I think most sensible voters will conclude, prior to voting, that the Conservative Party is the worst political party, except for all the others.
I have long said I expect an NOM but not sure. Jezza really is playing it badly. As one of their MPs (I think) so aptly put it: they have convinced Leavers that they are for Remain and Remainers that they are for Leave. Perfectly put and likely to be very off-putting to just about anyone.
The only people who could have any enthusiasm for voting Labour right now are those who think this Govt. is all about letting the poor starve and die from lack of care. And yet even they must be concerned that Labour is keeping this Govt. in office to, er, let the poor starve and die from lack of care.
Labour - huh - what is it good for?
Absolutely nothin'.....
Well exactly. This government is full of baby eating nasty Tories. So we will faff around and not seize the very earliest opportunity ("not one minute longer" as La Abbott put it on R4 this morning) to throw them out.
I think there is a difference between an election in February or October and one in mid-December, less than 2 weeks till Christmas. My work Xmas party is the next day, for instance (could make for a very awkward evening). Nobody will thank the Tories for this, I think Labour should go for it.
The last time a PM went to the country in December it backfired for him horribly. I predict a repeat.
When was that?
6th December 1923
The PM Stanley Baldwin started the campaign with 344 seats and ended it by losing 86 of them.
So, 4 years short of a century ago. Yep - that’s a telling precedent.....
If you were HYUFD, you'd be claiming it was an iron rule.
The only phrase I can say in a Belfast accent is “the iron law of historical necessity” - paisleys justification for saying NO
Have you decided whether to be Irish or not yet?
I’m in no hurry to do so. Having two passports isn’t something that should be done lightly. I just mentioned it was an option if things become intolerable
You're lucky. Some of us didn't vote for Brexit and have no such option.
If you can prove some familial connection to Charles from 5 centuries ago, he'll see what he can do on the old influence front.
To put it into some perspective: you’d have had a large number of pensioners who were WW1 veterans voting in 1974.
.
No, there were a lot of WWI veterans in 1974. This is fact. You can look it up.
Since you made the claim, could you supply the dat
.
You’re the one who made the claim as “fact” but can’t or won’t look it up......
Y.
You don’t think name calling is a sign of losing an argument?
I’m neither calling you names nor losing the argument.
I was just pointing out that yours was pathetic.
I .
There’s no case to rest. You’re wrong, and I’m right.
There were millions of veterans votes in 1974 that drove a very different voting culture. You’ve switched to a straw man now because you can’t defeat the original point.
All you’ve done on here this morning is embarrass yourself. If you’re representative of the Tory point of view (and we’re supposed to be ON THE SAME SIDE) then Boris will get thumped.
I have no more time to waste on morons like you. I now have to go and do some work.
Who is switching cases? Your original claim was about WW1 veterans - which we’ve established was probably in the hundreds of thousands - but you’ve now switched to “Veterans“ this including WWII to bump the total up.
It is possible to disagree without being disagrable.
It’s needy and pathetic.
As I wrote, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.....
Then perhaps think about that next time before being so petty and pedantic.
Casino , you got a doing after over egging the pudding , just take your medicine and accept you were less than 100% correct, it does happen to everyone now and again.
I think most sensible voters will conclude, prior to voting, that the Conservative Party is the worst political party, except for all the others.
I have long said I expect an NOM but not sure. Jezza really is playing it badly. As one of their MPs (I think) so aptly put it: they have convinced Leavers that they are for Remain and Remainers that they are for Leave. Perfectly put and likely to be very off-putting to just about anyone.
The only people who could have any enthusiasm for voting Labour right now are those who think this Govt. is all about letting the poor starve and die from lack of care. And yet even they must be concerned that Labour is keeping this Govt. in office to, er, let the poor starve and die from lack of care.
Labour - huh - what is it good for?
Absolutely nothin'.....
And thats before their loony left policies see the light of day in a GE.
One could argue that having a general election is the best way to approximate having a referendum with multiple options.
The problem there is that the options given aren't very clean. For example : You can have a referendum on the Deal if you accept mass nationalisations and higher taxes. Or you can have the Deal as long as you accept a dementia tax and loss of school dinners. Or you can have revoke if you accept PR for future elections. Or No Deal if you accept PM Farage. Or Single Market membership if you happen to be in Scotland.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out as haven't had a chance to catch up on the threads between, but re that poll about violence to MPs yesterday..
Remainers think it's much more likely, whatever the Brexit outcome
Violence to MPs likely if UK leaves EU: Remainers - 69% Leavers - 35%
Violence to MPs likely if UK remains in EU: Remainers - 61% Leavers - 54%
They also think that protests where the public get injured are more likely if we leave, though tied on remain
Public injured in protests if UK leaves: Remainers - 70% Leavers - 32%
Public injured in protests if UK remains: Remainers - 54% Leavers - 54%
Who's predicting violence here then?
A lot of people are questioning this survey.
What I read yesterday was people raising the other half of the survey, ie would the violence be a risk worth taking - to which those that thinks it's not at all likely would surely be more likely to agree.
Would, say, throwing rotten fruit at politicians count as violence? That used to be a traditional way of expressing disappointment with people (like actors and actresses at music hall performances for instance). Or throwing a milkshake at someone, as happened to Farage. I don't know what the definition is. Not a nice subject though. Hopefully the survey is not accurate.
Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out as haven't had a chance to catch up on the threads between, but re that poll about violence to MPs yesterday..
Remainers think it's much more likely, whatever the Brexit outcome
Violence to MPs likely if UK leaves EU: Remainers - 69% Leavers - 35%
Violence to MPs likely if UK remains in EU: Remainers - 61% Leavers - 54%
They also think that protests where the public get injured are more likely if we leave, though tied on remain
Public injured in protests if UK leaves: Remainers - 70% Leavers - 32%
Public injured in protests if UK remains: Remainers - 54% Leavers - 54%
Who's predicting violence here then?
61% of Remainers & 54% of Leavers if Leavers don't get their way it would appear. I'm assuming both are united in thinking it would come from Leavers?
69% of Remainers think there'll be violence to MPs if they don't get their way.
Do you think they think this violence will also come from Leavers who are getting their way?
Dunno, maybe they think triumphant, bellowing Brexiteers will be chucking bricks through their windows, though I can't imagine why they would think that based on current behaviour.
The precedents for Remainer violence are pretty thin on the ground so far.
Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out as haven't had a chance to catch up on the threads between, but re that poll about violence to MPs yesterday..
Remainers think it's much more likely, whatever the Brexit outcome
Violence to MPs likely if UK leaves EU: Remainers - 69% Leavers - 35%
Violence to MPs likely if UK remains in EU: Remainers - 61% Leavers - 54%
They also think that protests where the public get injured are more likely if we leave, though tied on remain
Public injured in protests if UK leaves: Remainers - 70% Leavers - 32%
Public injured in protests if UK remains: Remainers - 54% Leavers - 54%
Who's predicting violence here then?
61% of Remainers & 54% of Leavers if Leavers don't get their way it would appear. I'm assuming both are united in thinking it would come from Leavers?
69% of Remainers think there'll be violence to MPs if they don't get their way.
Do you think they think this violence will also come from Leavers who are getting their way?
Oh, and my numbers are for England. In Scotland Remainers are even more likely to predict violence if we leave
In a 'the food has rotted in the fields' update Morrisons are selling whole cabbages, whole swedes, 500g carrots, 500g onions and 500g parsnips for 30p each.
But what was unusual was that the cabbages weren't displaying a union flag but a Lincolnshire flag instead.
Is there some sort of Lincolnshire independence movement which has prompted this ?
Forgive my ignorance but what does one do with rotted veg? Can it be turned into tasty soups? Or is this for throwing at local politicians perhaps?
