Keir Starmer in favour of Proportional Representation by the Single Transferable Vote? “So many people vote and it doesn’t count, and we can’t go on like that - because progressive politics requires people’s votes to actually count. So I would want to look at this. The only caveat I’ve got is that I also genuinely believe that you need a representative in each area who is there to represent the people in that area and to act on their behalf."
That’s encouraging. Hopefully one day we will be free of the dead hand of FPTP
Forgot to mention... one of the few decisions that Sub Lt (Acting) Mordaunt took during her brief and inglorious time in office was to change the commitment on Type 31 frigates from "in service" in 2023 to "in the water". This moves the whole frigate replacement project 18-24 months to the right and makes the T23 LIFEX fiasco much more serious than it would otherwise have been.
There's fewer people going on holiday in the passed few years.
Flybe will be the 4th British airline that Brexit has destroyed after Monarch, Cello and Thomas Cook.
Edit: 5th. Forgot BMI.
Try not so write ignorant shit all your life.
Try to rebut the point.
There is no point, it just putting airline failure and Brexit in the same sentence and assuming a direct causal link.
Management of ailing business;
1) Blame failing business model for which you are responsible, or
2) Blame external factor for which you are not responsible (but has somehow, mysteriously not driven your rivals to the wall..)
Many of FlyBe’s rivals *have* been driven to the wall by the same factor
Which?
Monarch was a Charter Airline that tried to transition to a LoCo but failed. Thomas Cook business model was built on selling holidays in the High Street. The Internet says "hello". Cello Aviation was a 2 (old) plane charter operation. BMI died in 2012. None of these were direct FlyBe competitors.
FlyBe's problems:
35 jet Embraer order IT systems problems Loganair RyanAir/EasyJet muscling in on popular routes it establishes. £ depreciation (Brexit related - but faced by all its competitors)
Keir Starmer in favour of Proportional Representation by the Single Transferable Vote? “So many people vote and it doesn’t count, and we can’t go on like that - because progressive politics requires people’s votes to actually count. So I would want to look at this. The only caveat I’ve got is that I also genuinely believe that you need a representative in each area who is there to represent the people in that area and to act on their behalf."
That’s encouraging. Hopefully one day we will be free of the dead hand of FPTP
The seductive lure of a majority stuffs it from ever being delivered though.
Ask Tony Blair and his 177 seat majority. Maybe if he'd had a majority of 7 instead, after 18 years of Tory rule, things would have been different.
These two aircraft carriers were a Gordin Brown lunacy. Planes cannot land on them. There are not enogh sailors and so on and so forth. I was never more delighted when the idiot was booted out.
10 years of Conservative hegemony and still blaming Gordon Brown? According to Wikipedia, the contract for the new carriers was announced on 25 July 2007, when Brown had been prime minister for less than a month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
These two aircraft carriers were a Gordin Brown lunacy. Planes cannot land on them. There are not enogh sailors and so on and so forth. I was never more delighted when the idiot was booted out.
10 years of Conservative hegemony and still blaming Gordon Brown? According to Wikipedia, the contract for the new carriers was announced on 25 July 2007, when Brown had been prime minister for less than a month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
Gordon Brown was in the Treasury before then - he could have stopped them if he wanted to.
I'm not sure even in the days of Blair's sofa government that the Chancellor was running the MoD. But if he was, presumably he'd have been aware the Royal Navy had two other carriers in service (or it did until the Conservatives scrapped them both).
These two aircraft carriers were a Gordin Brown lunacy. Planes cannot land on them. There are not enogh sailors and so on and so forth. I was never more delighted when the idiot was booted out.
10 years of Conservative hegemony and still blaming Gordon Brown? According to Wikipedia, the contract for the new carriers was announced on 25 July 2007, when Brown had been prime minister for less than a month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
Gordon Brown was in the Treasury before then - he could have stopped them if he wanted to.
I'm not sure even in the days of Blair's sofa government that the Chancellor was running the MoD. But if he was, presumably he'd have been aware the Royal Navy had two other carriers in service (or it did until the Conservatives scrapped them both).
The carrier project appeared to be a Scottish-job creation exercise at heart so I’d be startled if Mr Brown took a hands off role.
How did the Democrats get themselves lumbered with so many elderly candidates? A lack of successful Governors? It's almost as bad a gerontocracy as Men's Tennis.
To be fair you have to go back to 1992 to find a Democratic or Republican candidate nominated to take on an incumbent President who was under 60, younger candidates tend to wait until the incumbent President cannot run again
That's an interesting observation. But remember it's a pretty small dataset. There have only been three times since 1992 that an incumbent has been up for reelection: 1996, 2004, 2012.
Bob Dole was ancient, while Romney and Kerry were only just the wrong side of 60. Given both nominees last time around were also North of 60, it's not clear there is any real pattern here.
Bill Clinton is the only candidate under 50 to have taken on an incumbent President in the last 50 years, I think a trend is there
The problem, I suspect, is that 80+% of presidential candidates in the last 50 years have been above 60, so it's hard to know if it's a real trend or just noise.
Obama and Bill Clinton were under 50 when they won their party's nominations (as were JFK and FDR going back before that), Nixon, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Bush W and Gore were in their 50s when nominated. Only 3 of them took on an incumbent President, Clinton, Carter and Mondale and only 1 of them an incumbent President after only 1 term of his party in the White House, Mondale and he was the previous VP and an experienced party statesman.
