Apparently the opposition turning down the Tories offer was undemocratic and cowardly. I await those making those claims similarly criticising the Bluekips, but expect there will be some explanation why it is instead now heroic, patriotic and a reflection of the voters mandate to now not have an election.
I can't see the explanation, it seems moronic to me.
Unless the plan is to run down the clock to 31/01 and panic parliament in to voting the treaty through.
But they've sort of given up on passing the treaty since they won't allow more than a handful of days to debate it.
It's possible that divisions are so entrenched now that both sides reflexively oppose anything offered by the other side. No-one wants to be seen to be making a concession, or to be weak.
Not sure anyone Ive voted for has ever won their seat in a GE and I have voted Tory, Labour, LD and Green.......would take no vote no tax. How many of us wouldnt?
If that option were available, I personally wouldn't take it. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the ability of the government to set tax rules in order to disenfranchise certain voters. That's too much power to give a government.
Apparently the opposition turning down the Tories offer was undemocratic and cowardly. I await those making those claims similarly criticising the Bluekips, but expect there will be some explanation why it is instead now heroic, patriotic and a reflection of the voters mandate to now not have an election.
I can't see the explanation, it seems moronic to me.
Unless the plan is to run down the clock to 31/01 and panic parliament in to voting the treaty through.
Not sure anyone Ive voted for has ever won their seat in a GE and I have voted Tory, Labour, LD and Green.......would take no vote no tax. How many of us wouldnt?
If that option were available, I personally wouldn't take it. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the ability of the government to set tax rules in order to disenfranchise certain voters. That's too much power to give a government.
In the UK parliament can do that whenever it likes. Nothing different to now.
The view on here was that they were self destructing by not accepting.....
They've been self-destructing since 2015.
I agree electing and keeping Corbyn is self destructing, thought criticism of not accepting the election on Johnsons terms way over the top. It would have been favourable to the Tories, why should they accept it if they prefer not to.
Unless there is some small print we arent seeing with lib dem / snp offer, whats 3 days difference? I can't see what the tories objection could be.
Losing the time to try and force through the Deal without scrutiny for election grandstanding purposes is the difference.
I don't understand this. Why should they be able to force it through by 7 November? Didn't they decide at the beginning of last week that they couldn't force it through by 31 October?
Not sure anyone Ive voted for has ever won their seat in a GE and I have voted Tory, Labour, LD and Green.......would take no vote no tax. How many of us wouldnt?
If that option were available, I personally wouldn't take it. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the ability of the government to set tax rules in order to disenfranchise certain voters. That's too much power to give a government.
In the UK parliament can do that whenever it likes. Nothing different to now.
Suggestions that Boris wants to give parliament a chance to vote down the WAB before going in to a GE.
Pressure from cabinet members.
The end result will be the same but they need to get the message out quick that they are the only ones fighting for a deal to be passed before an election.
Suggestions that Boris wants to give parliament a chance to vote down the WAB before going in to a GE.
Pressure from cabinet members.
The end result will be the same but they need to get the message out quick that they are the only ones fighting for a deal to be passed before an election.
None of the opposition parties want a post brexit election, why is he so keen to ram it through?
Unless there is some small print we arent seeing with lib dem / snp offer, whats 3 days difference? I can't see what the tories objection could be.
Losing the time to try and force through the Deal without scrutiny for election grandstanding purposes is the difference.
I don't understand this. Why should they be able to force it through by 7 November? Didn't they decide at the beginning of last week that they couldn't force it through by 31 October?
They appear to want to try and fail to force through the Deal again before an election to reinforce the message that Parliament are standing in the way of getting Brexit done.
The absurdity being that if they'd accept a couple more weeks of scrutiny time there's a good chance of passing the Deal before any possible date on which an election could be called.
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
Cutoffs at 5 years old, or 97, would also be arbitrary. That is probably the worst argument of any kind ever advanced since the invention of speech.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot of growing up is done between 16 and 18. At sixteen they haven’t learned caution and will try literally anything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
At risk of sounding like that nutter Justin, the British Empire reached its greatest extent the year after universal manhood suffrage was granted.
Welsh fans, do not be hard on your team, what would you prefer, losing a semi final to South Africa, or losing the final to England?
The players took the best option.
[Right that's enough trolling.]
I think that if Wales had reached the final it would has been the first global team competition final contested between two different nations of the UK.
Suggestions that Boris wants to give parliament a chance to vote down the WAB before going in to a GE.
Pressure from cabinet members.
The end result will be the same but they need to get the message out quick that they are the only ones fighting for a deal to be passed before an election.
What happens if the WAB gets amended with something that splits the Tories?
It is going to be quite hard for Johnson to turn down the Swinson move and then press on with his planned Monday vote. He'll be the one who is being called chicken.
Unless there is some small print we arent seeing with lib dem / snp offer, whats 3 days difference? I can't see what the tories objection could be.
Losing the time to try and force through the Deal without scrutiny for election grandstanding purposes is the difference.
I don't understand this. Why should they be able to force it through by 7 November? Didn't they decide at the beginning of last week that they couldn't force it through by 31 October?