I imagine most people just throw it in the bin.
But as so much fruit and vegetables are thrown away its certainly a worthwhile question.
During rationing wasn't it collected and fed to pigs or added to compost heaps ?
Rotted veg can (should...) be recycled as compost and turned into something new and fresh next year. All it requires is the intercession of water, sunlight and a seed of some description.
One could argue that having a general election is the best way to approximate having a referendum with multiple options.
The problem there is that the options given aren't very clean. For example : You can have a referendum on the Deal if you accept mass nationalisations and higher taxes. Or you can have the Deal as long as you accept a dementia tax and loss of school dinners. Or you can have revoke if you accept PR for future elections. Or No Deal if you accept PM Farage. Or Single Market membership if you happen to be in Scotland.
Not to mention that if we ARE happy to accept a plurality mandate on the various options (as per a GE), why not just a multiple choice referendum with plurality winner? (I don't like that option, but I have to accept that if GE votew are taken as proxy Brexit votes, that's what would happen there; at least this would be cleaner)
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there. PS: Wait till those woke loons have to do a days work
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
It's like one of those irregular verbs much loved on Yes Minister: I am democratic You are ignoring the people He is supporting the collapse of order in our country
I think this is pretty accurate. Politicians are aware they lack a mandate to continue at the moment, but don't really want to reclaim a mandate in a way that doesn't benefit them. So what is the answer?
Why not both, on the same day?
It would be interesting especially if the government that formed disagreed with the outcome of the new referendum (both a Con / Remain win, for example), but it could be interesting. It may allow people to vote how they want in a party political way without it being a reflection of Brexit policy. Say you're a Remain Tory. Well, you can vote Tory with a conscience, and vote remain at the ref. Leave Labour? The same.
That's precisely the problem we've had since 2016. Our politics does not have the experience or procedures to deal with such a split mandate.
A Parliament that supported Remain should never have legislated for a referendum for a change that they opposed (and would therefore struggle to implement). We should only have referendums for something that a majority in Parliament already supports, but wants the confirmation of the electorate, in order to avoid a split mandate.
How can an MP be held accountable for voting for Brexit, if they oppose Brexit, but voted for it because of the referendum? It's an impossible position. We shouldn't compound the mistake by repeating it.
In theory, with a confirmatory referendum you could make the WAIB law, but only to be activated following a vote for it in a referendum. That way Parliament wouldn't have to do anything if the vote went against them.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
One could argue that having a general election is the best way to approximate having a referendum with multiple options.
The problem there is that the options given aren't very clean. For example : You can have a referendum on the Deal if you accept mass nationalisations and higher taxes. Or you can have the Deal as long as you accept a dementia tax and loss of school dinners. Or you can have revoke if you accept PR for future elections. Or No Deal if you accept PM Farage. Or Single Market membership if you happen to be in Scotland.
Well in our system MPs decide it all, that's the gist behind Parliamentary Sovereignty.
Let's assume that the Government fails to get 2/3rds of the Commons supporting its motion on Monday. Johnson then immediately tables a vote of no confidence in the Government which takes place on Tuesday 29th November and is carried. No other government can command a vote of confidence in the 14 day period that follows, while Johnson remains in Downing Street in the interim.
What is the earliest legal date that a GE could then be held, assuming that it did not necessarily need to be on a Thursday?
I think most sensible voters will conclude, prior to voting, that the Conservative Party is the worst political party, except for all the others.
I have long said I expect an NOM but not sure. Jezza really is playing it badly. As one of their MPs (I think) so aptly put it: they have convinced Leavers that they are for Remain and Remainers that they are for Leave. Perfectly put and likely to be very off-putting to just about anyone.
On this one he is in a difficult position. The country is very divided on the issue. The government is going all in on Leave. So it would make sense for the opposition to go all in on Remain. The problem is that it is the less popular outcome. Therefore it is hard to see how they can win.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
I don't have a dog in the Boomers Vs Millennials fight, as a Gen Xer. But I have to say this Boomer meme that Millennials are lazy is a load of bollocks in my experience. Millennials I know are mostly hard working and serious people. As a generation they have some quite reasonable complaints to make, especially about the cost of housing and the precarious nature of today's labour market. I have baby boomer parents so I know how hard they worked. But some of the stuff that generation comes up with (eg your comments about young people wanting it 'all on a plate') do reveal them to be out of touch with reality. Similarly always harking on about the War (which none of them have first hand experience of, unless you count watching Dads Army).
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
I don't have a dog in the Boomers Vs Millennials fight, as a Gen Xer. But I have to say this Boomer meme that Millennials are lazy is a load of bollocks in my experience. Millennials I know are mostly hard working and serious people. As a generation they have some quite reasonable complaints to make, especially about the cost of housing and the precarious nature of today's labour market. I have baby boomer parents so I know how hard they worked. But some of the stuff that generation comes up with (eg your comments about young people wanting it 'all on a plate') do reveal them to be out of touch with reality. Similarly always harking on about the War (which none of them have first hand experience of, unless you count watching Dads Army).
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
I don't have a dog in the Boomers Vs Millennials fight, as a Gen Xer. But I have to say this Boomer meme that Millennials are lazy is a load of bollocks in my experience. Millennials I know are mostly hard working and serious people. As a generation they have some quite reasonable complaints to make, especially about the cost of housing and the precarious nature of today's labour market. I have baby boomer parents so I know how hard they worked. But some of the stuff that generation comes up with (eg your comments about young people wanting it 'all on a plate') do reveal them to be out of touch with reality. Similarly always harking on about the War (which none of them have first hand experience of, unless you count watching Dads Army).
Agree with some , on housing it was incredibly difficult to get on housing ladder until Thatcher opened the market. People used to rent a room in someones house and save for years , mortgages were incredibly difficult to come by. Certainly gained from the rampant inflation over the years for sure.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
No one uses cash these days, malc.
Boomers got a lot of stuff on a plate. House price windfalls being the biggest, along with gold plated pensions at 60. Gen Xers are the once who've really lost out.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
No one uses cash these days, malc.
Nigel, I still like a couple of hundred in my pocket for emergencies, sometimes technology fails you.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
I don't have a dog in the Boomers Vs Millennials fight, as a Gen Xer. But I have to say this Boomer meme that Millennials are lazy is a load of bollocks in my experience. Millennials I know are mostly hard working and serious people. As a generation they have some quite reasonable complaints to make, especially about the cost of housing and the precarious nature of today's labour market. I have baby boomer parents so I know how hard they worked. But some of the stuff that generation comes up with (eg your comments about young people wanting it 'all on a plate') do reveal them to be out of touch with reality. Similarly always harking on about the War (which none of them have first hand experience of, unless you count watching Dads Army).
A lot of "millennials" are children of "boomers". If they're so rubbish, blame the parents who brought them up.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
No one uses cash these days, malc.
Boomers got a lot of stuff on a plate. House price windfalls being the biggest, along with gold plated pensions at 60. Gen Xers are the once who've really lost out.
I did not manage many windfalls on houses , either moved at wrong time or took the cash and blew it, I did get the pension, but have worked very hard for it all. NONE of it was on a plate. Typical lazy attitude that you are owed something for nothing , get out and work for it.
The problem with a referendum is that opinion is heavily split on whether or not Remain should be on the ballot paper. Probably around half of people believe it shouldn't be, because we already voted against it in 2016, and therefore any further referendum should be on the type of Leave. But the other half (or thereabouts) think Remain should be on the ballot paper because the reason the want another referendum in the first place is because Remain is their favoured outcome.
A referendum is by far the clearest way of sorting out Brexit. First question, do you still want to leave ? If yes, with the deal or with No Deal? No real room for ambiguity there.