OK...
So, the average age of a Presidential nominee in the last fifty years is 60.
The average age of a Presidential candidate facing an incumbent is... 60.
There is no evidence that facing an incumbent leads to (on average) older nominees.
Since 1996 there certainly is, all those candidates were over 60, so my original proposition going back to 1992 stands absolutely 100% correct.
If you exclude candidates who faced presidents after 8 or more years of their party in the White House, e.g. Clinton, that proposition also holds going backing over the last 50 years
These two aircraft carriers were a Gordin Brown lunacy. Planes cannot land on them. There are not enogh sailors and so on and so forth. I was never more delighted when the idiot was booted out.
10 years of Conservative hegemony and still blaming Gordon Brown? According to Wikipedia, the contract for the new carriers was announced on 25 July 2007, when Brown had been prime minister for less than a month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
5 years of that "hegemony" were Coalition.
Oi, LibDems, why didn't you stop it?
Because , as you well know, by then the contract would have cost more to cancel than to go ahead.
Fair enough. Consider the statement modified to include "...and all people trained adequately and quicker..." and "...all equipment upgraded to the latest variant..." and "...all availability rates to be 80% or over..." and "...all activities to be frequently rehearsed via exercises..." and so on. But I didn't want to swamp the OP.
If defence policy were about providing defence capability, rather than salving national vanity or job creation exercises, then there is one immediate action that the MoD could take to improve the situation. They should accept that Carrier Strike, like the Trident boats, is not a sovereign capability, close down 207 Squadron and move all F-35B type conversion to VMFAT-501 with the USMC. This would free up 8-14 jets and the most experienced pilots for actual operations. It would be expensive but frankly you get what you pay for.
The tories don't have the emotional robustness to defend such a move from the Mail Online comments section so it's not going to happen.
There was this interesting case for selling the carriers yesterday, so the money could go to the Army. I am not convinced, but interested in your thoughts.
Just re-Reading @AlastairMeeks ’ 2019 predictions article from this time last year - wrong on the 2nd referendum and 19 days out on there not being a 2019 GE - but otherwise pretty much spot on. Well done sir.
Effectively zero change from the general election, bar Labour a bit down, shows what a waste of time post general election voting intention polling is unless it is a hypothetical poll comparing leadership candidates
Labour VI holding up a little better than I expected. Fwiw BMG was consistently about 3 points under on the Conservatives and 3 over on the LDs at the GE.
There's fewer people going on holiday in the passed few years.
Flybe will be the 4th British airline that Brexit has destroyed after Monarch, Cello and Thomas Cook.
Edit: 5th. Forgot BMI.
Try not so write ignorant shit all your life.
Try to rebut the point.
There is no point, it just putting airline failure and Brexit in the same sentence and assuming a direct causal link.
Management of ailing business;
1) Blame failing business model for which you are responsible, or
2) Blame external factor for which you are not responsible (but has somehow, mysteriously not driven your rivals to the wall..)
Flybe had a raft of issues, only one or maybe two were Brexit related. Was Brexit the straw that broke the camel's back or was it going to fail anyway?
We will see a lot of this. Brexit doesn't bring any business benefits (that would be a ridiculous claim), but its many downsides will affect businesses differently and to different extents.
I must be one of the few people who’s in favour of the carriers.
They’re crucial to global power projection and in opening up strategic options for the UK, particularly for unknown unknown threats.
Given it takes about 15 years from drawing board to commissioned in-service flight wings, you can’t just magic them up again when you need them either.
Keir Starmer in favour of Proportional Representation by the Single Transferable Vote? “So many people vote and it doesn’t count, and we can’t go on like that - because progressive politics requires people’s votes to actually count. So I would want to look at this. The only caveat I’ve got is that I also genuinely believe that you need a representative in each area who is there to represent the people in that area and to act on their behalf."
About time someone was. Our electoral system stinks and needs to be changed
I must be one of the few people who’s in favour of the carriers.
They’re crucial to global power projection and in opening up strategic options for the UK, particularly for unknown unknown threats.
Given it takes about 15 years from drawing board to commissioned in-service flight wings, you can’t just magic them up again when you need them either.
You can only project it as part of a carrier group which includes plenty of air and sea defence. Two carriers alone will do very little and the issue is they have sucked the air out of the room for everything else.
Keir Starmer in favour of Proportional Representation by the Single Transferable Vote? “So many people vote and it doesn’t count, and we can’t go on like that - because progressive politics requires people’s votes to actually count. So I would want to look at this. The only caveat I’ve got is that I also genuinely believe that you need a representative in each area who is there to represent the people in that area and to act on their behalf."
About time someone was. Our electoral system stinks and needs to be changed
Note his get out at the end if his party gets a majority.
I must be one of the few people who’s in favour of the carriers.
They’re crucial to global power projection and in opening up strategic options for the UK, particularly for unknown unknown threats.
Given it takes about 15 years from drawing board to commissioned in-service flight wings, you can’t just magic them up again when you need them either.
You can only project it as part of a carrier group which includes plenty of air and sea defence. Two carriers alone will do very little and the issue is they have sucked the air out of the room for everything else.
Funny how no one can agree what the everything else should be though.
