypothetical polls, and ignore the record of the polling company involved, you need to be asking the right hypothetical question in the first place.
I'm certainly no Corbyn fan, but don't really see what he's done wrong here. Press packs do get very pushy and it can be annoying, He's clearly expressed his annoyance, but without being offensive.
Rather hope Labour do NOT ditch the Corbyn compromise and come out as a 'Party of Remain' but I'm hearing that they probably will.
It would bring the much-needed clarity that both the editor of the Daily Mirror and Chief Leader Writer of the Observer have been demanding. The latter indeed noting that it would be "unforgiveable" for Labour not to have a clear position on Brexit.
How have we got to a place where we think it is okay for people to sit on hoards of wealth like a dragon? Seriously, if this were a story for kids you would talk about people working all week, 9 - 5 going to food banks versus the evil dragon who could literally own the entire NFL and still have billions left over.
I see they left off the bit where he has pledged $89bn to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. That’s one of the best and most effective foundations there is.
Admittedly keeping $900m for his kids might be a bit greedy
McDonnell promises UK reparations for our colonial past.
mindless drivel
Someone should ask him how much money we will be paying the US in reparations. After all they were one of our first colonies. Between them and Ireland that should pretty much consume Britain’s entire GDP.
And when do we get our reparations from Rome and France (or at least Normandy)?
How have we got to a place where we think it is okay for people to sit on hoards of wealth like a dragon? Seriously, if this were a story for kids you would talk about people working all week, 9 - 5 going to food banks versus the evil dragon who could literally own the entire NFL and still have billions left over.
He seems a strange target given he has donated around $20bn to charity and his charity raised much more than that. He has also pledged to eventually give most of his wealth to charity.
If someone literally has billions of dollars, and people are dying of poverty, how is it okay for that person to still have billions of dollars, even if he is giving lots away? Like, the system that allows that to happen is unbelievably broken.
Because we have tried alternative systems and they have delivered worse results.
I fully support something like Warrens wealth tax on the ultra rich, and would be happy to go a bit further, but someone is going to the richest, most powerful under any system. Id rather its someone like Gates than Chairman Mao or Pol Pot.
I'm certainly no Corbyn fan, but don't really see what he's done wrong here. Press packs do get very pushy and it can be annoying, He's clearly expressed his annoyance, but without being offensive.
I dont get it either, seems a reasonable POV to me.
McDonnell promises UK reparations for our colonial past.
mindless drivel
Someone should ask him how much money we will be paying the US in reparations. After all they were one of our first colonies. Between them and Ireland that should pretty much consume Britain’s entire GDP.
And when do we get our reparations from Rome and France (or at least Normandy)?
Something is profoundly broken with opinion polling. The hypotheticals and the extremes of opinion, kantar vs Comres etc are simply not compatible. Something is very wrong somewhere.
Polling companies have got better at asking the questions in a manner that get the results their patrons want. So many of the opinion polls that get into the public domain are biased depending on which vested interests funded them.
That's a disgraceful comment and the sort of thing that once got contributors red-carded.
Polling companies do not screw their reputation on what's a marginal line merely to satisfy a temporary client.
I find that response quite strange. Bias is a human trait, pollsters are commercial organisations.
I find your claim equally strange. Most polls are funded by newspapers, and there is no obvious sign of them trying to bias things by asking leading questions before the VI question, for example.
Serious point this actually. Brexit does give us the chance to adopt a new national anthem for a new country in a new area. I'm going to add that to my list of Brexit positives. It's been stuck at 2 entries for ages so I do need to remember where I put it.
Rule Britannia is surely the best choice: rousing, Britain-wide and entirely distinctive. Also the line about Britons never being slaves seems appropriate for when we leave the EU.
Interestingly, and it seems almost incredible now given how far the BBC’s values have moved in that time, but BBC1 was still playing the national anthem every night over closedown until 1997.
Yes. Also, I understand neither of them have 'phones, and that Johnson's ship will take five nights to cross the North Atlantic, whilst Corbyn's mule will take a fortnight at least to make the long walk back from Brighton.
If Bercow recalls Parliament at 11am, neither of them would be there
Firstly, they don't need to be there - they are two of 650 MPs. Secondly, Parliament wouldn't literally sit half an hour after the ruling - a lot of MPs will be in their constituencies and so on, so I'd have thought it'd be Wednesday at the earliest.
I would bet on Monday next week - plenty of time to for people to get organised and would utterly screw-up the Tory party conference..
Hen lad Fy Nhadau (Land of my Fathers) is a rousing National Anthem, as is the Marsellaise. The Star Spangled Banner' isn't bad, either, nor the new Aussie one. "God defend New Zealand' always seems a bit naff, although having one English verse and one Maori one is novel.
I have always liked Deutschland Uber Alles as well as the Marsellaise. UK anthem is absolute pants.
Is Labour really proposing to actually abolish private schools, nationalise them or just make life very hard for them? It's not clear.
Surely the consequences of this policy must have a lot of negative knock-on effects. Seems daft to me
I can;t afford to buy a brand new NIssan, only a richer few can, so will Labour be campaigning to close the factory down in Sunderland?
Surely this bunch cannot win
The policy is confused, but I think the aim is to get rid of them altogether.
I presume that Conservatives here are comfortable with the fact that a local private secondary school here has been allowed to convert to free school status, thus leaving bills to be paid for by taxpayers instead of parents, but leaving the school free to continue to pick and choose those it admits and solicit additional "voluntary" donations from well-heeled parents.
The bill to the taxpayer would of course be much bigger if Labour integrated the entire private school system into the state sector, at a reported cost of about £3.5 billion. So Labour's policy is quite similar to the free school conversion that the Conservatives were so keen to encourage here, except that the process is forced and the private schools would lose control of their admissions.
Provided that it meets all the obligations and requirements for a free school why wouldn’t you want it to become such?
I’d have thought private schools opting in to the state system by choice is a sign of success of the latter.
It’s a free system that works by supply and demand both ways.
It will be interesting to see what you think of the school system in about 3 or 4 years....
Well, we’re starting with a private nursery, for one.
What happens next will depend upon what both my wife and I think is in the best interests of our child, and nothing else.
How have we got to a place where we think it is okay for people to sit on hoards of wealth like a dragon? Seriously, if this were a story for kids you would talk about people working all week, 9 - 5 going to food banks versus the evil dragon who could literally own the entire NFL and still have billions left over.
I see they left off the bit where he has pledged $89bn to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. That’s one of the best and most effective foundations there is.
Admittedly keeping $900m for his kids might be a bit greedy
I think Chris Rock made the best observation on the problem of inherited wealth: “My kids are rich. I have nothing in common with them. I don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. They give me attitude, then I start to hit them and I’m like ‘You can’t hit a rich kid.'”