If people have changed their minds over the last 3 years what is the point of denying people the option of saying so? It's just burying your head in the sand.
A GE is a highly imperfect way of resolving the issue, particularly with an electoral system that does not adequately represent the views of the voters.
As we saw last time May declared that the GE was to get a mandate for her version of Brexit, when she lost her majority the leavers then claim Brexit had nothing to do with it and it was all about the "dementia tax".
Leavers want a GE rather than a referendum because with the former they can get complete control on 35% of the votes.
He put a lot of emotional energy into getting his deal against all the odds, and attempting to deliver it by 31 October. He was buoyed up by the reception he got from EU leaders. He was on top of the world. And now he isn't. He is licking his wounds.
"Classic ADHD is characterized by Inattention, Impulsivity, Hyperactivity, Restlessness, and Disorganization. This type of ADHD reminds us of Tigger from the Winnie the Pooh stories."
To predict what happens next (and place appropriate bets), one needs to understand how a Tiggerish personality like Johnson reacts to setbacks. I don't have those psychology skills.
Will he have a massive prolonged sulk or will he rapidly bounce back with another whizzy scheme? Can anyone with experience of this personality type shed any light on this?
I know it’s repetitive but the FTPA really is an utter sh*t show. It is one of the basic principles of U.K. Parliamentary democracy that when Parliament and the Executive are deadlocked that it should be thrown back to the people to decide. This was, I would argue, one great strength of the U.K. system over others with fixed term Parliaments. But having been handicapped in that way at least politicians in those models generally accept that they have a responsibility to try and work together to break such deadlocks.
We a now blessed with a Fixed Term model, but politicians who don’t accept their consequential responsibilities.
It wasn't a principle at all, as the Lascelles letter makes clear. The situation was and is that if a government can't govern either an election should take place or a new government should take over. But I agree that it is not acceptable to do neither, which is what is happening now. It wouldn't have been acceptable under the Lascelles letter for the monarch to do neither and it isn't acceptable under the FTPA for the House of Commons to do neither.
Apologies I should have written, “...deadlocked, and no alternative executive can be formed...”
Agreed, though it's worth adding that a PM refusing to resign when an alternative government does exist shouldn't count as a situation in which a new government can't be formed.
A Prime Minister traditionally can’t resign without a recommendation of either an election or an alternative PM who can command the confidence of the Commons. So doesn’t apply here.
There is a counter-example. Eden resigned and there wasn't an election nor an obvious replacement - indeed his eventual replacement Macmillan was a surprise.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
No one uses cash these days, malc.
Boomers got a lot of stuff on a plate. House price windfalls being the biggest, along with gold plated pensions at 60. Gen Xers are the once who've really lost out.
Bollocks, they've had a decade of interest rates on the floor, all to protect the value of their inheritance.
The final report by air accident investigators into the Lion Air crash of a 737 MAX in Indonesia that killed 189 people a year ago provides a devastating critique of the design and certification of Boeing’s new flight-control system on the airplane.
It also provides a detailed account of the fatal flight. And it apportions blame to Lion Air’s maintenance work and its pilots, as well as a Florida firm that supplied a component, according to an advance copy reviewed by The Seattle Times.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
No one uses cash these days, malc.
Boomers got a lot of stuff on a plate. House price windfalls being the biggest, along with gold plated pensions at 60. Gen Xers are the once who've really lost out.
Bollocks, they've had a decade of interest rates on the floor, all to protect the value of their inheritance.
But many - probably the majority - will not get an inheritance, either their parents haven't got one or if they have it will be spent on care fees.
Let's assume that the Government fails to get 2/3rds of the Commons supporting its motion on Monday. Johnson then immediately tables a vote of no confidence in the Government which takes place on Tuesday 29th November and is carried. No other government can command a vote of confidence in the 14 day period that follows, while Johnson remains in Downing Street in the interim.
What is the earliest legal date that a GE could then be held, assuming that it did not necessarily need to be on a Thursday?
I'm interested in the response to this question also. Anyone?
Surely if the 12/12 fails for which there must be a reasonably high probability a 31/1 extension is pointlessly short.
Mr. Above, if the Commons refuse to back a deal, refuse to back a revocation, refuse to have a vote of no confidence in the Government, and refuse to agree anything else the logical conclusion is that this Commons is no good for anything but prevarication.
[Of course, the next Commons could be worse].
Clearly this parliament is not great. That is a separate issue to whether the PM should be able to decide when the election is, when the law is clear that is for parliament to decide, and the mandate from the people is for 5 years.
The issue is that Parliament is not doing its job
It is preventing the executive from doing its but is not willing to replace the executive
Indeed. What worries me about the whole situation is the fact that it fosters even more contempt for a parliament that has already weakened its position by seeking to frustrate the result of a referendum. There is a distinct historical parallel in this paralysis with the Weimar Republic, when parties could not find any consensus that allowed a government to function effectively in the face of opposition in the German parliament, adding to widespread contempt of parliamentary institutions that was a necessary precondition of what happened next.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
No one uses cash these days, malc.
Boomers got a lot of stuff on a plate. House price windfalls being the biggest, along with gold plated pensions at 60. Gen Xers are the once who've really lost out.
Bollocks, they've had a decade of interest rates on the floor, all to protect the value of their inheritance.
But many - probably the majority - will not get an inheritance, either their parents haven't got one or if they have it will be spent on care fees.
In a strong field, with notably impressive entries by Labour, I think the SNP win the 'most utterly ludicrous position of the day' award with their 'give us an election in December, but not an election on the Tory 12th'
The final report by air accident investigators into the Lion Air crash of a 737 MAX in Indonesia that killed 189 people a year ago provides a devastating critique of the design and certification of Boeing’s new flight-control system on the airplane.
It also provides a detailed account of the fatal flight. And it apportions blame to Lion Air’s maintenance work and its pilots, as well as a Florida firm that supplied a component, according to an advance copy reviewed by The Seattle Times.
It's difficult to believe that they failed to properly inform pilots about the new system. Also, the fleet should probably have been grounded after the first crash.
One could argue that having a general election is the best way to approximate having a referendum with multiple options.
The problem there is that the options given aren't very clean. For example : You can have a referendum on the Deal if you accept mass nationalisations and higher taxes. Or you can have the Deal as long as you accept a dementia tax and loss of school dinners. Or you can have revoke if you accept PR for future elections. Or No Deal if you accept PM Farage. Or Single Market membership if you happen to be in Scotland.
Well in our system MPs decide it all, that's the gist behind Parliamentary Sovereignty.
That's the entire problem - that's not apparently the case any more
Pollsters assuming that the Scots Tories will lose all their 2017 gains back to the SNP should think carefully. Most of the seats the Tories gained in 2017 were in constituencies where there was almost parity in the Brexit/remain splits and as most of them are either in NE Scotland where the fishing lobby is strong or along the Borders where the farming lobby is strong, they are hardly typical of Wee Nippy Sweeties fan club.
No one is predicting they lose 12 of their 13 seats.
An unwind of the previous election's SLD to SCon swing would hurt the Cons badly in Scotland.
How many Scottish Tory seats are not in the north-east, Borders, or Ayrshire? I can only think of Stirling. That's probably the one they're most likely to lose.
Pollsters assuming that the Scots Tories will lose all their 2017 gains back to the SNP should think carefully. Most of the seats the Tories gained in 2017 were in constituencies where there was almost parity in the Brexit/remain splits and as most of them are either in NE Scotland where the fishing lobby is strong or along the Borders where the farming lobby is strong, they are hardly typical of Wee Nippy Sweeties fan club.
No one is predicting they lose 12 of their 13 seats.