These two aircraft carriers were a Gordin Brown lunacy. Planes cannot land on them. There are not enogh sailors and so on and so forth. I was never more delighted when the idiot was booted out.
10 years of Conservative hegemony and still blaming Gordon Brown? According to Wikipedia, the contract for the new carriers was announced on 25 July 2007, when Brown had been prime minister for less than a month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
Gordon Brown was in the Treasury before then - he could have stopped them if he wanted to.
I'm not sure even in the days of Blair's sofa government that the Chancellor was running the MoD. But if he was, presumably he'd have been aware the Royal Navy had two other carriers in service (or it did until the Conservatives scrapped them both).
The carrier project appeared to be a Scottish-job creation exercise at heart so I’d be startled if Mr Brown took a hands off role.
Yes building all the parts in England before welding them together in Scotland was real job creation for Scotland , you half witted cretinous moron.
Just re-Reading @AlastairMeeks ’ 2019 predictions article from this time last year - wrong on the 2nd referendum and 19 days out on there not being a 2019 GE - but otherwise pretty much spot on. Well done sir.
1) Whatever happens, Brexit is going to be disfiguring public debate at the end of next yearTwo Party Politics re-established (bar Scotland) and UKIP a busted flush. Brexit bill passed with barely a murmur. We've seen off the extremes many European countries are still grappling with. Megexit dominating the papers. I'd put that down as "no" - more "business as usual" than "disfigured".
2) Britain will not leave the EU on 29 March 2019 Yes.
3) There will be a fresh referendum No.
4) If there is a fresh referendum, it will be close No. See 3.
5) There won’t be a general election in 2019 No.
6) Neither of the current main party leaders will be in their current role in a year’s time No. One still is.
7) British politics will look very different this time next year Yes. Tory government with 80 seat majority. Although I'm not sure that's what Mr Meeks (or anyone) anticipated.
These two aircraft carriers were a Gordin Brown lunacy. Planes cannot land on them. There are not enogh sailors and so on and so forth. I was never more delighted when the idiot was booted out.
10 years of Conservative hegemony and still blaming Gordon Brown? According to Wikipedia, the contract for the new carriers was announced on 25 July 2007, when Brown had been prime minister for less than a month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
Gordon Brown was in the Treasury before then - he could have stopped them if he wanted to.
I'm not sure even in the days of Blair's sofa government that the Chancellor was running the MoD. But if he was, presumably he'd have been aware the Royal Navy had two other carriers in service (or it did until the Conservatives scrapped them both).
The carrier project appeared to be a Scottish-job creation exercise at heart so I’d be startled if Mr Brown took a hands off role.
Even if you are right, that would only be a question of where the carriers were built, not whether. The original plans to build new carriers date back to the Major government.
Keir Starmer in favour of Proportional Representation by the Single Transferable Vote? “So many people vote and it doesn’t count, and we can’t go on like that - because progressive politics requires people’s votes to actually count. So I would want to look at this. The only caveat I’ve got is that I also genuinely believe that you need a representative in each area who is there to represent the people in that area and to act on their behalf."
About time someone was. Our electoral system stinks and needs to be changed
Note his get out at the end if his party gets a majority.
It is also worth reflecting that the harsh Brexit that now lies ahead is the result of monumental political misjudgments — by Theresa May, the former prime minister, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Tory rebels and the second referendum campaign. The European Council, too, is partly to blame. EU leaders could have helped secured a softer Brexit if they had refused to participate in the charade of Brexit extensions.
I must be one of the few people who’s in favour of the carriers.
They’re crucial to global power projection and in opening up strategic options for the UK, particularly for unknown unknown threats.
Given it takes about 15 years from drawing board to commissioned in-service flight wings, you can’t just magic them up again when you need them either.
We should have either:
Done 3 or 4 of the world's best helicopter carriers (something like the JSDF Hyugas) with Seahawk Romeos and upgunned the T45s for littoral strike.
or
Stuck at it with an Anglo-French 3 carrier fleet. Now we've got a 50% capable air wing that will (notionally thought probably not really) be available 100% of the time. The French have a 100% capable air wing that's available 50% of the time.
I must be one of the few people who’s in favour of the carriers.
They’re crucial to global power projection and in opening up strategic options for the UK, particularly for unknown unknown threats.
Given it takes about 15 years from drawing board to commissioned in-service flight wings, you can’t just magic them up again when you need them either.
You can only project it as part of a carrier group which includes plenty of air and sea defence. Two carriers alone will do very little and the issue is they have sucked the air out of the room for everything else.
The issue is the military has been denied of funds wholesale. That’s why everything is being funded on a shoestring.
A carrier battle group escorted by a frigate/sub/destroyer/RFA support is sufficient against all but the most powerful enemies, when we’d be in a broader coalition anyway.
These two aircraft carriers were a Gordin Brown lunacy. Planes cannot land on them. There are not enogh sailors and so on and so forth. I was never more delighted when the idiot was booted out.
10 years of Conservative hegemony and still blaming Gordon Brown? According to Wikipedia, the contract for the new carriers was announced on 25 July 2007, when Brown had been prime minister for less than a month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
Gordon Brown was in the Treasury before then - he could have stopped them if he wanted to.
I'm not sure even in the days of Blair's sofa government that the Chancellor was running the MoD. But if he was, presumably he'd have been aware the Royal Navy had two other carriers in service (or it did until the Conservatives scrapped them both).