How have we got to a place where we think it is okay for people to sit on hoards of wealth like a dragon? Seriously, if this were a story for kids you would talk about people working all week, 9 - 5 going to food banks versus the evil dragon who could literally own the entire NFL and still have billions left over.
He seems a strange target given he has donated around $20bn to charity and his charity raised much more than that. He has also pledged to eventually give most of his wealth to charity.
If someone literally has billions of dollars, and people are dying of poverty, how is it okay for that person to still have billions of dollars, even if he is giving lots away? Like, the system that allows that to happen is unbelievably broken.
Because we have tried alternative systems and they have delivered worse results.
I fully support something like Warrens wealth tax on the ultra rich, and would be happy to go a bit further, but someone is going to the richest, most powerful under any system. Id rather its someone like Gates than Chairman Mao or Pol Pot.
I mean, how do we calculate which system delivered worse results? Because I often see the "Communism killed 100 million" line, but don't often see the same methodology applied to capitalism or capitalist countries.
This isn't me advocating for communism, but when democratic socialist reforms (like those proposed by Corbyn and Sanders) are considered to be hard leftyism of the worst order, I kinda feel that people just don't question the system we inhabit enough.
Is Labour really proposing to actually abolish private schools, nationalise them or just make life very hard for them? It's not clear.
Surely the consequences of this policy must have a lot of negative knock-on effects. Seems daft to me
I can;t afford to buy a brand new NIssan, only a richer few can, so will Labour be campaigning to close the factory down in Sunderland?
Surely this bunch cannot win
The policy is confused, but I think the aim is to get rid of them altogether.
I presume that Conservatives here are comfortable with the fact that a local private secondary school here has been allowed to convert to free school status, thus leaving bills to be paid for by taxpayers instead of parents, but leaving the school free to continue to pick and choose those it admits and solicit additional "voluntary" donations from well-heeled parents.
The bill to the taxpayer would of course be much bigger if Labour integrated the entire private school system into the state sector, at a reported cost of about £3.5 billion. So Labour's policy is quite similar to the free school conversion that the Conservatives were so keen to encourage here, except that the process is forced and the private schools would lose control of their admissions.
Provided that it meets all the obligations and requirements for a free school why wouldn’t you want it to become such?
I’d have thought private schools opting in to the state system by choice is a sign of success of the latter.
It’s a free system that works by supply and demand both ways.
Or as it was locally the last roll of the dice as pupils numbers fell rapidly...
In the private education sector you will always get both failing and successful schools, just as you do in the retail sector for businesses.
Something is profoundly broken with opinion polling. The hypotheticals and the extremes of opinion, kantar vs Comres etc are simply not compatible. Something is very wrong somewhere.
Polling companies have got better at asking the questions in a manner that get the results their patrons want. So many of the opinion polls that get into the public domain are biased depending on which vested interests funded them.
That's a disgraceful comment and the sort of thing that once got contributors red-carded.
Polling companies do not screw their reputation on what's a marginal line merely to satisfy a temporary client.
I find that response quite strange. Bias is a human trait, pollsters are commercial organisations.
I find your claim equally strange. Most polls are funded by newspapers, and there is no obvious sign of them trying to bias things by asking leading questions before the VI question, for example.
I am frankly amazed this is controversial. The select committee of parliament disagrees with you.
"The use of policy issues polls 10.Numerous polls are conducted every week which affect political discourse in the UK. In some cases, there is a failure by those who publicise such polls to communicate all of the relevant details about the selection and framing of questions to obtain a desired answer. We believe that most of these examples are deliberate attempts to manipulate polling findings, in order to distort evidence around public policy issues. We conclude that there is a case for the British Polling Council to play a greater role in proactively overseeing the conduct and reporting of polls. (Paragraph 181)"
McDonnell promises UK reparations for our colonial past.
mindless drivel
Someone should ask him how much money we will be paying the US in reparations. After all they were one of our first colonies. Between them and Ireland that should pretty much consume Britain’s entire GDP.
Serious point this actually. Brexit does give us the chance to adopt a new national anthem for a new country in a new area. I'm going to add that to my list of Brexit positives. It's been stuck at 2 entries for ages so I do need to remember where I put it.
Rule Britannia is surely the best choice: rousing, Britain-wide and entirely distinctive. Also the line about Britons never being slaves seems appropriate for when we leave the EU.
Interestingly, and it seems almost incredible now given how far the BBC’s values have moved in that time, but BBC1 was still playing the national anthem every night over closedown until 1997.
I still miss the U.K. medley
Absolutely.
At one point in my life I was on the road at 5.40am each morning and to hear that was such a great tonic and way to start the day.
Still, you have to hand it to Labour. All these headlines about Brexit splits, plots against Tom Watson and Corbyn being tetchy to journalists are brilliant for distracting voters' attention from the sheer lunacy of their reheating failed 1970s policies.
Yes. Also, I understand neither of them have 'phones, and that Johnson's ship will take five nights to cross the North Atlantic, whilst Corbyn's mule will take a fortnight at least to make the long walk back from Brighton.
If Bercow recalls Parliament at 11am, neither of them would be there
Firstly, they don't need to be there - they are two of 650 MPs. Secondly, Parliament wouldn't literally sit half an hour after the ruling - a lot of MPs will be in their constituencies and so on, so I'd have thought it'd be Wednesday at the earliest.
There are rather more important constitutional questions though than timetables. In this instance, what constitutes a legitimate sitting parliament?
If the SC rules that the proroguing Order was null and void, that might imply that parliament should be sitting but with none of the usual arrangements for a sitting having been made, what process should be made for it to resume?
Ironically, the cleanest solution would be for the government to immediately prorogue again for, say, one day, both to allow MPs time to return and also to ensure that things like parliamentary procedures on legislation under discussion during the previous session was clear.
McDonnell promises UK reparations for our colonial past.
mindless drivel
Someone should ask him how much money we will be paying the US in reparations. After all they were one of our first colonies. Between them and Ireland that should pretty much consume Britain’s entire GDP.
How much will he be paying Scotland
How much will Scotland be paying England for Bonnie Prince Charlie’s invasion in 1745 ?
How have we got to a place where we think it is okay for people to sit on hoards of wealth like a dragon? Seriously, if this were a story for kids you would talk about people working all week, 9 - 5 going to food banks versus the evil dragon who could literally own the entire NFL and still have billions left over.
He seems a strange target given he has donated around $20bn to charity and his charity raised much more than that. He has also pledged to eventually give most of his wealth to charity.