They appear to want to try and fail to force through the Deal again before an election to reinforce the message that Parliament are standing in the way of getting Brexit done.
The absurdity being that if they'd accept a couple more weeks of scrutiny time there's a good chance of passing the Deal before any possible date on which an election could be called.
Thanks. That makes more sense than actually thinking it could be forced through.
And I can see why Johnson would rather have a "Get Brexit Done" election in December, rather than an election four or five months after Brexit has been done, when the focus could be on other issues.
It is going to be quite hard for Johnson to turn down the Swinson move and then press on with his planned Monday vote. He'll be the one who is being called chicken.
Well, I think it's fair enough that he tries to get his own plan through first...
But if/when that fails he'll have to go for the Lib-SNP plan if he doesn't want to become Bottler Boris.
It is going to be quite hard for Johnson to turn down the Swinson move and then press on with his planned Monday vote. He'll be the one who is being called chicken.
Yes. Which is why I think hell agree to it on Tuesday
It is going to be quite hard for Johnson to turn down the Swinson move and then press on with his planned Monday vote. He'll be the one who is being called chicken.
Hardly when he currently has a 15% poll lead. He will say his deal is good for the country and the Lib Dems, SNP will play games to stop Brexit.
Most 16yr olds don't know their arse from their elbow.
We allow people with serious dementia to vote.
The best argument against 16 years old voting is simply the cut off line is arbitrary and 16 is no better or worse than 18, so the status quo should remain.
Cutoffs at 5 years old, or 97, would also be arbitrary. That is probably the worst argument of any kind ever advanced since the invention of speech.
5 or 97 are clearly worse than 16 or 18. 16 is not clearly worse or better than 18.
Speaking as somebody whose job is to work on a daily basis with adolescents, I would flatly disagree. An awful lot nything. At eighteen, they are settling down a bit - although they can still be rather wild they are beginning to learn how to say ‘no.’
Personally, I would have said in my experience 21 would be a better age to grant the vote, as a great deal more growing up is done in those years. But unfortunately Wilson allowed that ship to sail fifty years ago.
It's all rubbish. The franchise should only be available to net contributors to the Exchequer.
No representation without net contribution of taxation.
The country has gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise, we've lost an empire for starters
And the votes of those paying higher rate income tax should count for more
Neville Shute once suggested a multiple voting system based on seven criteria:
1) Basic 2) Education - anyone with a university degree 3) Earning a living abroad for two years 4) Raising two children to the age of 15 without divorcing 5) Earned income of over £5000 a year (this was in 1954) 6) Being an official of a recognised church 7) A vote given at the Sovereign’s discretion.
He declared this would make a nation of Australia while the UK wallowed in the mire of Socialism led by a third-rate union hack from Cardiff.
I like simplicity. Try this:
TAXPAYER FRANCHISE 1) Do you directly pay a government-imposed tax? If yes, get vote. If not, not.
UNIVERSAL FRANCHISE 1) Are you a living adult? If yes, get vote. If not, not.
(all options assume British citizenship)
Taxpayer franchise is incredibly dangerous. Since the government decides who pays tax, the government decides who gets the vote.
No it isn't.
No representation without taxation is a fair principle.
Unless there is some small print we arent seeing with lib dem / snp offer, whats 3 days difference? I can't see what the tories objection could be.
Losing the time to try and force through the Deal without scrutiny for election grandstanding purposes is the difference.
I don't understand this. Why should they be able to force it through by 7 November? Didn't they decide at the beginning of last week that they couldn't force it through by 31 October?
They appear to want to try and fail to force through the Deal again before an election to reinforce the message that Parliament are standing in the way of getting Brexit done.
The absurdity being that if they'd accept a couple more weeks of scrutiny time there's a good chance of passing the Deal before any possible date on which an election could be called.
Thanks. That makes more sense than actually thinking it could be forced through.
And I can see why Johnson would rather have a "Get Brexit Done" election in December, rather than an election four or five months after Brexit has been done, when the focus could be on other issues.
Still, I don't really see why the LDs and the SNP should want to avoid more votes on the WAIB, as they're against Brexit anyway. I'd have thought they would welcome more opportunities to vote against it while Labour votes both ways. Or indeed, an opportunity of voting for an early election on a FTPA 2/3 motion, while Labour abstains.
It is going to be quite hard for Johnson to turn down the Swinson move and then press on with his planned Monday vote. He'll be the one who is being called chicken.
Well, I think it's fair enough that he tries to get his own plan through first...
But if/when that fails he'll have to go for the Lib-SNP plan if he doesn't want to become Bottler Boris.
But her plan just requires a simple majority of those MPs voting - Johnson's route requires 434.
Hammond is being given a free run. The LDs are standing aside
So that was 3,765 votes last time.
Compared to the Tories 31,436
That assumes that all the Tory voters from GE2017 in this strong Remain seat will stick with Johnson's party. Wishful thinking.
No it doesn't, it is just numbers for just the starting point. It assumes nothing and shows the swing required.