The carrier project appeared to be a Scottish-job creation exercise at heart so I’d be startled if Mr Brown took a hands off role.
Yes building all the parts in England before welding them together in Scotland was real job creation for Scotland , you half witted cretinous moron.
I believe there are still shipyards on the Clyde including some building ferries despite the best efforts of your Government.
Were it not for the 2 aircraft carrier orders I do not believe that would be the case.
It is also worth reflecting that the harsh Brexit that now lies ahead is the result of monumental political misjudgments — by Theresa May, the former prime minister, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Tory rebels and the second referendum campaign. The European Council, too, is partly to blame. EU leaders could have helped secured a softer Brexit if they had refused to participate in the charade of Brexit extensions.
It's a very muddled argument. Munchau appears to think divergence brings more benefits than convergence to the UK, while blaming a "narrow trade deal" (which surely is a good thing in that case) on everyone except those actually pushing for it.
I must be one of the few people who’s in favour of the carriers.
They’re crucial to global power projection and in opening up strategic options for the UK, particularly for unknown unknown threats.
Given it takes about 15 years from drawing board to commissioned in-service flight wings, you can’t just magic them up again when you need them either.
You can only project it as part of a carrier group which includes plenty of air and sea defence. Two carriers alone will do very little and the issue is they have sucked the air out of the room for everything else.
The issue is the military has been denied of funds wholesale. That’s why everything is being funded on a shoestring.
A carrier battle group escorted by a frigate/sub/destroyer/RFA support is sufficient against all but the most powerful enemies, when we’d be in a broader coalition anyway.
If (and this is a big if) Labour had had any sense, they'd have attacked the Conservatives over defence cuts and our incredible shrinking armed forces.
If (and this is a big if) Labour had had any sense, they'd have attacked the Conservatives over defence cuts and our incredible shrinking armed forces.
I reckon Labour should announce a policy of increasing the pay of the armed forces. I think the public would be shocked when they found out how little ordinary soldiers get paid.
It is also worth reflecting that the harsh Brexit that now lies ahead is the result of monumental political misjudgments — by Theresa May, the former prime minister, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Tory rebels and the second referendum campaign. The European Council, too, is partly to blame. EU leaders could have helped secured a softer Brexit if they had refused to participate in the charade of Brexit extensions.
It's a very muddled argument. Munchau appears to think divergence brings more benefits than convergence to the UK, while blaming a "narrow trade deal" (which surely is a good thing in that case) on everyone except those actually pushing for it.
Incidentally, Munchau seems to think we don't need a car industry because a diverged UK will do much better at AI than an over regulated EU. That's a very big assumption. I can think of a reason why the opposite will apply, which can be summed up in a single word, data.
It may not have escaped people's notice that data equivalence is outside the scope of the potential 2020 agreement. The EU will screw the UK on data privacy and because other countries like Japan will also be covered by EU data agreements and obligations, they will also be excluded from any buccaneering UK AI. China doesn't allow its data outside the country and we can expect the US to get more protectionist too.
Boris Johnson would have fun telling the ex workers of Sunderland that they are surplus to requirements thanks to all that lovely AI work going through.
Keir Starmer in favour of Proportional Representation by the Single Transferable Vote? “So many people vote and it doesn’t count, and we can’t go on like that - because progressive politics requires people’s votes to actually count. So I would want to look at this. The only caveat I’ve got is that I also genuinely believe that you need a representative in each area who is there to represent the people in that area and to act on their behalf."
That’s encouraging. Hopefully one day we will be free of the dead hand of FPTP
He'll probably do a Trudeau and quietly shelve the proposal when he gets into power.
Thank you, but hard to get engaged at this juncture. Ditto Brexit (over) and Corbyn (over). The big themes that have driven this site since I joined a couple of years ago are now fish and chips. It's a new world and we need new themes. The mill cannot turn without a fresh helping of grist. There is much to choose from - and of course we don't have to choose since we can multi task - but if I had to pick one thing to track it would be this -
Will the Tories deliver real and significant economic advantage for their new WWC voters in the North or will it turn out to be just another piece of complete and utter "Boris" ??
I will be watching this carefully over the next few days and weeks and months and years. No doubt we all will be.
Keir Starmer in favour of Proportional Representation by the Single Transferable Vote? “So many people vote and it doesn’t count, and we can’t go on like that - because progressive politics requires people’s votes to actually count. So I would want to look at this. The only caveat I’ve got is that I also genuinely believe that you need a representative in each area who is there to represent the people in that area and to act on their behalf."
That’s encouraging. Hopefully one day we will be free of the dead hand of FPTP
The seductive lure of a majority stuffs it from ever being delivered though.
Ask Tony Blair and his 177 seat majority. Maybe if he'd had a majority of 7 instead, after 18 years of Tory rule, things would have been different.
If the majority had only been 7 we’d have seen Paddy Ashdown as a Cabinet Minister.
Thank you, but hard to get engaged at this juncture. Ditto Brexit (over) and Corbyn (over). The big themes that have driven this site since I joined a couple of years ago are now fish and chips. It's a new world and we need new themes. The mill cannot turn without a fresh helping of grist. There is much to choose from - and of course we don't have to choose since we can multi task - but if I had to pick one thing to track it would be this -
Will the Tories deliver real and significant economic advantage for their new WWC voters in the North or will it turn out to be just another piece of complete and utter "Boris" ??