If someone literally has billions of dollars, and people are dying of poverty, how is it okay for that person to still have billions of dollars, even if he is giving lots away? Like, the system that allows that to happen is unbelievably broken.
Because we have tried alternative systems and they have delivered worse results.
I fully support something like Warrens wealth tax on the ultra rich, and would be happy to go a bit further, but someone is going to the richest, most powerful under any system. Id rather its someone like Gates than Chairman Mao or Pol Pot.
I mean, how do we calculate which system delivered worse results? Because I often see the "Communism killed 100 million" line, but don't often see the same methodology applied to capitalism or capitalist countries.
This isn't me advocating for communism, but when democratic socialist reforms (like those proposed by Corbyn and Sanders) are considered to be hard leftyism of the worst order, I kinda feel that people just don't question the system we inhabit enough.
I agree we should question our system of society. The ultra rich should be taxed more. It is not the relative poor in the UK or the US that most of those funds should go, but to the absolute poorest 1bn people in the world living on <$2 a day, that is where it would make the biggest difference to both mankind and the environment.
McDonnell promises UK reparations for our colonial past.
mindless drivel
Someone should ask him how much money we will be paying the US in reparations. After all they were one of our first colonies. Between them and Ireland that should pretty much consume Britain’s entire GDP.
How much will he be paying Scotland
Nothing. Scotland still owes the banking bailout from the Darien Affair that led to the Act of Union. How much interest accumulates on 310 years of debt?
McDonnell promises UK reparations for our colonial past.
mindless drivel
Someone should ask him how much money we will be paying the US in reparations. After all they were one of our first colonies. Between them and Ireland that should pretty much consume Britain’s entire GDP.
How much will he be paying Scotland
How much will Scotland be paying England for Bonnie Prince Charlie’s invasion in 1745 ?
If it goes by invasions England will be bankrupt paying Scotland out
Something is profoundly broken with opinion polling. The hypotheticals and the extremes of opinion, kantar vs Comres etc are simply not compatible. Something is very wrong somewhere.
Polling companies have got better at asking the questions in a manner that get the results their patrons want. So many of the opinion polls that get into the public domain are biased depending on which vested interests funded them.
That's a disgraceful comment and the sort of thing that once got contributors red-carded.
Polling companies do not screw their reputation on what's a marginal line merely to satisfy a temporary client.
I find that response quite strange. Bias is a human trait, pollsters are commercial organisations.
I find your claim equally strange. Most polls are funded by newspapers, and there is no obvious sign of them trying to bias things by asking leading questions before the VI question, for example.
I am frankly amazed this is controversial. The select committee of parliament disagrees with you.
"The use of policy issues polls 10.Numerous polls are conducted every week which affect political discourse in the UK. In some cases, there is a failure by those who publicise such polls to communicate all of the relevant details about the selection and framing of questions to obtain a desired answer. We believe that most of these examples are deliberate attempts to manipulate polling findings, in order to distort evidence around public policy issues. We conclude that there is a case for the British Polling Council to play a greater role in proactively overseeing the conduct and reporting of polls. (Paragraph 181)"
There are only a few examples of newspapers publishing polls with potentially leading questions. I don’t doubt there is more of an issue for those commissioned by parties/think tanks etc.
How have we got to a place where we think it is okay for people to sit on hoards of wealth like a dragon? Seriously, if this were a story for kids you would talk about people working all week, 9 - 5 going to food banks versus the evil dragon who could literally own the entire NFL and still have billions left over.
He seems a strange target given he has donated around $20bn to charity and his charity raised much more than that. He has also pledged to eventually give most of his wealth to charity.
If someone literally has billions of dollars, and people are dying of poverty, how is it okay for that person to still have billions of dollars, even if he is giving lots away? Like, the system that allows that to happen is unbelievably broken.
Because we have tried alternative systems and they have delivered worse results.
I fully support something like Warrens wealth tax on the ultra rich, and would be happy to go a bit further, but someone is going to the richest, most powerful under any system. Id rather its someone like Gates than Chairman Mao or Pol Pot.
I mean, how do we calculate which system delivered worse results? Because I often see the "Communism killed 100 million" line, but don't often see the same methodology applied to capitalism or capitalist countries.
This isn't me advocating for communism, but when democratic socialist reforms (like those proposed by Corbyn and Sanders) are considered to be hard leftyism of the worst order, I kinda feel that people just don't question the system we inhabit enough.
I agree we should question our system of society. The ultra rich should be taxed more. It is not the relative poor in the UK or the US that most of those funds should go, but to the absolute poorest 1bn people in the world living on <$2 a day, that is where it would make the biggest difference to both mankind and the environment. </p>
It will be interesting to see what you think of the school system in about 3 or 4 years....
Well, we’re starting with a private nursery, for one.
What happens next will depend upon what both my wife and I think is in the best interests of our child, and nothing else.
Oh, I have no doubt about you looking out for your child, but the school system has other priorities (or did 20 years ago when mine entered the system).
Let us just say, that your prespectives might be in for some revision It is call parenthood. Often a joy, sometimes a pain and usually, for a lot of time, quite scary.
McDonnell promises UK reparations for our colonial past.
mindless drivel
Someone should ask him how much money we will be paying the US in reparations. After all they were one of our first colonies. Between them and Ireland that should pretty much consume Britain’s entire GDP.
How much will he be paying Scotland
How much will Scotland be paying England for Bonnie Prince Charlie’s invasion in 1745 ?
If it goes by invasions England will be bankrupt paying Scotland out
Think of the money we get back from the Danes, that said.
McDonnell promises UK reparations for our colonial past.
mindless drivel
Someone should ask him how much money we will be paying the US in reparations. After all they were one of our first colonies. Between them and Ireland that should pretty much consume Britain’s entire GDP.
How much will he be paying Scotland
How much will Scotland be paying England for Bonnie Prince Charlie’s invasion in 1745 ?
Or the great Rangers assault on Manchester in 2008. Though as they're 'British' I guess Westminster would have to pay compensation to itself.
McDonnell promises UK reparations for our colonial past.
mindless drivel
Someone should ask him how much money we will be paying the US in reparations. After all they were one of our first colonies. Between them and Ireland that should pretty much consume Britain’s entire GDP.
How much will he be paying Scotland
How much will Scotland be paying England for Bonnie Prince Charlie’s invasion in 1745 ?
If it goes by invasions England will be bankrupt paying Scotland out
Not to worry. England can claim recompense for the Darien bailout.
McDonnell promises UK reparations for our colonial past.
mindless drivel
Someone should ask him how much money we will be paying the US in reparations. After all they were one of our first colonies. Between them and Ireland that should pretty much consume Britain’s entire GDP.