If 60% of last time's CON voters backed the Conservatives this time and 40% went for Hammond ... ... and if all LD voters go for Hammond [a strong assumption]
then we would see: Con 18,862 Hammond 16,339
So Hammond needs to pick up more than that to win.
He might receive a few tactical votes from Labour too.
"Boeing Shaped a Law to Its Liking. Weeks Later, a 737 Max Crashed. The government has been handing over more responsibility to manufacturers for years. The new law makes it even harder for regulators to review Boeing’s work."
I thought Jo Swinson did very well on Marr. One of her best interviews .
TBF she has a lower bar than the Limbo dancing World Champion
And why has Marr got 2 Tories on anyway
Why would libdems vote tactically for Labour when their supporters keep calling them Tories?
Probably because the emotional resonance of that "insult" carries more weight for Labour voters than for Lib Dem voters. I've been called a "Tory" by my Labour-voting extended family for voting Lib Dem in the past. Doesn't bother me that they misuse the label.
More relevant why did some if thrm react as if December was unacceptable before thinking about alternatives and making a judgement in the first place?
They'll be queuing at the border if Scotland get's its independance. What a time it would be to be Scottish. They don't need to worry about the nighmare of a Johnson/Cummings government or the looming disaster of years of Brexiting.
Scotland, as a new state, would not be part of the EU.
It wouldn't take long for accession to be realised though. They've already aligned with the acquis communautaire so it should be, to coin a phrase, 'the easiest deal in history'.
But under the treaty defined rules for new accessions they would have to adopt both Schengen and the Euro. So a hard border with England.
It is going to be quite hard for Johnson to turn down the Swinson move and then press on with his planned Monday vote. He'll be the one who is being called chicken.
Well, I think it's fair enough that he tries to get his own plan through first...
But if/when that fails he'll have to go for the Lib-SNP plan if he doesn't want to become Bottler Boris.
But her plan just requires a simple majority of those MPs voting - Johnson's route requires 434.
Yes I know. Boris's plan is doomed (unless Labout has a last minute change of heart) but I think it's fair enough that Boris puts his plan to a vote tomorrow.
If/when it gets voted down he should then go with the Swinson plan maybe on Tuesday?
"Boeing Shaped a Law to Its Liking. Weeks Later, a 737 Max Crashed. The government has been handing over more responsibility to manufacturers for years. The new law makes it even harder for regulators to review Boeing’s work."
FAA are going to be in real trouble over the 737 Max.
They should have been given a wake-up call years ago with the 787 battery problems, but continued to go down the route of allowing Boeing to basically certify their own plane - at a time when the engineers who used to lead projects had mostly been replaced with MBAs and accountants.
A severe case of regulatory capture and lack of oversight.
Sky reporting that when the FTPA falls tomorrow no 10 could potentially look at something like the Lib Dems- SNP proposition.
Looks like everyone,apart from labour,are looking to coalesce around forcing through a December election and the 9th December is a better date than the 12th
It is going to be quite hard for Johnson to turn down the Swinson move and then press on with his planned Monday vote. He'll be the one who is being called chicken.
Well, I think it's fair enough that he tries to get his own plan through first...
But if/when that fails he'll have to go for the Lib-SNP plan if he doesn't want to become Bottler Boris.
But her plan just requires a simple majority of those MPs voting - Johnson's route requires 434.
Aren't we talking about amendments to primary legislation? In which case it needs to go through both houses, and can be amended by either on the way. The beauty of the FTPA vote, is that the 2/3 is for a single HoC vote with nothing else required.
Yes. Which is why I think hell agree to it on Tuesday
ATM the priority for Johnson is not an election it's talk of an election.
The alternative hot topic being why he is not resigning having failed to deliver his supposedly written-in-blood promise to 'get Brexit done' by 31 Oct.
I still think that we might wake up on 1/11 to find out we’ve left, no deal and this is all play acting to distract people from hunting down the Cummins loophole
Welsh fans, do not be hard on your team, what would you prefer, losing a semi final to South Africa, or losing the final to England?
The players took the best option.
[Right that's enough trolling.]
I think that if Wales had reached the final it would has been the first global team competition final contested between two different nations of the UK.
It would not have been an International though because neither team represents a country.
"Boeing Shaped a Law to Its Liking. Weeks Later, a 737 Max Crashed. The government has been handing over more responsibility to manufacturers for years. The new law makes it even harder for regulators to review Boeing’s work."
FAA are going to be in real trouble over the 737 Max.
They should have been given a wake-up call years ago with the 787 battery problems, but continued to go down the route of allowing Boeing to basically certify their own plane - at a time when the engineers who used to lead projects had mostly been replaced with MBAs and accountants.
A severe case of regulatory capture and lack of oversight.
I still think that we might wake up on 1/11 to find out we’ve left, no deal and this is all play acting to distract people from hunting down the Cummins loophole
No chance. The project is not Brexit, it is securing a GE victory for Boris Johnson. Crashing out on WTO terms would not help with that.
It is going to be quite hard for Johnson to turn down the Swinson move and then press on with his planned Monday vote. He'll be the one who is being called chicken.