An unwind of the previous election's SLD to SCon swing would hurt the Cons badly in Scotland.
How many Scottish Tory seats are not in the north-east, Borders, or Ayrshire? I can only think of Stirling. That's probably the one they're most likely to lose.
Not sure I would class Angus as North East. Its going to be a tough fight which I hope to play a small part in.
Let's assume that the Government fails to get 2/3rds of the Commons supporting its motion on Monday. Johnson then immediately tables a vote of no confidence in the Government which takes place on Tuesday 29th November and is carried. No other government can command a vote of confidence in the 14 day period that follows, while Johnson remains in Downing Street in the interim.
What is the earliest legal date that a GE could then be held, assuming that it did not necessarily need to be on a Thursday?
I'm interested in the response to this question also. Anyone?
Surely if the 12/12 fails for which there must be a reasonably high probability a 31/1 extension is pointlessly short.
By my reckoning Tuesday 17th December.
14 days puts you to 12th November. 25 working days for the campaign puts you to 17th December
Pollsters assuming that the Scots Tories will lose all their 2017 gains back to the SNP should think carefully. Most of the seats the Tories gained in 2017 were in constituencies where there was almost parity in the Brexit/remain splits and as most of them are either in NE Scotland where the fishing lobby is strong or along the Borders where the farming lobby is strong, they are hardly typical of Wee Nippy Sweeties fan club.
No one is predicting they lose 12 of their 13 seats.
An unwind of the previous election's SLD to SCon swing would hurt the Cons badly in Scotland.
How many Scottish Tory seats are not in the north-east, Borders, or Ayrshire? I can only think of Stirling. That's probably the one they're most likely to lose.
Pollsters assuming that the Scots Tories will lose all their 2017 gains back to the SNP should think carefully. Most of the seats the Tories gained in 2017 were in constituencies where there was almost parity in the Brexit/remain splits and as most of them are either in NE Scotland where the fishing lobby is strong or along the Borders where the farming lobby is strong, they are hardly typical of Wee Nippy Sweeties fan club.
No one is predicting they lose 12 of their 13 seats.
An unwind of the previous election's SLD to SCon swing would hurt the Cons badly in Scotland.
How many Scottish Tory seats are not in the north-east, Borders, or Ayrshire? I can only think of Stirling. That's probably the one they're most likely to lose.
Not sure I would class Angus as North East. Its going to be a tough fight which I hope to play a small part in.
One could argue that having a general election is the best way to approximate having a referendum with multiple options.
The problem there is that the options given aren't very clean. For example : You can have a referendum on the Deal if you accept mass nationalisations and higher taxes. Or you can have the Deal as long as you accept a dementia tax and loss of school dinners. Or you can have revoke if you accept PR for future elections. Or No Deal if you accept PM Farage. Or Single Market membership if you happen to be in Scotland.
Well in our system MPs decide it all, that's the gist behind Parliamentary Sovereignty.
That's the entire problem - that's not apparently the case any more
The fundamental case of the swivel-eyed loons is that direct democracy is superior to parliamentary democracy, but we absolutely cannot ask the people to fix this with a referendum. So we have to have an election where parties stand for their beliefs but some of those beliefs are undemocratic... because direct democracy is superior to parliament. Fucking idiots, the lot of them.
Mr. Noo, a referendum's a better option for resolving the EU problem as it doesn't wrap up the issue of governance and every other aspect of government up with the EU question.
The downside is that the Commons as presently constituted has proven incapable of collective action except in the business of prevarication.
He put a lot of emotional energy into getting his deal against all the odds, and attempting to deliver it by 31 October. He was buoyed up by the reception he got from EU leaders. He was on top of the world. And now he isn't. He is licking his wounds.
"Classic ADHD is characterized by Inattention, Impulsivity, Hyperactivity, Restlessness, and Disorganization. This type of ADHD reminds us of Tigger from the Winnie the Pooh stories."
To predict what happens next (and place appropriate bets), one needs to understand how a Tiggerish personality like Johnson reacts to setbacks. I don't have those psychology skills.
Will he have a massive prolonged sulk or will he rapidly bounce back with another whizzy scheme? Can anyone with experience of this personality type shed any light on this?
I am not at all sure it is appropriate to suggest Boris is suffering from ADHD
I hope you have some means of substantiating that to be honest if necessary
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
Boomers did not, in most cases, earn the pensions they are now receiving. That is why most pension schemes have deficits. If the boomers had paid sufficient contributions during their working lives these deficits would not exist.
One could argue that having a general election is the best way to approximate having a referendum with multiple options.
The problem there is that the options given aren't very clean. For example : You can have a referendum on the Deal if you accept mass nationalisations and higher taxes. Or you can have the Deal as long as you accept a dementia tax and loss of school dinners. Or you can have revoke if you accept PR for future elections. Or No Deal if you accept PM Farage. Or Single Market membership if you happen to be in Scotland.
Well in our system MPs decide it all, that's the gist behind Parliamentary Sovereignty.
That's the entire problem - that's not apparently the case any more
The fundamental case of the swivel-eyed loons is that direct democracy is superior to parliamentary democracy, but we absolutely cannot ask the people to fix this with a referendum. So we have to have an election where parties stand for their beliefs but some of those beliefs are undemocratic... because direct democracy is superior to parliament. Fucking idiots, the lot of them.
You really are fucking dumb today aren't you. The point with any democracy whether it is Parliamentary or Direct is that it is only democratic if it is actually listened to and put into effect. Just asking questions and then ignoring the answers is not democracy.
AOC to Mark Zuckerberg: "In your ongoing dinner parties with far-right figures, some of whom advance the conspiracy theory that white supremacy is a hoax..."
Let's assume that the Government fails to get 2/3rds of the Commons supporting its motion on Monday. Johnson then immediately tables a vote of no confidence in the Government which takes place on Tuesday 29th November and is carried. No other government can command a vote of confidence in the 14 day period that follows, while Johnson remains in Downing Street in the interim.
What is the earliest legal date that a GE could then be held, assuming that it did not necessarily need to be on a Thursday?
I'm interested in the response to this question also. Anyone?
Surely if the 12/12 fails for which there must be a reasonably high probability a 31/1 extension is pointlessly short.
By my reckoning Tuesday 17th December.
14 days puts you to 12th November. 25 working days for the campaign puts you to 17th December
18th December
One counts Bank Holidays in any part of the UK as non working, and December 2nd is the St Andrews Day Bank Holiday in Scotland, so need to add a day.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
No one uses cash these days, malc.
Boomers got a lot of stuff on a plate. House price windfalls being the biggest, along with gold plated pensions at 60. Gen Xers are the once who've really lost out.
Bollocks, they've had a decade of interest rates on the floor, all to protect the value of their inheritance.
But many - probably the majority - will not get an inheritance, either their parents haven't got one or if they have it will be spent on care fees.
Totally off topic I wonder what the long term economic consequences will be of vast quantities of money being diverted to care companies rather than being handed down to children and charities.I guess it creates a lot of employment in the care sector so that is a benefit.
We are fortunate not to need an inheritance but it would be all the same if we did because it's all but disappeared in care fees now at £60,000 pa per person and rising.
Dignitas beckons for me when the time comes I'd rather the cash went to the dogs home than the care companies!
In a strong field, with notably impressive entries by Labour, I think the SNP win the 'most utterly ludicrous position of the day' award with their 'give us an election in December, but not an election on the Tory 12th'
Let's assume that the Government fails to get 2/3rds of the Commons supporting its motion on Monday. Johnson then immediately tables a vote of no confidence in the Government which takes place on Tuesday 29th November and is carried. No other government can command a vote of confidence in the 14 day period that follows, while Johnson remains in Downing Street in the interim.