And when do we get our reparations from Rome and France (or at least Normandy)?
Norway has a lot of cash, so it is about time we got some recompense for the Viking shenanigans.
How have we got to a place where we think it is okay for people to sit on hoards of wealth like a dragon? Seriously, if this were a story for kids you would talk about people working all week, 9 - 5 going to food banks versus the evil dragon who could literally own the entire NFL and still have billions left over.
He seems a strange target given he has donated around $20bn to charity and his charity raised much more than that. He has also pledged to eventually give most of his wealth to charity.
If someone literally has billions of dollars, and people are dying of poverty, how is it okay for that person to still have billions of dollars, even if he is giving lots away? Like, the system that allows that to happen is unbelievably broken.
Because we have tried alternative systems and they have delivered worse results.
I fully support something like Warrens wealth tax on the ultra rich, and would be happy to go a bit further, but someone is going to the richest, most powerful under any system. Id rather its someone like Gates than Chairman Mao or Pol Pot.
I mean, how do we calculate which system delivered worse results? Because I often see the "Communism killed 100 million" line, but don't often see the same methodology applied to capitalism or capitalist countries.
This isn't me advocating for communism, but when democratic socialist reforms (like those proposed by Corbyn and Sanders) are considered to be hard leftyism of the worst order, I kinda feel that people just don't question the system we inhabit enough.
I agree we should question our system of society. The ultra rich should be taxed more. It is not the relative poor in the UK or the US that most of those funds should go, but to the absolute poorest 1bn people in the world living on <$2 a day, that is where it would make the biggest difference to both mankind and the environment. </p>
Wouldn’t that make them bigger consumers? I don’t see how that is w positive thing for the environment (see China, for example).
Yes. Also, I understand neither of them have 'phones, and that Johnson's ship will take five nights to cross the North Atlantic, whilst Corbyn's mule will take a fortnight at least to make the long walk back from Brighton.
If Bercow recalls Parliament at 11am, neither of them would be there
Firstly, they don't need to be there - they are two of 650 MPs. Secondly, Parliament wouldn't literally sit half an hour after the ruling - a lot of MPs will be in their constituencies and so on, so I'd have thought it'd be Wednesday at the earliest.
There are rather more important constitutional questions though than timetables. In this instance, what constitutes a legitimate sitting parliament?
If the SC rules that the proroguing Order was null and void, that might imply that parliament should be sitting but with none of the usual arrangements for a sitting having been made, what process should be made for it to resume?
Ironically, the cleanest solution would be for the government to immediately prorogue again for, say, one day, both to allow MPs time to return and also to ensure that things like parliamentary procedures on legislation under discussion during the previous session was clear.
I suspect, if the ruling is against the Government, a lot of that detail will be in the order (for example, is legislation lost by prorogation "un-lost"?) The fact there was quite a lot of discussion of that in court last week is one reason why many pointy heads are suggesting the odds are against the Government.
I'm not sure they'd immediately prorogue again. I suspect they'd now take it on for a couple of weeks and have a more normal, short prorogation pre-Queen's Speech. At this stage, I think they'd want to be seen to play it by the book (given the extension legislation has, in fact, passed).
McDonnell promises UK reparations for our colonial past.
mindless drivel
Someone should ask him how much money we will be paying the US in reparations. After all they were one of our first colonies. Between them and Ireland that should pretty much consume Britain’s entire GDP.
How much will he be paying Scotland
How much will Scotland be paying England for Bonnie Prince Charlie’s invasion in 1745 ?
Or the great Rangers assault on Manchester in 2008. Though as they're 'British' I guess Westminster would have to pay compensation to itself.
That was old dead Rangers malc - please contact BDO with any claims.
It will be interesting to see what you think of the school system in about 3 or 4 years....
Well, we’re starting with a private nursery, for one.
What happens next will depend upon what both my wife and I think is in the best interests of our child, and nothing else.
Oh, I have no doubt about you looking out for your child, but the school system has other priorities (or did 20 years ago when mine entered the system).
Let us just say, that your prespectives might be in for some revision It is call parenthood. Often a joy, sometimes a pain and usually, for a lot of time, quite scary.
If we can afford it, we’d certainly be willing to make sacrifices to put her through a private school.
It depends upon the options open to us and the environment in which we think she’d thrive best.
Something is profoundly broken with opinion polling. The hypotheticals and the extremes of opinion, kantar vs Comres etc are simply not compatible.
Polling companies have got better at asking the questions in a manner that get the results their patrons want. So many of the opinion polls that get into the public domain are biased depending on which vested interests funded them.
That's a disgraceful comment and the sort of thing that once got contributors red-carded.
Polling companies do not screw their reputation on what's a marginal line merely to satisfy a temporary client.
I find that response quite strange. Bias is a human trait, pollsters are commercial organisations.
I find your claim equally strange. Most polls are funded by newspapers, and there is no obvious sign of them trying to bias things by asking leading questions before the VI question, for example.
I am frankly amazed this is controversial. The select committee of parliament disagrees with you.
"The use of policy issues polls 10.Numerous polls are conducted every week which affect political discourse in the UK. In some cases, there is a failure by those who publicise such polls to communicate all of the relevant details about the selection and framing of questions to obtain a desired answer. We believe that most of these examples are deliberate attempts to manipulate polling findings, in order to distort evidence around public policy issues. We conclude that there is a case for the British Polling Council to play a greater role in proactively overseeing the conduct and reporting of polls. (Paragraph 181)"
There are only a few examples of newspapers publishing polls with potentially leading questions. I don’t doubt there is more of an issue for those commissioned by parties/think tanks etc.
My quote which caused such offence didnt mention newspapers but vested interests (i.e. parties/think tanks/companies). I am still baffled that someone thinks I should be banned for posting that, given some of the posts I read on here! It is entirely in line with what the select committee of parliament was saying.
"Polling companies have got better at asking the questions in a manner that get the results their patrons want. So many of the opinion polls that get into the public domain are biased depending on which vested interests funded them."
Serious point this actually. Brexit does give us the chance to adopt a new national anthem for a new country in a new area. I'm going to add that to my list of Brexit positives. It's been stuck at 2 entries for ages so I do need to remember where I put it.
Rule Britannia is surely the best choice: rousing, Britain-wide and entirely distinctive. Also the line about Britons never being slaves seems appropriate for when we leave the EU.
Interestingly, and it seems almost incredible now given how far the BBC’s values have moved in that time, but BBC1 was still playing the national anthem every night over closedown until 1997.
McDonnell promises UK reparations for our colonial past.
mindless drivel
Someone should ask him how much money we will be paying the US in reparations. After all they were one of our first colonies. Between them and Ireland that should pretty much consume Britain’s entire GDP.