Well, I think it's fair enough that he tries to get his own plan through first...
But if/when that fails he'll have to go for the Lib-SNP plan if he doesn't want to become Bottler Boris.
But her plan just requires a simple majority of those MPs voting - Johnson's route requires 434.
Yes I know. Boris's plan is doomed (unless Labout has a last minute change of heart) but I think it's fair enough that Boris puts his plan to a vote tomorrow.
If/when it gets voted down he should then go with the Swinson plan maybe on Tuesday?
I think that is the plan Gin. Make no mistake Boris wants an election and it seems so does everyone else other than labour, hammond and a few others
"Boeing Shaped a Law to Its Liking. Weeks Later, a 737 Max Crashed. The government has been handing over more responsibility to manufacturers for years. The new law makes it even harder for regulators to review Boeing’s work."
It is going to be quite hard for Johnson to turn down the Swinson move and then press on with his planned Monday vote. He'll be the one who is being called chicken.
Well, I think it's fair enough that he tries to get his own plan through first...
But if/when that fails he'll have to go for the Lib-SNP plan if he doesn't want to become Bottler Boris.
But her plan just requires a simple majority of those MPs voting - Johnson's route requires 434.
Yes I know. Boris's plan is doomed (unless Labout has a last minute change of heart) but I think it's fair enough that Boris puts his plan to a vote tomorrow.
If/when it gets voted down he should then go with the Swinson plan maybe on Tuesday?
In a sane world, he would wait for the extension before putting the 2/3 motion, and then if that failed he could amend the FTPA (and by that time the "ramming" objection would presumably have evaporated anyway).
But if all this manoeuvring is now aimed at getting parties to vote in ways that can subsequently be used in election propaganda, perhaps he would prefer to fail with the 2/3 motion because of opposition abstentions.
Welsh fans, do not be hard on your team, what would you prefer, losing a semi final to South Africa, or losing the final to England?
The players took the best option.
[Right that's enough trolling.]
I think that if Wales had reached the final it would has been the first global team competition final contested between two different nations of the UK.
It would not have been an International though because neither team represents a country.
Do you think it's helpful to redefine a word like "international" to exclude the way people ordinarily use it?
Welsh fans, do not be hard on your team, what would you prefer, losing a semi final to South Africa, or losing the final to England?
The players took the best option.
[Right that's enough trolling.]
I think that if Wales had reached the final it would has been the first global team competition final contested between two different nations of the UK.
It would not have been an International though because neither team represents a country.
Oh not this again...
I accept that neither team represents a sovereign state. But to suggests that neither England nor Wales are constituent countries of a sovereign state called the United Kingdom is just needlessly inflammatory. Even the archaic habit of styling Wales a “principality” does not preclude it from being a country as well. Generally recognised surviving sovereign principalities are Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Andorra - which are also countries - the distinguishing feature they have that Wales lacks is only in that they are also sovereign states.
ATM the priority for Johnson is not an election it's talk of an election.
The alternative hot topic being why he is not resigning having failed to deliver his supposedly written-in-blood promise to 'get Brexit done' by 31 Oct.
Honestly I think things are moving so fast that the 'die in the ditch' promise is already gone and forgotten.
It seems what has happened is there has been concerted pressure from within the government to at least be seen to give the deal a go.
Far better to go in to the inevitable GE looking the more reasonable side battling against the forces of anti-democracy*.
*Hyperbole of course but no doubt a flavour of what a People vs Parliament election will look like.
"Boeing Shaped a Law to Its Liking. Weeks Later, a 737 Max Crashed. The government has been handing over more responsibility to manufacturers for years. The new law makes it even harder for regulators to review Boeing’s work."
FAA are going to be in real trouble over the 737 Max.
They should have been given a wake-up call years ago with the 787 battery problems, but continued to go down the route of allowing Boeing to basically certify their own plane - at a time when the engineers who used to lead projects had mostly been replaced with MBAs and accountants.
A severe case of regulatory capture and lack of oversight.
The small-government agenda kills.
Yes, Obama's famous small-government agenda under which the 737 Max was certified.
Regulatory capture happens with all sorts of governmental systems, where regulators get too close to those they regulate.
The role of a regulator is to ask the right questions, not assume anything and not drown the industry in meaningless box-ticking exercises while missing the big problems. The FAA have clearly failed in this case.
Do you have the sense that blame would fall on Johnson?
If the opposition were looking for an election AHEAD of a vote on the WAB (LD's+SNP) then it will be difficult to claim an attempt to get the treaty agreed with the EU through parliament is in someway blocking our exit.
Everybody is aware an election favours the Tories so for them to sacrifice that advantage to try and get the treaty agreed is a selfless act in a parliament dominated by an opposition whose sole purpose has been to work against the will of the people since 2016.
Honestly I think things are moving so fast that the 'die in the ditch' promise is already gone and forgotten.
It seems what has happened is there has been concerted pressure from within the government to at least be seen to give the deal a go.
Far better to go in to the inevitable GE looking the more reasonable side battling against the forces of anti-democracy*.