I will be watching this carefully over the next few days and weeks and months and years. No doubt we all will be.
Keir Starmer in favour of Proportional Representation by the Single Transferable Vote? “So many people vote and it doesn’t count, and we can’t go on like that - because progressive politics requires people’s votes to actually count. So I would want to look at this. The only caveat I’ve got is that I also genuinely believe that you need a representative in each area who is there to represent the people in that area and to act on their behalf."
That’s encouraging. Hopefully one day we will be free of the dead hand of FPTP
The seductive lure of a majority stuffs it from ever being delivered though.
Ask Tony Blair and his 177 seat majority. Maybe if he'd had a majority of 7 instead, after 18 years of Tory rule, things would have been different.
If the majority had only been 7 we’d have seen Paddy Ashdown as a Cabinet Minister.
As I understand it he was offered NI after the election which he declined putting party before self.
Thank you, but hard to get engaged at this juncture. Ditto Brexit (over) and Corbyn (over). The big themes that have driven this site since I joined a couple of years ago are now fish and chips. It's a new world and we need new themes. The mill cannot turn without a fresh helping of grist. There is much to choose from - and of course we don't have to choose since we can multi task - but if I had to pick one thing to track it would be this -
Will the Tories deliver real and significant economic advantage for their new WWC voters in the North or will it turn out to be just another piece of complete and utter "Boris" ??
I will be watching this carefully over the next few days and weeks and months and years. No doubt we all will be.
Keir Starmer in favour of Proportional Representation by the Single Transferable Vote? “So many people vote and it doesn’t count, and we can’t go on like that - because progressive politics requires people’s votes to actually count. So I would want to look at this. The only caveat I’ve got is that I also genuinely believe that you need a representative in each area who is there to represent the people in that area and to act on their behalf."
That’s encouraging. Hopefully one day we will be free of the dead hand of FPTP
The seductive lure of a majority stuffs it from ever being delivered though.
Ask Tony Blair and his 177 seat majority. Maybe if he'd had a majority of 7 instead, after 18 years of Tory rule, things would have been different.
If the majority had only been 7 we’d have seen Paddy Ashdown as a Cabinet Minister.
As I understand it he was offered NI after the election which he declined putting party before self.
First time I've heard that. Don't recall it being in Ashdown's diaries.
Thank you, but hard to get engaged at this juncture. Ditto Brexit (over) and Corbyn (over). The big themes that have driven this site since I joined a couple of years ago are now fish and chips. It's a new world and we need new themes. The mill cannot turn without a fresh helping of grist. There is much to choose from - and of course we don't have to choose since we can multi task - but if I had to pick one thing to track it would be this -
Will the Tories deliver real and significant economic advantage for their new WWC voters in the North or will it turn out to be just another piece of complete and utter "Boris" ??
I will be watching this carefully over the next few days and weeks and months and years. No doubt we all will be.
What is 44 29...thats a bigger majority isnt it.
Labour's soft 3% "I'll vote for them because there's a general election on and we need to stop the Tories and/or stop Brexit vote" has disappeared back into the ether for now.
I must be one of the few people who’s in favour of the carriers.
They’re crucial to global power projection and in opening up strategic options for the UK, particularly for unknown unknown threats.
Given it takes about 15 years from drawing board to commissioned in-service flight wings, you can’t just magic them up again when you need them either.
You can only project it as part of a carrier group which includes plenty of air and sea defence. Two carriers alone will do very little and the issue is they have sucked the air out of the room for everything else.
The issue is the military has been denied of funds wholesale. That’s why everything is being funded on a shoestring.
A carrier battle group escorted by a frigate/sub/destroyer/RFA support is sufficient against all but the most powerful enemies, when we’d be in a broader coalition anyway.
Boris isn't going to be pulling billions out of his fat pussy for defence. One, his grungey FSB handler fucking hates defence spending and, two, he needs the money to build bus stations, lidos and contemporary dance spaces in leaver shit holes like Consett.
Keir Starmer in favour of Proportional Representation by the Single Transferable Vote? “So many people vote and it doesn’t count, and we can’t go on like that - because progressive politics requires people’s votes to actually count. So I would want to look at this. The only caveat I’ve got is that I also genuinely believe that you need a representative in each area who is there to represent the people in that area and to act on their behalf."
That’s encouraging. Hopefully one day we will be free of the dead hand of FPTP
The seductive lure of a majority stuffs it from ever being delivered though.
Ask Tony Blair and his 177 seat majority. Maybe if he'd had a majority of 7 instead, after 18 years of Tory rule, things would have been different.
If the majority had only been 7 we’d have seen Paddy Ashdown as a Cabinet Minister.
As I understand it he was offered NI after the election which he declined putting party before self.
First time I've heard that. Don't recall it being in Ashdown's diaries.
It wasn’t and I i won’t speculate where I ‘think’ it came from and could be complete bollocks
I make it a majority of 150. But there is no point running the numbers, this is my point. It's boring and unimportant. Our focus must shift to the big question of this new era - is Boris Johnson a true convert to the policy of a serious redistribution of wealth and opportunity in favour of working class communities in post industrial regions?