How much will he be paying Scotland
How much will Scotland be paying England for Bonnie Prince Charlie’s invasion in 1745 ?
If it goes by invasions England will be bankrupt paying Scotland out
Think of the money we get back from the Danes, that said.
Many years ago, England had Denmark in the last 16 (or whatever) of the World Cup, and I remember the Eastern Daily Press, as regional newspaper for East Anglia, went with the banner headline: DANEGELD: TIME FOR REVENGE.
It was 3-0 to England, I think, so the Danes may argue on that basis we've had it.
Fallen off all the front pages and bbc website. Poor Niall.
I am sure it will return. Probably the first of many such scandals. Boris Johnson is as unsuited for PM as Corbyn, just for different reasons. We need to keep being reminded!
pah. your Daily Mail morality kicks in
President Hollande used to nip out for a quickie with an actress and then home to his partner and nobody batted an eyelid.
And Macron has a totally appropriate marriage with his former teacher
Were either of them quizzed by reporters for funnelling public money into the lady's business?
I've no idea. But then again, being asked questions isn't the same as having done wrong. I wonder why no fuss was made in 2013? It's not like this is all some hidden truth suddenly laid bare, it must have been known at the time
Two questions: (1) why is this story coming out now; and (2) how many other similar stories are out there?
I presume question 1) is purely rhetorical?
Not entirely. Why not during the leadership campaign, for instance?
How have we got to a place where we think it is okay for people to sit on hoards of wealth like a dragon? Seriously, if this were a story for kids you would talk about people working all week, 9 - 5 going to food banks versus the evil dragon who could literally own the entire NFL and still have billions left over.
He seems a strange target given he has donated around $20bn to charity and his charity raised much more than that. He has also pledged to eventually give most of his wealth to charity.
If someone literally has billions of dollars, and people are dying of poverty, how is it okay for that person to still have billions of dollars, even if he is giving lots away? Like, the system that allows that to happen is unbelievably broken.
Because we have tried alternative systems and they have delivered worse results.
I fully support something like Warrens wealth tax on the ultra rich, and would be happy to go a bit further, but someone is going to the richest, most powerful under any system. Id rather its someone like Gates than Chairman Mao or Pol Pot.
I mean, how do we calculate which system delivered worse results? Because I often see the "Communism killed 100 million" line, but don't often see the same methodology applied to capitalism or capitalist countries.
This isn't me advocating for communism, but when democratic socialist reforms (like those proposed by Corbyn and Sanders) are considered to be hard leftyism of the worst order, I kinda feel that people just don't question the system we inhabit enough.
I agree we should question our system of society. The ultra rich should be taxed more. It is not the relative poor in the UK or the US that most of those funds should go, but to the absolute poorest 1bn people in the world living on <$2 a day, that is where it would make the biggest difference to both mankind and the environment. </p>
Wouldn’t that make them bigger consumers? I don’t see how that is w positive thing for the environment (see China, for example).
The average consumption of someone in China is not very large. China produces lots, but that mostly is consumed in the West. This is why it isn't really fair to look to China or India for emissions cuts, for example, because actually the industrialisation is to keep up with mostly Western demand. If their production went towards their own consumption it might be an issue, but it currently is nowhere near the problem of European and American consumption.
How have we got to a place where we think it is okay for people to sit on hoards of wealth like a dragon? Seriously, if this were a story for kids you would talk about people working all week, 9 - 5 going to food banks versus the evil dragon who could literally own the entire NFL and still have billions left over.
He seems a strange target given he has donated around $20bn to charity and his charity raised much more than that. He has also pledged to eventually give most of his wealth to charity.
If someone literally has billions of dollars, and people are dying of poverty, how is it okay for that person to still have billions of dollars, even if he is giving lots away? Like, the system that allows that to happen is unbelievably broken.
Because we have tried alternative systems and they have delivered worse results.
I fully support something like Warrens wealth tax on the ultra rich, and would be happy to go a bit further, but someone is going to the richest, most powerful under any system. Id rather its someone like Gates than Chairman Mao or Pol Pot.
I mean, how do we calculate which system delivered worse results? Because I often see the "Communism killed 100 million" line, but don't often see the same methodology applied to capitalism or capitalist countries.
This isn't me advocating for communism, but when democratic socialist reforms (like those proposed by Corbyn and Sanders) are considered to be hard leftyism of the worst order, I kinda feel that people just don't question the system we inhabit enough.
I agree we should question our system of society. The ultra rich should be taxed more. It is not the relative poor in the UK or the US that most of those funds should go, but to the absolute poorest 1bn people in the world living on <$2 a day, that is where it would make the biggest difference to both mankind and the environment. </p>
Wouldn’t that make them bigger consumers? I don’t see how that is w positive thing for the environment (see China, for example).
The link between birth rate and income is huge, so in order to manage global population and hence the environment you need to take people out of poverty.
Given all the discussion about schools, thought I would share my experience visiting my local comprehensive with my year 6 son. My daughter is there already in year 9, she was showing other parents around. We were given a tour by two of her best friends, lovely girls who took particular pride in the school's library. The teachers were enthusiastic, the new head gave a good speech. The facilities are certainly far from what you would get at a private school, and most of the school looked like it needed a lick of paint. But the students loved their little drama studio, even if it wasn't the kind of professional standard theatre you would get at Eton etc. For me a couple of things stood out. The head girl gave an inspiring speech. She arrived in the UK aged 7, far behind her peers. Now she is applying to Oxford. The other thing was the feeling of community - my son's friends from school were all being shown round, there were so many faces from the neighbourhood. And we could all send our children there, no question of whether we could afford it, no begging for the charity of a few subsidised places. Yes our neighborhood has many £1mn plus houses, like most of London. But it also has loads of social housing and flats for private rent, and the school has a diverse intake in every sense. Bringing my children up in a real community, surrounded by a broad cross section of our society, for me is a huge advantage of the comprehensive system. A lot of posters here speak so disdainfully of comprehensive schools, I just wanted to give an example from the real world of how they can be a real force for good.
The decision of Supreme Court on Gina Miller (English court) and Joanna Cherry (Scottish Inner House) cases with regards to the unlawful prorogation of parliament to be announced at 10.30am tomorrow with 7 of the 11 judges in attendance.
Fallen off all the front pages and bbc website. Poor Niall.
I am sure it will return. Probably the first of many such scandals. Boris Johnson is as unsuited for PM as Corbyn, just for different reasons. We need to keep being reminded!
pah. your Daily Mail morality kicks in
President Hollande used to nip out for a quickie with an actress and then home to his partner and nobody batted an eyelid.