*Hyperbole of course but no doubt a flavour of what a People vs Parliament election will look like.
Not forgotten but rather not being dwelt upon.
However, if this drags on into 2020, the question, "Hang on, this guy swore on his mother's grave that we would be out on 31 Oct LAST YEAR, that we could bank on it and bank on HIM" - this question will start to occur to more than a handful of people.
"Boeing Shaped a Law to Its Liking. Weeks Later, a 737 Max Crashed. The government has been handing over more responsibility to manufacturers for years. The new law makes it even harder for regulators to review Boeing’s work."
FAA are going to be in real trouble over the 737 Max.
They should have been given a wake-up call years ago with the 787 battery problems, but continued to go down the route of allowing Boeing to basically certify their own plane - at a time when the engineers who used to lead projects had mostly been replaced with MBAs and accountants.
A severe case of regulatory capture and lack of oversight.
I suspect the Europeans, CAA,Chinese and Australians will be doing the FAA’s job.
Welsh fans, do not be hard on your team, what would you prefer, losing a semi final to South Africa, or losing the final to England?
The players took the best option.
[Right that's enough trolling.]
I think that if Wales had reached the final it would has been the first global team competition final contested between two different nations of the UK.
It would not have been an International though because neither team represents a country.
Oh not this again...
I accept that neither team represents a sovereign state. But to suggests that neither England nor Wales are constituent countries of a sovereign state called the United Kingdom is just needlessly inflammatory. Even the archaic habit of styling Wales a “principality” does not preclude it from being a country as well. Generally recognised surviving sovereign principalities are Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Andorra - which are also countries - the distinguishing feature they have that Wales lacks is only in that they are also sovereign states.
It seems reasonably accurate to describe Wales as a Principality of the Kingdom of Great Britain (and before that of England). Not that it makes the blind bit of difference (except to explain why it isn't featured on the Union flag).
Welsh fans, do not be hard on your team, what would you prefer, losing a semi final to South Africa, or losing the final to England?
The players took the best option.
[Right that's enough trolling.]
I think that if Wales had reached the final it would has been the first global team competition final contested between two different nations of the UK.
It would not have been an International though because neither team represents a country.
Oh not this again...
I accept that neither team represents a sovereign state. But to suggests that neither England nor Wales are constituent countries of a sovereign state called the United Kingdom is just needlessly inflammatory. Even the archaic habit of styling Wales a “principality” does not preclude it from being a country as well. Generally recognised surviving sovereign principalities are Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Andorra - which are also countries - the distinguishing feature they have that Wales lacks is only in that they are also sovereign states.
In which case to be consistent there should be no South Africa team - rather separate teams from Transval - Orange Free State - Natal - Eastern Cape etc.
Do you have the sense that blame would fall on Johnson?
If the opposition were looking for an election AHEAD of a vote on the WAB (LD's+SNP) then it will be difficult to claim an attempt to get the treaty agreed with the EU through parliament is in someway blocking our exit.
Everybody is aware an election favours the Tories so for them to sacrifice that advantage to try and get the treaty agreed is a selfless act in a parliament dominated by an opposition whose sole purpose has been to work against the will of the people since 2016.
People vs Parliament.
I think what leavers forget in their analyis is its not whether most leavers will blame Johnson. Of course they wont, most are and will continue to be sympathetic to the people vs parliament meme.
The question is can Farage use the die or ditch to squeeze the Tory vote by 3% or more, which would make a huge difference to the make up of seats in the HoC. That seems perfectly plausible, especially given a lot of the Tory vote is now people who have rarely actually voted for them in the past.
Re the torturous route to a December election, tuesday will be decision time as long as the EU confirm the 31st January extension by then
Boris says he will bring the FTPA before the HOC everyday so on tuesday the mps can vote for the election or the amendment
Let us see, but it is a commentary on how broken this HOC is and it needs to go now
I simply believe a GE has to happen immediately to receive a new mandate and I am not concerned about the outcome.
The HoC isn't broken, except perhaps for the high number of Francois/Bridgen/Paterson/Fysh/Wiggin types in it. The constitution is bust.
We need PR, a written constitution and further checks and balances, e.g. to stop a PM holding a referendum except on detailed treaty changes approved by parliament. All six learned figures on The Briefing Room/R4 which was a cross-party debate agreed this point.
Which countries struggle on with an unwritten constitution? Apparently N.Zealand and Israel. Both are however ~10x smaller in population than UK which helps with governance.
Both use PR. NZ brought in PR after the Muldoon era; it feared that a PM could, ahem, 'go rogue'.
I was as disgusted by Thatcher's majority in 1983 and Blair's in 1997/2001/2005 as I'll be if the Johnson gets a majority of 50 on 33% of the vote. None of these reflected the will of the people which has always been far more nuanced and less tribal.
For the avoidance of doubt, bugger the 2016 referendum. It's invalid except to partisan idiots for the above reason and because of the fraud.
Well Corbyn is a leaver and pretty stubborn so wouldnt take much notice of himself if he admitted he was wrong.