What is the earliest legal date that a GE could then be held, assuming that it did not necessarily need to be on a Thursday?
I'm interested in the response to this question also. Anyone?
Surely if the 12/12 fails for which there must be a reasonably high probability a 31/1 extension is pointlessly short.
I think I have found the answer from the BBC website:
"Once an election is called, there has to be a gap of at least five weeks before polling day. That's because the law requires Parliament to dissolve 25 working days beforehand.......So, in order for polling day to take place on 12 December, the election would have to be triggered before 6 November."
So it would have to be triggered by 5th November. As the 14 day period would not end until (I think) 12 November, it follows that 12th December is a non-starter under the VONC route. Thurs 19 December may be legally possible but would be highly controversial, otherwise the VONC route can only lead to a January election now.
A one line bill putting aside the FTPA passed by 5th November could I think still lead to a 12th December GE with a simple majority, but would be open to amendment so the Government may want to avoid that route.
He put a lot of emotional energy into getting his deal against all the odds, and attempting to deliver it by 31 October. He was buoyed up by the reception he got from EU leaders. He was on top of the world. And now he isn't. He is licking his wounds.
"Classic ADHD is characterized by Inattention, Impulsivity, Hyperactivity, Restlessness, and Disorganization. This type of ADHD reminds us of Tigger from the Winnie the Pooh stories."
To predict what happens next (and place appropriate bets), one needs to understand how a Tiggerish personality like Johnson reacts to setbacks. I don't have those psychology skills.
Will he have a massive prolonged sulk or will he rapidly bounce back with another whizzy scheme? Can anyone with experience of this personality type shed any light on this?
I am not at all sure it is appropriate to suggest Boris is suffering from ADHD
I hope you have some means of substantiating that to be honest if necessary
The Earth's elliptical orbit means that days (i.e. the interval between the Sun being due South) are more than 24 hours around the Winter Solstice as that's when the Earth is on the tightest part of its orbit. It also explains why it carries on getting darker in the mornings after 21/22 December.
Indeed - I believe the darkest morning is New Years Eve.
All the fun and games has led to wild swings on the "Year of Next Election" market. 2019 is currently last-matched at 3.2, having traded below evens yesterday. Given that Jeremy Corbyn doesn't seem to have made his mind up for him yet, both of those extremes look a bit overdone.
He put a lot of emotional energy into getting his deal against all the odds, and attempting to deliver it by 31 October. He was buoyed up by the reception he got from EU leaders. He was on top of the world. And now he isn't. He is licking his wounds.
"Classic ADHD is characterized by Inattention, Impulsivity, Hyperactivity, Restlessness, and Disorganization. This type of ADHD reminds us of Tigger from the Winnie the Pooh stories."
To predict what happens next (and place appropriate bets), one needs to understand how a Tiggerish personality like Johnson reacts to setbacks. I don't have those psychology skills.
Will he have a massive prolonged sulk or will he rapidly bounce back with another whizzy scheme? Can anyone with experience of this personality type shed any light on this?
I am not at all sure it is appropriate to suggest Boris is suffering from ADHD
I hope you have some means of substantiating that to be honest if necessary
Why?
I would always take care when suggesting someone is suffering mental health issues unless I had a trusted source.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
Boomers did not, in most cases, earn the pensions they are now receiving. That is why most pension schemes have deficits. If the boomers had paid sufficient contributions during their working lives these deficits would not exist.
People get pensions despite not working for them? That's news to me.
Let's assume that the Government fails to get 2/3rds of the Commons supporting its motion on Monday. Johnson then immediately tables a vote of no confidence in the Government which takes place on Tuesday 29th November and is carried. No other government can command a vote of confidence in the 14 day period that follows, while Johnson remains in Downing Street in the interim.
What is the earliest legal date that a GE could then be held, assuming that it did not necessarily need to be on a Thursday?
I'm interested in the response to this question also. Anyone?
Surely if the 12/12 fails for which there must be a reasonably high probability a 31/1 extension is pointlessly short.
I think I have found the answer from the BBC website:
"Once an election is called, there has to be a gap of at least five weeks before polling day. That's because the law requires Parliament to dissolve 25 working days beforehand.......So, in order for polling day to take place on 12 December, the election would have to be triggered before 6 November."
So it would have to be triggered by 5th November. As the 14 day period would not end until (I think) 12 November, it follows that 12th December is a non-starter under the VONC route. Thurs 19 December may be legally possible but would be highly controversial, otherwise the VONC route can only lead to a January election now.
A one line bill putting aside the FTPA passed by 5th November could I think still lead to a 12th December GE with a simple majority, but would be open to amendment so the Government may want to avoid that route.
While we're changing the law to get round the FTPA, why can't we just shorten the 25 days? It's not like we need to further rehearse the Brexit positons....
In a strong field, with notably impressive entries by Labour, I think the SNP win the 'most utterly ludicrous position of the day' award with their 'give us an election in December, but not an election on the Tory 12th'
"We won't get rid of you because you won't let us do so soon enough."
In a strong field, with notably impressive entries by Labour, I think the SNP win the 'most utterly ludicrous position of the day' award with their 'give us an election in December, but not an election on the Tory 12th'
Is this betting without the government's sure you can examine the deal but only if you call an election first, or the government's on-off budget, or the government's prorogation of parliament for a Queen's Speech that it wants to avoid implementing by dissolving parliament?
One could argue that having a general election is the best way to approximate having a referendum with multiple options.
The problem there is that the options given aren't very clean. For example : You can have a referendum on the Deal if you accept mass nationalisations and higher taxes. Or you can have the Deal as long as you accept a dementia tax and loss of school dinners. Or you can have revoke if you accept PR for future elections. Or No Deal if you accept PM Farage. Or Single Market membership if you happen to be in Scotland.
Well in our system MPs decide it all, that's the gist behind Parliamentary Sovereignty.
That's the entire problem - that's not apparently the case any more
The fundamental case of the swivel-eyed loons is that direct democracy is superior to parliamentary democracy, but we absolutely cannot ask the people to fix this with a referendum. So we have to have an election where parties stand for their beliefs but some of those beliefs are undemocratic... because direct democracy is superior to parliament. Fucking idiots, the lot of them.
You really are fucking dumb today aren't you. The point with any democracy whether it is Parliamentary or Direct is that it is only democratic if it is actually listened to and put into effect. Just asking questions and then ignoring the answers is not democracy.
Not implementing it is exactly the right thing to do if the country no longer wants you to implement it.
One could argue that having a general election is the best way to approximate having a referendum with multiple options.
The problem there is that the options given aren't very clean. For example : You can have a referendum on the Deal if you accept mass nationalisations and higher taxes. Or you can have the Deal as long as you accept a dementia tax and loss of school dinners. Or you can have revoke if you accept PR for future elections. Or No Deal if you accept PM Farage. Or Single Market membership if you happen to be in Scotland.
Well in our system MPs decide it all, that's the gist behind Parliamentary Sovereignty.
That's the entire problem - that's not apparently the case any more
The fundamental case of the swivel-eyed loons is that direct democracy is superior to parliamentary democracy, but we absolutely cannot ask the people to fix this with a referendum. So we have to have an election where parties stand for their beliefs but some of those beliefs are undemocratic... because direct democracy is superior to parliament. Fucking idiots, the lot of them.
You really are fucking dumb today aren't you. The point with any democracy whether it is Parliamentary or Direct is that it is only democratic if it is actually listened to and put into effect. Just asking questions and then ignoring the answers is not democracy.
Not implementing it is exactly the right thing to do if the country no longer wants you to implement it.
You're confusing you and the country. If you're going by opinion polls then I'm sure you'll also be delighted to see a landslide Conservative government.