That's not quite right. The French were deeply shocked.. by the fact that their President was scuttling off to see his mistress on a moped.
It was a Piaggio MP3. A turd of a vehicle. I would not ride one even if I got to fuck Julie Gayet at the conclusion of the journey.
Labour have to be stopped. Two McDonnell policies to show what the Corbyn project has in mind: 1) Theft of private property held legally. If you don't like something or someone, simply expropriate their property and "democratically distribute" their assets 2) The end of private business. A 32 Hour working week with no loss of salary. Have they seen the productivity numbers? Have they seen how many businesses have gone bust or operate on wafer thin margins? Job shares, more rights ti work flexibly, a 21st Century groovy Google approach with tax breaks for office beanbags - sure. But this is Mental.
I left the Labour Party still absolutely clear that I would not only vote for my MP but would actively campaign for him. Now urgently rethinking this. The lunatics have literally taken over the asylum.
A member of shadow cabinet was on r5 this morning. When asked how would labour pay for everything, her response was basically profitable companies. Wont be many of those left of jonny M introduces all this stuff on businesses.
With some of it like Adult Social Care how you pay for it is by not burdoning the NHS with clearing up the mess of not paying for it up front. We can't NOT afford thinks like ASC and "how do we pay for it" is the question that someone who doesn't care if people starve to death in their own homes asks.
You are right on the second point though. I know the Tories said "Fuck Business" and launched No Deal to implement the policy - and that needs to be stopped. But when the Labour policy is just as damaging and isn't just a one time disaster like Brexit, that also has to be stopped.
McDonnell promises UK reparations for our colonial past.
mindless drivel
Someone should ask him how much money we will be paying the US in reparations. After all they were one of our first colonies. Between them and Ireland that should pretty much consume Britain’s entire GDP.
How much will he be paying Scotland
How much will Scotland be paying England for Bonnie Prince Charlie’s invasion in 1745 ?
If it goes by invasions England will be bankrupt paying Scotland out
Think of the money we get back from the Danes, that said.
Many years ago, England had Denmark in the last 16 (or whatever) of the World Cup, and I remember the Eastern Daily Press, as regional newspaper for East Anglia, went with the banner headline: DANEGELD: TIME FOR REVENGE.
It was 3-0 to England, I think, so the Danes may argue on that basis we've had it.
The spirit of the wolf that guarded the head of the martyred St Edmund played for England that night. The head btw was found in the forest when the wolf attracted the searchers by calling hic! (here) following defeat in the battle of Hoxne
Fallen off all the front pages and bbc website. Poor Niall.
I am sure it will return. Probably the first of many such scandals. Boris Johnson is as unsuited for PM as Corbyn, just for different reasons. We need to keep being reminded!
pah. your Daily Mail morality kicks in
President Hollande used to nip out for a quickie with an actress and then home to his partner and nobody batted an eyelid.
That's not quite right. The French were deeply shocked.. by the fact that their President was scuttling off to see his mistress on a moped.
It was a Piaggio MP3. A turd of a vehicle. I would not ride one even if I got to fuck Julie Gayet at the conclusion of the journey.
Three wheel mopeds are ridden by the same sort of tossers as the ones that ride electric scooters.
Fallen off all the front pages and bbc website. Poor Niall.
I am sure it will return. Probably the first of many such scandals. Boris Johnson is as unsuited for PM as Corbyn, just for different reasons. We need to keep being reminded!
pah. your Daily Mail morality kicks in
President Hollande used to nip out for a quickie with an actress and then home to his partner and nobody batted an eyelid.
That's not quite right. The French were deeply shocked.. by the fact that their President was scuttling off to see his mistress on a moped.
It was a Piaggio MP3. A turd of a vehicle. I would not ride one even if I got to fuck Julie Gayet at the conclusion of the journey.
Peter Hitchens said in his MoS column yesterday that there is no such thing as "The Supreme Court"
"There's no such thing as 'The Supreme Court' , and the body that wrongly calls itself this should stay out of politics
Actually, there is no such thing as the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. They can call it that if they like, but the title is a fiction. There is nothing supreme about it.
Until we leave the EU, our actual Supreme Court is, as it has been for many years, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
But if we ever manage to escape from the EU, then Parliament is a far higher court than this self-important assembly of lawyers in suits"
That's a classic case of "it's true, and it's not true".
Firstly, regarding the EU Court. We have signed treaties with the EU (or technically with other member states, creating the EU), and we have then passed primary legislation regarding those. And those treaties and primary legislation require that laws in certain areas have to be compliant with the treaties themselves and EU law.
Now, if we were to pass a law that was in direct contradiction to EU law - say the 2019 Imperial Measures Only Act - then there would almost certainly be a challenge at the ECJ. (Also bear in mind somebody, and in 999 times out of 1,000 it's a business who's been harmed by the law.) The ECJ would then rule against us.
If the ECJ had the role Peter Hitchen's ascribes, this would result in the law being struck from the statute books. But that's not what happens. Instead, we are supposed to repeal the law, or face sanctions. (As an aside, this is essentially the same process that happens regarding our membership of various other international bodies - what is different is the breadth of the ECJ's jurisdiction, not its type or method of control.)
Secondly, the Executive's power cannot be unfettled. If it isn't the job of the Supreme Court to police the government, then who's is it? It's parliament, right? Well, is proroguing parliament a power of the Executive to use whenever it likes? Can it use it to avoid an annoying Confidence Vote? If not, then who decides? It would be nice to say "Oh, parliament decides" (sounds good). But what if the government is about to lose its majority in a by-election, and chooses to prorogue first? The act of prorogation is the act of denying parliament its say. If you don't want it to be the Supreme Court who decides whether prorogation is lawful, who does? Because the alternative is a government who need never worry about pesky parliamentary votes, because it can always prorogue.
Not entirely. Why not during the leadership campaign, for instance?
Tthe sharpest form of revenge. Topple him early and it is rough. Let him touch the pinnacle before toppling him makes it sharper. Someone has waited years for this chance and I would not be surprised to find a woman behind this.
Not entirely. Why not during the leadership campaign, for instance?
Tthe sharpest form of revenge. Topple him early and it is rough. Let him touch the pinnacle before toppling him makes it sharper. Someone has waited years for this chance and I would not be surprised to find a woman behind this.
What is the significance of the story being first [edit] in the Sunday Times? I can make a guess, but wonder if it is the right one, so don't want to be unfair ...