I'm not an habitual Corbyn basher, but here's where his weakness as a communicator is an impediment. As someone with way better leave credentials than Boris - or indeed many of the current crop of fair weather Brexiters - he could really put forward a great case for why he finally came around to supporting EU membership. I just don't think he has the skill to do so though. And it wouldn't work if it wasn't authentically in his voice.
Welsh fans, do not be hard on your team, what would you prefer, losing a semi final to South Africa, or losing the final to England?
The players took the best option.
[Right that's enough trolling.]
I think that if Wales had reached the final it would has been the first global team competition final contested between two different nations of the UK.
It would not have been an International though because neither team represents a country.
One of my favourite pub quiz questions: "Which country enters four teams in the football World Cup?" Amazing how many people dont get it.
(Another is "Which country has changed its national flag 27 times?")
If Boris doesn't go with the Lib-Dem/SNP plan if/when his 12th December election plan is defeated tomorrow we could see a Gordon Brown moment.
Bottler Boris? Surely not!
It won't be because they've bottled it.
There will be a calculation that there is a better outcome to be had by not supporting the LD/SNP plan.
I'm not clever enough to work out what it is though.
Every party is trying to game the GE date for their own political advantage.
What really hacks me off is that Tories constantly equate what they want to do as in the "national interest" whereas everyone else is a coward. I think that one has just been blown right out of the water.
Welsh fans, do not be hard on your team, what would you prefer, losing a semi final to South Africa, or losing the final to England?
The players took the best option.
[Right that's enough trolling.]
I think that if Wales had reached the final it would has been the first global team competition final contested between two different nations of the UK.
It would not have been an International though because neither team represents a country.
Oh not this again...
I accept that neither team represents a sovereign state. But to suggests that neither England nor Wales are constituent countries of a sovereign state called the United Kingdom is just needlessly inflammatory. Even the archaic habit of styling Wales a “principality” does not preclude it from being a country as well. Generally recognised surviving sovereign principalities are Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Andorra - which are also countries - the distinguishing feature they have that Wales lacks is only in that they are also sovereign states.
In which case to be consistent there should be no South Africa team - rather separate teams from Transval - Orange Free State - Natal - Eastern Cape etc.
The representation of teams is decided on the basis of the membership of constituent Unions. There's no particular reason that it has to be consistent.
As well as having multiple teams from the UK, the Irish team is organised on an all-island basis, crossing the international boundary.
The rules are set by World Rugby not the United Nations.
"Boeing Shaped a Law to Its Liking. Weeks Later, a 737 Max Crashed. The government has been handing over more responsibility to manufacturers for years. The new law makes it even harder for regulators to review Boeing’s work."
FAA are going to be in real trouble over the 737 Max.
They should have been given a wake-up call years ago with the 787 battery problems, but continued to go down the route of allowing Boeing to basically certify their own plane - at a time when the engineers who used to lead projects had mostly been replaced with MBAs and accountants.
A severe case of regulatory capture and lack of oversight.
I suspect the Europeans, CAA,Chinese and Australians will be doing the FAA’s job.
Yes. Usually authorities worldwide trust each other's certifications, but the FAA have lost credibility now. There will be an international re-certification committee for the 737 Max, working independently of the FAA.
Welsh fans, do not be hard on your team, what would you prefer, losing a semi final to South Africa, or losing the final to England?
The players took the best option.
[Right that's enough trolling.]
I think that if Wales had reached the final it would has been the first global team competition final contested between two different nations of the UK.
It would not have been an International though because neither team represents a country.
Oh not this again...
I accept that neither team represents a sovereign state. But to suggests that neither England nor Wales are constituent countries of a sovereign state called the United Kingdom is just needlessly inflammatory. Even the archaic habit of styling Wales a “principality” does not preclude it from being a country as well. Generally recognised surviving sovereign principalities are Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Andorra - which are also countries - the distinguishing feature they have that Wales lacks is only in that they are also sovereign states.
In which case to be consistent there should be no South Africa team - rather separate teams from Transval - Orange Free State - Natal - Eastern Cape etc.
The representation of teams is decided on the basis of the membership of constituent Unions. There's no particular reason that it has to be consistent.
As well as having multiple teams from the UK, the Irish team is organised on an all-island basis, crossing the international boundary.
The rules are set by World Rugby not the United Nations.
It is almost as if the world is made up of different systems and not everyone following one set of rules. Imagine!
Do you have the sense that blame would fall on Johnson?
If the opposition were looking for an election AHEAD of a vote on the WAB (LD's+SNP) then it will be difficult to claim an attempt to get the treaty agreed with the EU through parliament is in someway blocking our exit.
Everybody is aware an election favours the Tories so for them to sacrifice that advantage to try and get the treaty agreed is a selfless act in a parliament dominated by an opposition whose sole purpose has been to work against the will of the people since 2016.
People vs Parliament.
I think what leavers forget in their analyis is its not whether most leavers will blame Johnson. Of course they wont, most are and will continue to be sympathetic to the people vs parliament meme.