All the fun and games has led to wild swings on the "Year of Next Election" market. 2019 is currently last-matched at 3.2, having traded below evens yesterday. Given that Jeremy Corbyn doesn't seem to have made his mind up for him yet, both of those extremes look a bit overdone.
Thanks, right now GE2019 looks unlikely but I note your hint and have cleared off my liability on the result.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
No one uses cash these days, malc.
Boomers got a lot of stuff on a plate. House price windfalls being the biggest, along with gold plated pensions at 60. Gen Xers are the once who've really lost out.
I did not manage many windfalls on houses , either moved at wrong time or took the cash and blew it, I did get the pension, but have worked very hard for it all. NONE of it was on a plate. Typical lazy attitude that you are owed something for nothing , get out and work for it.
I just don't understand why boomers are so defensive. I'm happy to admit that I've benefited heavily from a system stacked in my favour and my income is disproportionate to my talent or effort compared to my peers. Why is it so hard for other people to do the same, or at the very least not consider the possibility to be an attack? Instead your thinking is so muddled that you've somehow concluded that the fact that your finances are good despite poor money management means you *haven't* been lucky.
One could argue that having a general election is the best way to approximate having a referendum with multiple options.
The problem there is that the options given aren't very clean. For example : You can have a referendum on the Deal if you accept mass nationalisations and higher taxes. Or you can have the Deal as long as you accept a dementia tax and loss of school dinners. Or you can have revoke if you accept PR for future elections. Or No Deal if you accept PM Farage. Or Single Market membership if you happen to be in Scotland.
Well in our system MPs decide it all, that's the gist behind Parliamentary Sovereignty.
That's the entire problem - that's not apparently the case any more
The fundamental case of the swivel-eyed loons is that direct democracy is superior to parliamentary democracy, but we absolutely cannot ask the people to fix this with a referendum. So we have to have an election where parties stand for their beliefs but some of those beliefs are undemocratic... because direct democracy is superior to parliament. Fucking idiots, the lot of them.
You really are fucking dumb today aren't you. The point with any democracy whether it is Parliamentary or Direct is that it is only democratic if it is actually listened to and put into effect. Just asking questions and then ignoring the answers is not democracy.
Not implementing it is exactly the right thing to do if the country no longer wants you to implement it.
You're confusing you and the country. If you're going by opinion polls then I'm sure you'll also be delighted to see a landslide Conservative government.
In a strong field, with notably impressive entries by Labour, I think the SNP win the 'most utterly ludicrous position of the day' award with their 'give us an election in December, but not an election on the Tory 12th'
Is this betting without the government's sure you can examine the deal but only if you call an election first, or the government's on-off budget, or the government's prorogation of parliament for a Queen's Speech that it wants to avoid implementing by dissolving parliament?
On a normal day those would be strong entries, but the field is quite exceptionally strong today. Some judges might give the award to Labour, whose 'we want an election as soon as possible, but not yet' is undoubtedly an impressive effort.
He put a lot of emotional energy into getting his deal against all the odds, and attempting to deliver it by 31 October. He was buoyed up by the reception he got from EU leaders. He was on top of the world. And now he isn't. He is licking his wounds.
"Classic ADHD is characterized by Inattention, Impulsivity, Hyperactivity, Restlessness, and Disorganization. This type of ADHD reminds us of Tigger from the Winnie the Pooh stories."
To predict what happens next (and place appropriate bets), one needs to understand how a Tiggerish personality like Johnson reacts to setbacks. I don't have those psychology skills.
Will he have a massive prolonged sulk or will he rapidly bounce back with another whizzy scheme? Can anyone with experience of this personality type shed any light on this?
I am not at all sure it is appropriate to suggest Boris is suffering from ADHD
I hope you have some means of substantiating that to be honest if necessary
Why?
I would always take care when suggesting someone is suffering mental health issues unless I had a trusted source.
I'm not suggesting that Johnson has mental health problems. I'm not his doctor or psychiatrist and I've already said I have no skills in that area.
But I do observe his personality and describe it as Tiggerish. (I take it you are familiar with Winnie the Pooh). He is irrepressible, enthusiastic, optimistic, bouncy, disorganised. How does he cope with a setback like this? That's what I'm asking.
AOC to Mark Zuckerberg: "In your ongoing dinner parties with far-right figures, some of whom advance the conspiracy theory that white supremacy is a hoax..."
Whilst FB are definitely too close to far right conspiracy theorists nut jobs, the problem is the left have called everyone to the left of Corbyn, far right.
I really like AOC tho, and clay has him on the ropes in this clip
Let's assume that the Government fails to get 2/3rds of the Commons supporting its motion on Monday. Johnson then immediately tables a vote of no confidence in the Government which takes place on Tuesday 29th November and is carried. No other government can command a vote of confidence in the 14 day period that follows, while Johnson remains in Downing Street in the interim.
What is the earliest legal date that a GE could then be held, assuming that it did not necessarily need to be on a Thursday?
I'm interested in the response to this question also. Anyone?
Surely if the 12/12 fails for which there must be a reasonably high probability a 31/1 extension is pointlessly short.
I think I have found the answer from the BBC website:
"Once an election is called, there has to be a gap of at least five weeks before polling day. That's because the law requires Parliament to dissolve 25 working days beforehand.......So, in order for polling day to take place on 12 December, the election would have to be triggered before 6 November."
So it would have to be triggered by 5th November. As the 14 day period would not end until (I think) 12 November, it follows that 12th December is a non-starter under the VONC route. Thurs 19 December may be legally possible but would be highly controversial, otherwise the VONC route can only lead to a January election now.
A one line bill putting aside the FTPA passed by 5th November could I think still lead to a 12th December GE with a simple majority, but would be open to amendment so the Government may want to avoid that route.
While we're changing the law to get round the FTPA, why can't we just shorten the 25 days? It's not like we need to further rehearse the Brexit positons....
Because changing the rules to whatever best suits the Tory party at the time is not a good way to govern a country.
Totally off topic I wonder what the long term economic consequences will be of vast quantities of money being diverted to care companies rather than being handed down to children and charities.I guess it creates a lot of employment in the care sector so that is a benefit.
We are fortunate not to need an inheritance but it would be all the same if we did because it's all but disappeared in care fees now at £60,000 pa per person and rising.
Dignitas beckons for me when the time comes I'd rather the cash went to the dogs home than the care companies!
Although a lot of money is certainly being spent on care many companies in the sector are on the brink of bankruptcy. This is mostly because they rely on residents funded by local authorities and we all know what has happened to LA budgets over the past decade or so. The sector is notorious for poor wages and working conditions and the standard of care offered is patchy at the best of times. Many companies are run by entrepreneurs who seek to make money from increasing value of the property they occupy rather than the care provided to the residents. Visiting many of these places is a ghastly experience and I am so glad that we managed to keep both my parents out of such a place and care for them at home instead.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
Boomers did not, in most cases, earn the pensions they are now receiving. That is why most pension schemes have deficits. If the boomers had paid sufficient contributions during their working lives these deficits would not exist.
Utter garbage , it was part of their total renumeration and salaries were kept lower due to the pensions. PS: given how stupid you are I will explain simply. Majority of the deficits were due to companies milking the pensions for extra profits to get directors bonuses increased. They took far to many contribution holidays, it was nothing to d owith eth workers or their contributions.
In a strong field, with notably impressive entries by Labour, I think the SNP win the 'most utterly ludicrous position of the day' award with their 'give us an election in December, but not an election on the Tory 12th'
Is this betting without the government's sure you can examine the deal but only if you call an election first, or the government's on-off budget, or the government's prorogation of parliament for a Queen's Speech that it wants to avoid implementing by dissolving parliament?