I intend to devote most of my time to answering this in a manner that is both rigorous and fair. The answer I expect to end up with is a resounding "not on your nelly" but I won't be assuming anything. It is just possible that Johnson is about to take everything that we think we know about the Conservative Party, and about him, and debunk it.
I make it a majority of 150. But there is no point running the numbers, this is my point. It's boring and unimportant. Our focus must shift to the big question of this new era - is Boris Johnson a true convert to the policy of a serious redistribution of wealth and opportunity in favour of working class communities in post industrial regions?
I intend to devote most of my time to answering this in a manner that is both rigorous and fair. The answer I expect to end up with is a resounding "not on your nelly" but I won't be assuming anything. It is just possible that Johnson is about to take everything that we think we know about the Conservative Party, and about him, and debunk it.
I just thought it odd the Tories could have a bigger lead after corbyn had decided to step down.. perhaps the alternatives are even worse!!!!
Boris has sold NI Army veterans down the river according to the Sun.
BORIS Johnson has sparked a backlash from Tory MPs after it emerged the smallprint of his deal to restore power-sharing in Northern Ireland risks opening up new Troubles probes into thousands of veterans.
Interesting story in the Guardian about 'Families sending relatives with dementia to Thailand for care'. I've been 'threatened' with that, and I can think of worse fates.
And Monarch (Charter Airline > Loco) and Thomas Cook (High St Holiday sales vs online) were as much victims of failing business models as anything else.
Ain't that the truth? Brexit will see a lot of business models failing.
You think the decline of the high street is Brexit related?
Wasn't this thread about the failure of several airlines, not the high street?
In Belfast, it was mainly the primark fire that caused closures.
The contrasting headlines when they were pregnant that Kate & Meghan got does make it seem like the press disliked MM from the start. I wouldn't say it was evidence of racism though, they just may not have liked her for other reasons. I am surprised people think it is, I didn't even know she was black!
It is easy to see MM as the baddie, and she could be, but it could also be that the Royal family are nasty pieces of work and, as an outsider, she was able to say to Harry 'there is a better life out there than being controlled by this institution'. Funny that people can be so dogmatic in their assertions
There's fewer people going on holiday in the passed few years.
Flybe will be the 4th British airline that Brexit has destroyed after Monarch, Cello and Thomas Cook.
Edit: 5th. Forgot BMI.
Try not so write ignorant shit all your life.
Try to rebut the point.
There is no point, it just putting airline failure and Brexit in the same sentence and assuming a direct causal link.
Management of ailing business;
1) Blame failing business model for which you are responsible, or
2) Blame external factor for which you are not responsible (but has somehow, mysteriously not driven your rivals to the wall..)
Many of FlyBe’s rivals *have* been driven to the wall by the same factor
The one time I recently caught a FlyBe flight was it's Air France branded flight to Paris from Manchester - the words never again spring to mind.
I suspect what is killing FlyBe is Easyjet taking sufficient trade on the routes used to remove the profitability. And not much can fix that.
That goes without saying, cheaper airlines will always get more passengers.
That actually wasn't what I'm saying FlyBe was at times cheaper than Easyjet on the old Newcastle Belfast route.
It's more the story of the third cafe being opened in an area. Regardless of the price charged, it takes just enough trade away from the other 2 cafe's for none of them to be profitable. Increased supply can result in everyone losing money.
Regarding Brexit and the aftermath, what I'd really like to see is some realism from potential labour leaders. Rather than objecting against everything the tories propose, I think it would be helpful if both parties try to work together and actively start to heal the rifts that the 'lost 3 years' have brought.
This doesn't mean stopping forensic scrutiny but do it in the light of trying to bring the country back together again. Boris, with his one nation statements would be wrong to reject proposals made in this light. It may even make Labour a tad more electable!
It is also worth reflecting that the harsh Brexit that now lies ahead is the result of monumental political misjudgments — by Theresa May, the former prime minister, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Tory rebels and the second referendum campaign. The European Council, too, is partly to blame. EU leaders could have helped secured a softer Brexit if they had refused to participate in the charade of Brexit extensions.
It's a very muddled argument. Munchau appears to think divergence brings more benefits than convergence to the UK, while blaming a "narrow trade deal" (which surely is a good thing in that case) on everyone except those actually pushing for it.
Incidentally, Munchau seems to think we don't need a car industry because a diverged UK will do much better at AI than an over regulated EU. That's a very big assumption. I can think of a reason why the opposite will apply, which can be summed up in a single word, data.
It may not have escaped people's notice that data equivalence is outside the scope of the potential 2020 agreement. The EU will screw the UK on data privacy and because other countries like Japan will also be covered by EU data agreements and obligations, they will also be excluded from any buccaneering UK AI. China doesn't allow its data outside the country and we can expect the US to get more protectionist too.
Boris Johnson would have fun telling the ex workers of Sunderland that they are surplus to requirements thanks to all that lovely AI work going through.
The other problems with relying on AI to underpin the economy are 1) competitors with deep pockets can probably duplicate British successes 2) or even more simply just buy the company, like Google snapped up DeepMind 3) so far AI has been a licence to burn money
Point 3 is important because unless British venture capitalists (right!) or the government write some very large cheques, AI UK is going nowhere. AI's commercial successes to date are those annoying chatbots that pop up on ecommerce web sites and, erm, that's it.
I just thought it odd the Tories could have a bigger lead after corbyn had decided to step down.. perhaps the alternatives are even worse!!!!