Given all the discussion about schools, thought I would share my experience visiting my local comprehensive with my year 6 son. My daughter is there already in year 9, she was showing other parents around. We were given a tour by two of her best friends, lovely girls who took particular pride in the school's library. The teachers were enthusiastic, the new head gave a good speech. The facilities are certainly far from what you would get at a private school, and most of the school looked like it needed a lick of paint. But the students loved their little drama studio, even if it wasn't the kind of professional standard theatre you would get at Eton etc. For me a couple of things stood out. The head girl gave an inspiring speech. She arrived in the UK aged 7, far behind her peers. Now she is applying to Oxford. The other thing was the feeling of community - my son's friends from school were all being shown round, there were so many faces from the neighbourhood. And we could all send our children there, no question of whether we could afford it, no begging for the charity of a few subsidised places. Yes our neighborhood has many £1mn plus houses, like most of London. But it also has loads of social housing and flats for private rent, and the school has a diverse intake in every sense. Bringing my children up in a real community, surrounded by a broad cross section of our society, for me is a huge advantage of the comprehensive system. A lot of posters here speak so disdainfully of comprehensive schools, I just wanted to give an example from the real world of how they can be a real force for good.
Thank you for sharing. Where roughly do you live, if you don’t mind sharing?
It will be interesting to see what you think of the school system in about 3 or 4 years....
Well, we’re starting with a private nursery, for one.
What happens next will depend upon what both my wife and I think is in the best interests of our child, and nothing else.
Oh, I have no doubt about you looking out for your child, but the school system has other priorities (or did 20 years ago when mine entered the system).
Let us just say, that your prespectives might be in for some revision It is call parenthood. Often a joy, sometimes a pain and usually, for a lot of time, quite scary.
Given the rarity, in some areas at least, of State nursery education, you are probably right to start with a private one. Might well be Hobsons Choice. However after that comes infant and primary education, and the quality of such, private or state, depends on where you live. We sent our three to the local state schools and, now in their 50's, they've still got friends from schooldays who they were able to play with in the evenings, at weekends and holidays. However two sets of grandchildren are at private schools and have little or no contact with 'local' children. They have to be taken by car to friends houses, and vice versa. I went to a Grammar school a dozen miles from my home; as a result I had two sets of friends and no long-lasting ones. IMHO that's something to be taken into consideration.
The scenario that it would be more interesting to model would be something like:
"if held after the Conservatives tried to leave without a deal on 31st October but were prevented from doing so by votes in parliament by Labour, LD, SNP and other MPs"
Given the stunning inaccuracy of previous ComRes hypothetical polls, as judged by their current polls, I think this is with ignoring.
Why stop at "ComRes hypothetical polls"?
I wouldn't, but in this specific case of a new hypothetical poll from ComRes it is a stronger statement to point to the failure of specifically the previous ComRes hypothetical poll to be reflected in their current polls.
Not entirely. Why not during the leadership campaign, for instance?
Tthe sharpest form of revenge. Topple him early and it is rough. Let him touch the pinnacle before toppling him makes it sharper. Someone has waited years for this chance and I would not be surprised to find a woman behind this.
What is the significance of the story being first [edit] in the Sunday Times? I can make a guess, but wonder if it is the right one, so don't want to be unfair ...
Well, there was recently another story on the front page of the Sunday Times about Boris’s ex.
Didn’t Livingstone get into trouble for channeling grants to his mate Lee Jasper and others?
Fallen off all the front pages and bbc website. Poor Niall.
I am sure it will return. Probably the first of many such scandals. Boris Johnson is as unsuited for PM as Corbyn, just for different reasons. We need to keep being reminded!
pah. your Daily Mail morality kicks in
President Hollande used to nip out for a quickie with an actress and then home to his partner and nobody batted an eyelid.
And Macron has a totally appropriate marriage with his former teacher
Were either of them quizzed by reporters for funnelling public money into the lady's business?
I've no idea. But then again, being asked questions isn't the same as having done wrong. I wonder why no fuss was made in 2013? It's not like this is all some hidden truth suddenly laid bare, it must have been known at the time
Two questions: (1) why is this story coming out now; and (2) how many other similar stories are out there?
I presume question 1) is purely rhetorical?
Not entirely. Why not during the leadership campaign, for instance?
I can’t have been the only one absolutely astonished there were no Boris scandal stories at the start of the leadership election process? The wasn’t even much recycling of the old scandals.
Fallen off all the front pages and bbc website. Poor Niall.
I am sure it will return. Probably the first of many such scandals. Boris Johnson is as unsuited for PM as Corbyn, just for different reasons. We need to keep being reminded!
pah. your Daily Mail morality kicks in
President Hollande used to nip out for a quickie with an actress and then home to his partner and nobody batted an eyelid.
That's not quite right. The French were deeply shocked.. by the fact that their President was scuttling off to see his mistress on a moped.
It was a Piaggio MP3. A turd of a vehicle. I would not ride one even if I got to fuck Julie Gayet at the conclusion of the journey.
Three wheel mopeds are ridden by the same sort of tossers as the ones that ride electric scooters.
The Yamaha Niken is interesting and would be great on a long trip. Also, you can do 125mph on it.
Interesting that Mr OnlyLivingBoy and I have such similar opinions.
Met half a dozen 14-15 yr old lads from the ,local comprehensive (not generally regarded as good) in our local Museum yesterday. They'd come in to research something, and were quiet, industrious and polite.
Hen lad Fy Nhadau (Land of my Fathers) is a rousing National Anthem, as is the Marsellaise. The Star Spangled Banner' isn't bad, either, nor the new Aussie one. "God defend New Zealand' always seems a bit naff, although having one English verse and one Maori one is novel.
I have always liked Deutschland Uber Alles as well as the Marsellaise. UK anthem is absolute pants.
Hen lad Fy Nhadau (Land of my Fathers) is a rousing National Anthem, as is the Marsellaise. The Star Spangled Banner' isn't bad, either, nor the new Aussie one. "God defend New Zealand' always seems a bit naff, although having one English verse and one Maori one is novel.
I have always liked Deutschland Uber Alles as well as the Marsellaise. UK anthem is absolute pants.
Marseillaise has to be about the top anthem around. "God Save the Queen"is a dirge, and if anything thinks that hat the key motivator of the nation is saving the monarch they really need to get out more.
This fuckwit is speaking at the Labconf later today too
Steven pinker has an interesting bit in his latest book about this movement for only eating natural food / no meat always talk about the reductions, but actually replacing all of this in everybodies diet requires going backwards to far more ineffecient farming methods, which require much more land and thus cutting down more forrests etc...when over the past 50 years we have fed more people in the world with proportionally less resources.
I’d contest the central point that eating meat is unethical.
The crib being used is the environment but it’s fairly obvious that’s a Trojan horse for those who take a much more ideological view.
When in West Cork one of the local foods to be enjoyed is Gubbeen bacon and sausages.