On a normal day those would be strong entries, but the field is quite exceptionally strong today. Some judges might give the award to Labour, whose 'we want an election as soon as possible, but not yet' is undoubtedly an impressive effort.
If Corbyn got up in the HoC and said we're going for it would his MPs follow him ? He'd look very weak as a leader if they didn't. This is the moderates calculation that they can force Corbyn to sit on his hands for fear of his leadership looking beyond poor as the party doesn't follow him through the Aye lobby.
Let's assume that the Government fails to get 2/3rds of the Commons supporting its motion on Monday. Johnson then immediately tables a vote of no confidence in the Government which takes place on Tuesday 29th November and is carried. No other government can command a vote of confidence in the 14 day period that follows, while Johnson remains in Downing Street in the interim.
What is the earliest legal date that a GE could then be held, assuming that it did not necessarily need to be on a Thursday?
I'm interested in the response to this question also. Anyone?
Surely if the 12/12 fails for which there must be a reasonably high probability a 31/1 extension is pointlessly short.
I think I have found the answer from the BBC website:
"Once an election is called, there has to be a gap of at least five weeks before polling day. That's because the law requires Parliament to dissolve 25 working days beforehand.......So, in order for polling day to take place on 12 December, the election would have to be triggered before 6 November."
So it would have to be triggered by 5th November. As the 14 day period would not end until (I think) 12 November, it follows that 12th December is a non-starter under the VONC route. Thurs 19 December may be legally possible but would be highly controversial, otherwise the VONC route can only lead to a January election now.
A one line bill putting aside the FTPA passed by 5th November could I think still lead to a 12th December GE with a simple majority, but would be open to amendment so the Government may want to avoid that route.
While we're changing the law to get round the FTPA, why can't we just shorten the 25 days? It's not like we need to further rehearse the Brexit positons....
Because changing the rules to whatever best suits the Tory party at the time is not a good way to govern a country.
In a strong field, with notably impressive entries by Labour, I think the SNP win the 'most utterly ludicrous position of the day' award with their 'give us an election in December, but not an election on the Tory 12th'
Is this betting without the government's sure you can examine the deal but only if you call an election first, or the government's on-off budget, or the government's prorogation of parliament for a Queen's Speech that it wants to avoid implementing by dissolving parliament?
On a normal day those would be strong entries, but the field is quite exceptionally strong today. Some judges might give the award to Labour, whose 'we want an election as soon as possible, but not yet' is undoubtedly an impressive effort.
If Corbyn got up in the HoC and said we're going for it would his MPs follow him ? He'd look very weak as a leader if they didn't. This is the moderates calculation that they can force Corbyn to sit on his hands for fear of his leadership looking beyond poor as the party doesn't follow him through the Aye lobby.
Would that not provide adequate cover to deselect those who would rather perpetuate a Tory government than risk an election?
All the fun and games has led to wild swings on the "Year of Next Election" market. 2019 is currently last-matched at 3.2, having traded below evens yesterday. Given that Jeremy Corbyn doesn't seem to have made his mind up for him yet, both of those extremes look a bit overdone.
Thanks, right now GE2019 looks unlikely but I note your hint and have cleared off my liability on the result.
Umbrellas are cheapest when it doesn't look like raining.
Labour moderates look to be tactically astute at each point of the process but there's no appetite for risk there. Strategically the trek down People's Vote lane has been a poor one for Labour - better to have advocated a Norwegian Brexit I reckon (Sort of thing Loach hinted at last night) and hence shift the focus to Universal credit, NHS, Housing etc.
He put a lot of emotional energy into getting his deal against all the odds, and attempting to deliver it by 31 October. He was buoyed up by the reception he got from EU leaders. He was on top of the world. And now he isn't. He is licking his wounds.
"Classic ADHD is characterized by Inattention, Impulsivity, Hyperactivity, Restlessness, and Disorganization. This type of ADHD reminds us of Tigger from the Winnie the Pooh stories."
To predict what happens next (and place appropriate bets), one needs to understand how a Tiggerish personality like Johnson reacts to setbacks. I don't have those psychology skills.
Will he have a massive prolonged sulk or will he rapidly bounce back with another whizzy scheme? Can anyone with experience of this personality type shed any light on this?
I am not at all sure it is appropriate to suggest Boris is suffering from ADHD
I hope you have some means of substantiating that to be honest if necessary
Why?
I would always take care when suggesting someone is suffering mental health issues unless I had a trusted source.
A better literary antecedent would be Sherlock Holmes. He sits morosely in a corner quaffing laudanum, making a tuneless cacophony with a violin, apparently for days on end. Then Mrs Hudson ushers in a mysterious young lady with a sad expression and an air of vulnerability. His eyes brighten as he springs into life. The hunt is on.
The day with the latest sunrise, the winter solstice, is December 22nd. I hadn’t realised until checking this that the earliest sunset and the latest sunrise do not happen on the same day.
A 15.51 sunset happens between December 8th - 17th in London and varies by less across the month (9 minutes - 16.00-15.51) than sunrise (23 minutes, 07.43-08.06), so there's nothing particularly special about the 12th.
It's also worth noting that the last "winter" GE we had - February 1974 had a turnout of 78.8% - up 6.8% on the June 1970 election that saw Heath win - the highest turnout since 1951 and higher than any general election since then. Before that, the highest turnout (83.9%) had been February 1950.
If people want to vote, they will.
Top 5 UK General elections ranked by turnout since 1950:
February 1950 - 83.9% October 1951 - 82.6% February 1974 - 78.8% October 1959 - 78.7% October 1964 - 77.1%
The lowest turnout GE was in June 2001 (59.4%)
Politicians fear of "people not voting in winter General Elections" is not supported by the facts.
Whilst that’s true, 1974 was a very long time ago.
The UK and people attitude to duty, deference and obligation have changed an awful lot in the last 45 years.
To put it into some perspective: you’d have had a large number of pensioners who were WW1 veterans voting in 1974.
I have to disagree there. To me, 1974 feels like just a few years ago - I really do not think of Harold Wilson and Ted Heath as very distant figures. Moreover by the mid-1970s deference had already declined sharply compared with the 50s and early 60s.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
SNIP
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
No one uses cash these days, malc.
Boomers got a lot of stuff on a plate. House price windfalls being the biggest, along with gold plated pensions at 60. Gen Xers are the once who've really lost out.
I did not manage many windfalls on houses , either moved at wrong time or took the cash and blew it, I did get the pension, but have worked very hard for it all. NONE of it was on a plate. Typical lazy attitude that you are owed something for nothing , get out and work for it.
I just don't understand why boomers are so defensive. I'm happy to admit that I've benefited heavily from a system stacked in my favour and my income is disproportionate to my talent or effort compared to my peers. Why is it so hard for other people to do the same, or at the very least not consider the possibility to be an attack? Instead your thinking is so muddled that you've somehow concluded that the fact that your finances are good despite poor money management means you *haven't* been lucky.
Another know all arsehole. You may have been given yours with a silver spoon by some cushy number. I have worked hard all my life and earned every penny I have made. I will not accept some workshy arsehole whinging about how going on about they have it tough doing minimum hours etc and trying to make out I had it easy. Nothing defensive about it , just some people need to be told what reality is. A hard days work would kill most of the whiners.
In a strong field, with notably impressive entries by Labour, I think the SNP win the 'most utterly ludicrous position of the day' award with their 'give us an election in December, but not an election on the Tory 12th'
Is this betting without the government's sure you can examine the deal but only if you call an election first, or the government's on-off budget, or the government's prorogation of parliament for a Queen's Speech that it wants to avoid implementing by dissolving parliament?