Not so odd. My view on the GE is that Johnson won it far more than Corbyn lost it. People voted positively for Brexit and "Boris" - and particularly the combination of those two unholy constructs. They voted for a "Boris Brexit". Or more accurately they voted to "Get Brexit Done" - by "Boris". Go back and replace Corbyn with AN Other for that GE in those circumstances against this Tory leader and you're still looking at a healthy Con majority. Perhaps not 80 but still a good one.
But anyway, that's all water under the bridge. I should not be allowing you or others to drag me back into these stale topics. Is Johnson going to deliver some One Nation Socialism for the new Tory blue collar base up north? This is the question that will define the twenties.
There's fewer people going on holiday in the passed few years.
Flybe will be the 4th British airline that Brexit has destroyed after Monarch, Cello and Thomas Cook.
Edit: 5th. Forgot BMI.
Try not so write ignorant shit all your life.
Try to rebut the point.
There is no point, it just putting airline failure and Brexit in the same sentence and assuming a direct causal link.
Management of ailing business;
1) Blame failing business model for which you are responsible, or
2) Blame external factor for which you are not responsible (but has somehow, mysteriously not driven your rivals to the wall..)
Many of FlyBe’s rivals *have* been driven to the wall by the same factor
The one time I recently caught a FlyBe flight was it's Air France branded flight to Paris from Manchester - the words never again spring to mind.
I suspect what is killing FlyBe is Easyjet taking sufficient trade on the routes used to remove the profitability. And not much can fix that.
That goes without saying, cheaper airlines will always get more passengers.
The flights were always almost full from the Cardiff jet hub. It was a really good service. Post jet hub flight schedules out of Cardiff are rubbish. For example Belfast once a day around lunchtime. I also don't believe the Dash 600s to be as safe as a 'proper' airliner.
Cardiff, Exeter and Belfast City airports among others will also have virtually no flights.
I just thought it odd the Tories could have a bigger lead after corbyn had decided to step down.. perhaps the alternatives are even worse!!!!
Not so odd. My view on the GE is that Johnson won it far more than Corbyn lost it. People voted positively for Brexit and "Boris" - and particularly the combination of those two unholy constructs. They voted for a "Boris Brexit". Or more accurately they voted to "Get Brexit Done" - by "Boris". Go back and replace Corbyn with AN Other for that GE in those circumstances against this Tory leader and you're still looking at a healthy Con majority. Perhaps not 80 but still a good one.
But anyway, that's all water under the bridge. I should not be allowing you or others to drag me back into these stale topics. Is Johnson going to deliver some One Nation Socialism for the new Tory blue collar base up north? This is the question that will define the twenties.
They don't want one nation socialism. They want cheap borrowing rates, a free NHS and no evidence of scary foreigners. If Johnson delivers that he will keep them on board.
I was surprised to learn that the Chair of the "Labour Friends of Palestine" is Lisa Nandy - which goes to show you can be for Palestine without being anti-semitic.
This does rather illustrate that the whole "Labour antisemitism thing is really just about their support for Palestine" excuse is horsefeathers. It's antisemitism, full stop.
I just thought it odd the Tories could have a bigger lead after corbyn had decided to step down.. perhaps the alternatives are even worse!!!!
Not so odd. My view on the GE is that Johnson won it far more than Corbyn lost it. People voted positively for Brexit and "Boris" - and particularly the combination of those two unholy constructs. They voted for a "Boris Brexit". Or more accurately they voted to "Get Brexit Done" - by "Boris". Go back and replace Corbyn with AN Other for that GE in those circumstances against this Tory leader and you're still looking at a healthy Con majority. Perhaps not 80 but still a good one.
But anyway, that's all water under the bridge. I should not be allowing you or others to drag me back into these stale topics. Is Johnson going to deliver some One Nation Socialism for the new Tory blue collar base up north? This is the question that will define the twenties.
In 2017, as late as polling day and even after the exit poll, CCHQ expected a majority, perhaps as many as 80. Of course that was without Boris as leader.
It is not clear what changed between 2017 and 2019, though we can see CCHQ did examine which Labour policies were popular and shoot those foxes. The trouble with the Labour leadership contest is almost no-one seems to care what really happened and are just shouting everyone hates Jeremy or alternatively no, it was the Starmer-inspired Brexit fudge.
Comments
Fortunately for America I only laid berie down to zero.
I suspect what is killing FlyBe is Easyjet taking sufficient trade on the routes used to remove the profitability. And not much can fix that.
Monarch was a Charter Airline that tried to transition to a LoCo but failed. Thomas Cook business model was built on selling holidays in the High Street. The Internet says "hello". Cello Aviation was a 2 (old) plane charter operation. BMI died in 2012. None of these were direct FlyBe competitors.
FlyBe's problems:
35 jet Embraer order
IT systems problems
Loganair
RyanAir/EasyJet muscling in on popular routes it establishes.
£ depreciation (Brexit related - but faced by all its competitors)
Ask Tony Blair and his 177 seat majority. Maybe if he'd had a majority of 7 instead, after 18 years of Tory rule, things would have been different.
Oi, LibDems, why didn't you stop it?