The question is can Farage use the die or ditch to squeeze the Tory vote by 3% or more, which would make a huge difference to the make up of seats in the HoC. That seems perfectly plausible, especially given a lot of the Tory vote is now people who have rarely actually voted for them in the past.
Precisely. Even 3%, in the wrong places, will cost the government dearly.
And there's no reason to do it other than to cost the Tories, who at this point are the only ones who will seek to Brexit, so it would be self defeating, but Farage does not care, and how many will he take with him?
Welsh fans, do not be hard on your team, what would you prefer, losing a semi final to South Africa, or losing the final to England?
The players took the best option.
[Right that's enough trolling.]
I think that if Wales had reached the final it would has been the first global team competition final contested between two different nations of the UK.
It would not have been an International though because neither team represents a country.
Oh not this again...
I accept that neither team represents a sovereign state. But to suggests that neither England nor Wales are constituent countries of a sovereign state called the United Kingdom is just needlessly inflammatory. Even the archaic habit of styling Wales a “principality” does not preclude it from being a country as well. Generally recognised surviving sovereign principalities are Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Andorra - which are also countries - the distinguishing feature they have that Wales lacks is only in that they are also sovereign states.
In which case to be consistent there should be no South Africa team - rather separate teams from Transval - Orange Free State - Natal - Eastern Cape etc.
Welsh fans, do not be hard on your team, what would you prefer, losing a semi final to South Africa, or losing the final to England?
The players took the best option.
[Right that's enough trolling.]
I think that if Wales had reached the final it would has been the first global team competition final contested between two different nations of the UK.
It would not have been an International though because neither team represents a country.
Oh not this again...
I accept that neither team represents a sovereign state. But to suggests that neither England nor Wales are constituent countries of a sovereign state called the United Kingdom is just needlessly inflammatory. Even the archaic habit of styling Wales a “principality” does not preclude it from being a country as well. Generally recognised surviving sovereign principalities are Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Andorra - which are also countries - the distinguishing feature they have that Wales lacks is only in that they are also sovereign states.
It seems reasonably accurate to describe Wales as a Principality of the Kingdom of Great Britain (and before that of England). Not that it makes the blind bit of difference (except to explain why it isn't featured on the Union flag).
You know it's called that because it's sponsored by a company called "Principality", yes? And that said company was founded in 1860 -- older even than the modern Eisteddfod! Yes, "archaic" is probably close to the truth.
I thought Jo Swinson did very well on Marr. One of her best interviews .
TBF she has a lower bar than the Limbo dancing World Champion
And why has Marr got 2 Tories on anyway
Why would libdems vote tactically for Labour when their supporters keep calling them Tories?
Because it will be in their own interests in many areas, if they care about stopping Brexit. It might be through gritted teeth, and the accusation they are mini Tories or the assumption it is their job to prop up Labour rather than their own party, will no doubt rankle them. But while there's no shame in having candidates in Lab/Tory marginals, in case something incredible happens, their voters will have to make a choice knowing Brexit will be stopped if they vote for Labour in those seats. Not all will be tactical. But lots will, never mind the lack of formal cooperation.
Comments
There will be a calculation that there is a better outcome to be had by not supporting the LD/SNP plan.
I'm not clever enough to work out what it is though.
It's possible that divisions are so entrenched now that both sides reflexively oppose anything offered by the other side. No-one wants to be seen to be making a concession, or to be weak.
But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the ability of the government to set tax rules in order to disenfranchise certain voters. That's too much power to give a government.
https://order-order.com/2019/10/27/marr-skewers-abbotts-election-hypocrisy-words/
Everyone throughout the Country will be now backing England next week
(Duck)
England have been to four, I think Wales should focus on association football.
https://order-order.com/2019/10/27/chuka-concedes-defeat-parliament-will-not-allow-peoples-vote/
Pressure from cabinet members.
The end result will be the same but they need to get the message out quick that they are the only ones fighting for a deal to be passed before an election.
Perhaps they will wrong-foot people by falling back to that plan if they lose the vote on Monday.
Otherwise one is forced to conclude that they don't really want an election soon. But that seems weird and to contradict all their previous actions.
Boris says he will bring the FTPA before the HOC everyday so on tuesday the mps can vote for the election or the amendment
Let us see, but it is a commentary on how broken this HOC is and it needs to go now
I simply believe a GE has to happen immediately to receive a new mandate and I am not concerned about the outcome.
The absurdity being that if they'd accept a couple more weeks of scrutiny time there's a good chance of passing the Deal before any possible date on which an election could be called.
The players took the best option.
[Right that's enough trolling.]
And I can see why Johnson would rather have a "Get Brexit Done" election in December, rather than an election four or five months after Brexit has been done, when the focus could be on other issues.
But if/when that fails he'll have to go for the Lib-SNP plan if he doesn't want to become Bottler Boris.
He will say his deal is good for the country and the Lib Dems, SNP will play games to stop Brexit.
Say what you like about her and Boris, it's good to finally have some decent players at the table.
O/T
"Boeing Shaped a Law to Its Liking. Weeks Later, a 737 Max Crashed.