On a normal day those would be strong entries, but the field is quite exceptionally strong today. Some judges might give the award to Labour, whose 'we want an election as soon as possible, but not yet' is undoubtedly an impressive effort.
If Corbyn got up in the HoC and said we're going for it would his MPs follow him ? He'd look very weak as a leader if they didn't. This is the moderates calculation that they can force Corbyn to sit on his hands for fear of his leadership looking beyond poor as the party doesn't follow him through the Aye lobby.
We all remember that about two-thirds of them tried to get rid of him in 2016.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
SNIP
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
No one uses cash these days, malc.
Boomers got a lot of stuff on a plate. House price windfalls being the biggest, along with gold plated pensions at 60. Gen Xers are the once who've really lost out.
I did not manage many windfalls on houses , either moved at wrong time or took the cash and blew it, I did get the pension, but have worked very hard for it all. NONE of it was on a plate. Typical lazy attitude that you are owed something for nothing , get out and work for it.
I just don't understand why boomers are so defensive. I'm happy to admit that I've benefited heavily from a system stacked in my favour and my income is disproportionate to my talent or effort compared to my peers. Why is it so hard for other people to do the same, or at the very least not consider the possibility to be an attack? Instead your thinking is so muddled that you've somehow concluded that the fact that your finances are good despite poor money management means you *haven't* been lucky.
Another know all arsehole. You may have been given yours with a silver spoon by some cushy number. I have worked hard all my life and earned every penny I have made. I will not accept some workshy arsehole whinging about how going on about they have it tough doing minimum hours etc and trying to make out I had it easy. Nothing defensive about it , just some people need to be told what reality is. A hard days work would kill most of the whiners.
Comments
Well, its a view
For example : You can have a referendum on the Deal if you accept mass nationalisations and higher taxes.
Or you can have the Deal as long as you accept a dementia tax and loss of school dinners.
Or you can have revoke if you accept PR for future elections.
Or No Deal if you accept PM Farage.
Or Single Market membership if you happen to be in Scotland.
The precedents for Remainer violence are pretty thin on the ground so far.
(I don't like that option, but I have to accept that if GE votew are taken as proxy Brexit votes, that's what would happen there; at least this would be cleaner)
PS: Wait till those woke loons have to do a days work
A Parliament that supported Remain should never have legislated for a referendum for a change that they opposed (and would therefore struggle to implement). We should only have referendums for something that a majority in Parliament already supports, but wants the confirmation of the electorate, in order to avoid a split mandate.
How can an MP be held accountable for voting for Brexit, if they oppose Brexit, but voted for it because of the referendum? It's an impossible position. We shouldn't compound the mistake by repeating it.
In theory, with a confirmatory referendum you could make the WAIB law, but only to be activated following a vote for it in a referendum. That way Parliament wouldn't have to do anything if the vote went against them.
Boomers worked for their cash.
I wonder if there's a deal to be done between Boris and Blackford here?
What is the earliest legal date that a GE could then be held, assuming that it did not necessarily need to be on a Thursday?
Just saying.
Gen Xers are the once who've really lost out.
If they're so rubbish, blame the parents who brought them up.
If people have changed their minds over the last 3 years what is the point of denying people the option of saying so? It's just burying your head in the sand.
A GE is a highly imperfect way of resolving the issue, particularly with an electoral system that does not adequately represent the views of the voters.
As we saw last time May declared that the GE was to get a mandate for her version of Brexit, when she lost her majority the leavers then claim Brexit had nothing to do with it and it was all about the "dementia tax".
Leavers want a GE rather than a referendum because with the former they can get complete control on 35% of the votes.
He put a lot of emotional energy into getting his deal against all the odds, and attempting to deliver it by 31 October. He was buoyed up by the reception he got from EU leaders. He was on top of the world. And now he isn't. He is licking his wounds.
"Classic ADHD is characterized by Inattention, Impulsivity, Hyperactivity, Restlessness, and Disorganization. This type of ADHD reminds us of Tigger from the Winnie the Pooh stories."
To predict what happens next (and place appropriate bets), one needs to understand how a Tiggerish personality like Johnson reacts to setbacks. I don't have those psychology skills.
Will he have a massive prolonged sulk or will he rapidly bounce back with another whizzy scheme? Can anyone with experience of this personality type shed any light on this?
Six spads a'tweeting
It also provides a detailed account of the fatal flight. And it apportions blame to Lion Air’s maintenance work and its pilots, as well as a Florida firm that supplied a component, according to an advance copy reviewed by The Seattle Times.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/indonesias-investigation-of-lion-air-737-max-crash-faults-boeing-design-and-faa-certification-as-well-as-airlines-maintenance-and-pilot-errors/
Surely if the 12/12 fails for which there must be a reasonably high probability a 31/1 extension is pointlessly short.
14 days puts you to 12th November.
25 working days for the campaign puts you to 17th December
Fucking idiots, the lot of them.
The downside is that the Commons as presently constituted has proven incapable of collective action except in the business of prevarication.
A referendum requires the Commons to back it.
I hope you have some means of substantiating that to be honest if necessary
https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/1187667186627821569?s=20
AOC to Mark Zuckerberg: "In your ongoing dinner parties with far-right figures, some of whom advance the conspiracy theory that white supremacy is a hoax..."
At 2 mins 18 secs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkbVLfiuD5w
One counts Bank Holidays in any part of the UK as non working, and December 2nd is the St Andrews Day Bank Holiday in Scotland, so need to add a day.
We are fortunate not to need an inheritance but it would be all the same if we did because it's all but disappeared in care fees now at £60,000 pa per person and rising.
Dignitas beckons for me when the time comes I'd rather the cash went to the dogs home than the care companies!
Well interestingly it's February 1974, the one on the day with the least daylight of all of them.
And the December GE of 1921 had a turnout higher than any election in the 21st century. This is such a piss poor argument, sorry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections
"Once an election is called, there has to be a gap of at least five weeks before polling day. That's because the law requires Parliament to dissolve 25 working days beforehand.......So, in order for polling day to take place on 12 December, the election would have to be triggered before 6 November."
So it would have to be triggered by 5th November. As the 14 day period would not end until (I think) 12 November, it follows that 12th December is a non-starter under the VONC route. Thurs 19 December may be legally possible but would be highly controversial, otherwise the VONC route can only lead to a January election now.
A one line bill putting aside the FTPA passed by 5th November could I think still lead to a 12th December GE with a simple majority, but would be open to amendment so the Government may want to avoid that route.
Corbyn = Tuco
Boris = Man with no name !
But I do observe his personality and describe it as Tiggerish. (I take it you are familiar with Winnie the Pooh). He is irrepressible, enthusiastic, optimistic, bouncy, disorganised. How does he cope with a setback like this? That's what I'm asking.
I really like AOC tho, and clay has him on the ropes in this clip
NO DEAL
NO DEAL! NO DEAL! NO DEAL!
PS: given how stupid you are I will explain simply. Majority of the deficits were due to companies milking the pensions for extra profits to get directors bonuses increased. They took far to many contribution holidays, it was nothing to d owith eth workers or their contributions.
He'd look very weak as a leader if they didn't. This is the moderates calculation that they can force Corbyn to sit on his hands for fear of his leadership looking beyond poor as the party doesn't follow him through the Aye lobby.
I was thinking of what was best for the voters.
You might want to try it.
Boris should take it.
Strategically the trek down People's Vote lane has been a poor one for Labour - better to have advocated a Norwegian Brexit I reckon (Sort of thing Loach hinted at last night) and hence shift the focus to Universal credit, NHS, Housing etc.
Nothing defensive about it , just some people need to be told what reality is. A hard days work would kill most of the whiners.