Con 44 Lab 29 LD 11
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corybn-labour-policies-toxic-general-election-2019-leadership-latest-a9279946.html
If you exclude candidates who faced presidents after 8 or more years of their party in the White House, e.g. Clinton, that proposition also holds going backing over the last 50 years
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/12/26/with-just-five-days-to-go-the-pb-alastair-meeks-predictions-for-2019/
Labour VI holding up a little better than I expected. Fwiw BMG was consistently about 3 points under on the Conservatives and 3 over on the LDs at the GE.
We will see a lot of this. Brexit doesn't bring any business benefits (that would be a ridiculous claim), but its many downsides will affect businesses differently and to different extents.
Labour on 29% would punch through some more of that Red Wall.
They’re crucial to global power projection and in opening up strategic options for the UK, particularly for unknown unknown threats.
Given it takes about 15 years from drawing board to commissioned in-service flight wings, you can’t just magic them up again when you need them either.
1) Whatever happens, Brexit is going to be disfiguring public debate at the end of next yearTwo Party Politics re-established (bar Scotland) and UKIP a busted flush. Brexit bill passed with barely a murmur. We've seen off the extremes many European countries are still grappling with. Megexit dominating the papers. I'd put that down as "no" - more "business as usual" than "disfigured".
2) Britain will not leave the EU on 29 March 2019
Yes.
3) There will be a fresh referendum
No.
4) If there is a fresh referendum, it will be close
No. See 3.
5) There won’t be a general election in 2019
No.
6) Neither of the current main party leaders will be in their current role in a year’s time
No. One still is.
7) British politics will look very different this time next year
Yes. Tory government with 80 seat majority. Although I'm not sure that's what Mr Meeks (or anyone) anticipated.
Yet.
The reason a narrow trade deal is now the most likely way forward is that all the alternatives have been eliminated.
https://www.ft.com/content/f819f23a-33c4-11ea-9703-eea0cae3f0de
Done 3 or 4 of the world's best helicopter carriers (something like the JSDF Hyugas) with Seahawk Romeos and upgunned the T45s for littoral strike.
or
Stuck at it with an Anglo-French 3 carrier fleet. Now we've got a 50% capable air wing that will (notionally thought probably not really) be available 100% of the time. The French have a 100% capable air wing that's available 50% of the time.
A carrier battle group escorted by a frigate/sub/destroyer/RFA support is sufficient against all but the most powerful enemies, when we’d be in a broader coalition anyway.
Were it not for the 2 aircraft carrier orders I do not believe that would be the case.
It may not have escaped people's notice that data equivalence is outside the scope of the potential 2020 agreement. The EU will screw the UK on data privacy and because other countries like Japan will also be covered by EU data agreements and obligations, they will also be excluded from any buccaneering UK AI. China doesn't allow its data outside the country and we can expect the US to get more protectionist too.
Boris Johnson would have fun telling the ex workers of Sunderland that they are surplus to requirements thanks to all that lovely AI work going through.
Will the Tories deliver real and significant economic advantage for their new WWC voters in the North or will it turn out to be just another piece of complete and utter "Boris" ??
I will be watching this carefully over the next few days and weeks and months and years. No doubt we all will be.
I intend to devote most of my time to answering this in a manner that is both rigorous and fair. The answer I expect to end up with is a resounding "not on your nelly" but I won't be assuming anything. It is just possible that Johnson is about to take everything that we think we know about the Conservative Party, and about him, and debunk it.
It's a narrow path but it's a path.
FWIW I think the current pricing of the 3 serious contenders is about right.
https://twitter.com/BoardofDeputies/status/1216409365646839813
It is easy to see MM as the baddie, and she could be, but it could also be that the Royal family are nasty pieces of work and, as an outsider, she was able to say to Harry 'there is a better life out there than being controlled by this institution'. Funny that people can be so dogmatic in their assertions
I take it everyone has seen the beach nudies?!
It's more the story of the third cafe being opened in an area. Regardless of the price charged, it takes just enough trade away from the other 2 cafe's for none of them to be profitable. Increased supply can result in everyone losing money.
This doesn't mean stopping forensic scrutiny but do it in the light of trying to bring the country back together again. Boris, with his one nation statements would be wrong to reject proposals made in this light. It may even make Labour a tad more electable!
1) competitors with deep pockets can probably duplicate British successes
2) or even more simply just buy the company, like Google snapped up DeepMind
3) so far AI has been a licence to burn money
Point 3 is important because unless British venture capitalists (right!) or the government write some very large cheques, AI UK is going nowhere. AI's commercial successes to date are those annoying chatbots that pop up on ecommerce web sites and, erm, that's it.
But anyway, that's all water under the bridge. I should not be allowing you or others to drag me back into these stale topics. Is Johnson going to deliver some One Nation Socialism for the new Tory blue collar base up north? This is the question that will define the twenties.
Cardiff, Exeter and Belfast City airports among others will also have virtually no flights.
This thread has resigned
(but will still keep its title, house, perks and taxpayers moneyThis does rather illustrate that the whole "Labour antisemitism thing is really just about their support for Palestine" excuse is horsefeathers. It's antisemitism, full stop.
It is not clear what changed between 2017 and 2019, though we can see CCHQ did examine which Labour policies were popular and shoot those foxes. The trouble with the Labour leadership contest is almost no-one seems to care what really happened and are just shouting everyone hates Jeremy or alternatively no, it was the Starmer-inspired Brexit fudge.