Gubbeen make cheese, and as part of the cheese-making process they have some waste which is good for feeding to pigs. There are other examples with waste from other parts of agriculture.
On environmental grounds you can make a good case for reducing meat (and dairy) consumption, but there's no need to eliminate it entirely.
Comments
Might as well go out in a blaze of lefty flames
Someone has to be the richest, someone the poorest. For someone amongst the richest Gates is self made and committed to social giving. Seems like a good example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1loDTjF4J8
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/02/polls-are-powerful-and-out-of-control-we-must-rein-them-in
I’ve always been of the view that you should make the state system so good that there is only limited demand for private education
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xW4UDN1rvE
And yes, my perhaps too subtle point is that even if you take any notice of hypothetical polls, and ignore the record of the polling company involved, you need to be asking the right hypothetical question in the first place.
But there's the right wing press for you.
Mr McDonnell said negotiations over working hours would be carried out as part of plans to roll out collective bargaining across different industries.
Admittedly keeping $900m for his kids might be a bit greedy
I fully support something like Warrens wealth tax on the ultra rich, and would be happy to go a bit further, but someone is going to the richest, most powerful under any system. Id rather its someone like Gates than Chairman Mao or Pol Pot.
Now he has landed
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1176066859638149120
UK anthem is absolute pants.
What happens next will depend upon what both my wife and I think is in the best interests of our child, and nothing else.
This isn't me advocating for communism, but when democratic socialist reforms (like those proposed by Corbyn and Sanders) are considered to be hard leftyism of the worst order, I kinda feel that people just don't question the system we inhabit enough.
https://eand.co/if-communism-killed-millions-how-many-did-capitalism-kill-2b24ab1c0df7
"The use of policy issues polls
10.Numerous polls are conducted every week which affect political discourse in the UK. In some cases, there is a failure by those who publicise such polls to communicate all of the relevant details about the selection and framing of questions to obtain a desired answer. We believe that most of these examples are deliberate attempts to manipulate polling findings, in order to distort evidence around public policy issues. We conclude that there is a case for the British Polling Council to play a greater role in proactively overseeing the conduct and reporting of polls. (Paragraph 181)"
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldppdm/106/10610.htm#_idTextAnchor102
If the SC rules that the proroguing Order was null and void, that might imply that parliament should be sitting but with none of the usual arrangements for a sitting having been made, what process should be made for it to resume?
Ironically, the cleanest solution would be for the government to immediately prorogue again for, say, one day, both to allow MPs time to return and also to ensure that things like parliamentary procedures on legislation under discussion during the previous session was clear.
Sooner or later, we all have to move on Malc...
Let us just say, that your prespectives might be in for some revision
I'm not sure they'd immediately prorogue again. I suspect they'd now take it on for a couple of weeks and have a more normal, short prorogation pre-Queen's Speech. At this stage, I think they'd want to be seen to play it by the book (given the extension legislation has, in fact, passed).
It depends upon the options open to us and the environment in which we think she’d thrive best.
"Polling companies have got better at asking the questions in a manner that get the results their patrons want. So many of the opinion polls that get into the public domain are biased depending on which vested interests funded them."
It was 3-0 to England, I think, so the Danes may argue on that basis we've had it.
For me a couple of things stood out. The head girl gave an inspiring speech. She arrived in the UK aged 7, far behind her peers. Now she is applying to Oxford. The other thing was the feeling of community - my son's friends from school were all being shown round, there were so many faces from the neighbourhood. And we could all send our children there, no question of whether we could afford it, no begging for the charity of a few subsidised places. Yes our neighborhood has many £1mn plus houses, like most of London. But it also has loads of social housing and flats for private rent, and the school has a diverse intake in every sense.
Bringing my children up in a real community, surrounded by a broad cross section of our society, for me is a huge advantage of the comprehensive system. A lot of posters here speak so disdainfully of comprehensive schools, I just wanted to give an example from the real world of how they can be a real force for good.
Firstly, regarding the EU Court. We have signed treaties with the EU (or technically with other member states, creating the EU), and we have then passed primary legislation regarding those. And those treaties and primary legislation require that laws in certain areas have to be compliant with the treaties themselves and EU law.
Now, if we were to pass a law that was in direct contradiction to EU law - say the 2019 Imperial Measures Only Act - then there would almost certainly be a challenge at the ECJ. (Also bear in mind somebody, and in 999 times out of 1,000 it's a business who's been harmed by the law.) The ECJ would then rule against us.
If the ECJ had the role Peter Hitchen's ascribes, this would result in the law being struck from the statute books. But that's not what happens. Instead, we are supposed to repeal the law, or face sanctions. (As an aside, this is essentially the same process that happens regarding our membership of various other international bodies - what is different is the breadth of the ECJ's jurisdiction, not its type or method of control.)
Secondly, the Executive's power cannot be unfettled. If it isn't the job of the Supreme Court to police the government, then who's is it? It's parliament, right? Well, is proroguing parliament a power of the Executive to use whenever it likes? Can it use it to avoid an annoying Confidence Vote? If not, then who decides? It would be nice to say "Oh, parliament decides" (sounds good). But what if the government is about to lose its majority in a by-election, and chooses to prorogue first? The act of prorogation is the act of denying parliament its say. If you don't want it to be the Supreme Court who decides whether prorogation is lawful, who does? Because the alternative is a government who need never worry about pesky parliamentary votes, because it can always prorogue.
7-4 Against Gov't
Majority
Hale, Kerr, Hodge, Wilson, Black, Briggs, Sales, Carnwath
Dissent
Reed, Lloyd-Jones, Arden, Kitchin
https://twitter.com/daniel_barker/status/1175822074440556545?s=20
We sent our three to the local state schools and, now in their 50's, they've still got friends from schooldays who they were able to play with in the evenings, at weekends and holidays.
However two sets of grandchildren are at private schools and have little or no contact with 'local' children. They have to be taken by car to friends houses, and vice versa.
I went to a Grammar school a dozen miles from my home; as a result I had two sets of friends and no long-lasting ones.
IMHO that's something to be taken into consideration.
By all means generalise from there.
Didn’t Livingstone get into trouble for channeling grants to his mate Lee Jasper and others?
Met half a dozen 14-15 yr old lads from the ,local comprehensive (not generally regarded as good) in our local Museum yesterday. They'd come in to research something, and were quiet, industrious and polite.
https://twitter.com/joshuarozenberg/status/1176107445162299397?s=21
Gubbeen make cheese, and as part of the cheese-making process they have some waste which is good for feeding to pigs. There are other examples with waste from other parts of agriculture.
On environmental grounds you can make a good case for reducing meat (and dairy) consumption, but there's no need to eliminate it entirely.