The government has been handing over more responsibility to manufacturers for years. The new law makes it even harder for regulators to review Boeing’s work."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/27/business/boeing-737-max-crashes.html
Mist in the Cheviots, England cut off.
If/when it gets voted down he should then go with the Swinson plan maybe on Tuesday?
https://twitter.com/bengoldacre/status/1188413560478720000?s=21
They should have been given a wake-up call years ago with the 787 battery problems, but continued to go down the route of allowing Boeing to basically certify their own plane - at a time when the engineers who used to lead projects had mostly been replaced with MBAs and accountants.
A severe case of regulatory capture and lack of oversight.
Looks like everyone,apart from labour,are looking to coalesce around forcing through a December election and the 9th December is a better date than the 12th
The alternative hot topic being why he is not resigning having failed to deliver his supposedly written-in-blood promise to 'get Brexit done' by 31 Oct.
Makes the Tories look like they have bent over backwards to implement the referendum result only to be thwarted at every turn by opposition MPs.
Nullifies a couple of attack lines that will come up during the campaign.
But if all this manoeuvring is now aimed at getting parties to vote in ways that can subsequently be used in election propaganda, perhaps he would prefer to fail with the 2/3 motion because of opposition abstentions.
I accept that neither team represents a sovereign state. But to suggests that neither England nor Wales are constituent countries of a sovereign state called the United Kingdom is just needlessly inflammatory. Even the archaic habit of styling Wales a “principality” does not preclude it from being a country as well. Generally recognised surviving sovereign principalities are Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Andorra - which are also countries - the distinguishing feature they have that Wales lacks is only in that they are also sovereign states.
It seems what has happened is there has been concerted pressure from within the government to at least be seen to give the deal a go.
Far better to go in to the inevitable GE looking the more reasonable side battling against the forces of anti-democracy*.
*Hyperbole of course but no doubt a flavour of what a People vs Parliament election will look like.
1. Straight after passing his Deal.
2. With his Deal being frustrated by the opposition.
In either case he wins but he needs the poll soon.
If the impasse drags into next year - and especially well into next year - the optics will change and not necessarily to his advantage.
Regulatory capture happens with all sorts of governmental systems, where regulators get too close to those they regulate.
The role of a regulator is to ask the right questions, not assume anything and not drown the industry in meaningless box-ticking exercises while missing the big problems. The FAA have clearly failed in this case.
If the opposition were looking for an election AHEAD of a vote on the WAB (LD's+SNP) then it will be difficult to claim an attempt to get the treaty agreed with the EU through parliament is in someway blocking our exit.
Everybody is aware an election favours the Tories so for them to sacrifice that advantage to try and get the treaty agreed is a selfless act in a parliament dominated by an opposition whose sole purpose has been to work against the will of the people since 2016.
People vs Parliament.
However, if this drags on into 2020, the question, "Hang on, this guy swore on his mother's grave that we would be out on 31 Oct LAST YEAR, that we could bank on it and bank on HIM" - this question will start to occur to more than a handful of people.
https://www.principalitystadium.wales/
It seems reasonably accurate to describe Wales as a Principality of the Kingdom of Great Britain (and before that of England). Not that it makes the blind bit of difference (except to explain why it isn't featured on the Union flag).
The question is can Farage use the die or ditch to squeeze the Tory vote by 3% or more, which would make a huge difference to the make up of seats in the HoC. That seems perfectly plausible, especially given a lot of the Tory vote is now people who have rarely actually voted for them in the past.
We need PR, a written constitution and further checks and balances, e.g. to stop a PM holding a referendum except on detailed treaty changes approved by parliament. All six learned figures on The Briefing Room/R4 which was a cross-party debate agreed this point.
Which countries struggle on with an unwritten constitution? Apparently N.Zealand and Israel. Both are however ~10x smaller in population than UK which helps with governance.
Both use PR. NZ brought in PR after the Muldoon era; it feared that a PM could, ahem, 'go rogue'.
I was as disgusted by Thatcher's majority in 1983 and Blair's in 1997/2001/2005 as I'll be if the Johnson gets a majority of 50 on 33% of the vote. None of these reflected the will of the people which has always been far more nuanced and less tribal.
For the avoidance of doubt, bugger the 2016 referendum. It's invalid except to partisan idiots for the above reason and because of the fraud.
Unlike Cummings not to have an agreed line on 'FTPA first, SNP/LD option as back-up'.
It's 1145...sloppy Dom, sloppy.
(Another is "Which country has changed its national flag 27 times?")
What really hacks me off is that Tories constantly equate what they want to do as in the "national interest" whereas everyone else is a coward. I think that one has just been blown right out of the water.
As well as having multiple teams from the UK, the Irish team is organised on an all-island basis, crossing the international boundary.
The rules are set by World Rugby not the United Nations.
And there's no reason to do it other than to cost the Tories, who at this point are the only ones who will seek to Brexit, so it would be self defeating, but Farage does not care, and how many will he take with him?
And that said company was founded in 1860 -- older even than the modern Eisteddfod! Yes, "archaic" is probably close to the truth.
She is clearly ill-equipped for high public office though.