Well there’s been a few knighthoods and peerages given out to former MEPs. I know NF isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but it wouldn’t be particularly unreasonable to honour him this year.
There's so many worthy people who don't have knighthoods (by choice or omission or buggin's turn), and so many unworthy people who do, it'd be hard to be outraged at the man getting one.
As ever, better someone get a gong than a Peerage.
Yes, Peerages should be reserved for those willing to take an active part in the Legislature over a period of time. NF is probably not that man, especially when there’s lucrative US speaking engagements to be had.
I suspect that, for example, Lord Hannan will better understand the role of a Lord, and be more willing to arrange his private engagements around when Parliament is sitting.
Hmm. One thinks of Mr Farage's reputed degree of involvement in the fisheries committee in the European Parliament.
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Keir has been so far quiet on the issue, a good number of his SC support it.
Although I don't know whether such a policy would require a conference vote or whether he could just pledge to introduce it? Perhaps a referendum first.
I think Labour should undoubtedly back it.
I think the electorate will view it quite cynically. Changing the electoral system just for partisan advantage won't go down well.
PR is better for all of us, it's not just a partisan issue. I get what you're saying so I think it would need to be a referendum before it could be implemented.
Regardless of the merits of the system, it'll be viewed as party A changing the system to prevent party B from getting into power again. Now we all know the parties will adapt afterwards, but that is how it will be sold on the doorstep to waverers.
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
I think it is perfectly possible for Labour to do so.
Without Scotland, and with the Welsh seats reduced in number by the next GE... I don't see how Labour get a majority of seats.
They can get to largest party, sure, but win a majority?
Perhaps not 2024, but we are talking never. Sturgeon won't go on forever, and the SNP fall from grace will come. Every party eventually oversees enough balls up that people start to give somebody else the benefit of the doubt.
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Keir has been so far quiet on the issue, a good number of his SC support it.
Although I don't know whether such a policy would require a conference vote or whether he could just pledge to introduce it? Perhaps a referendum first.
I think Labour should undoubtedly back it.
I think the electorate will view it quite cynically. Changing the electoral system just for partisan advantage won't go down well.
PR is better for all of us, it's not just a partisan issue. I get what you're saying so I think it would need to be a referendum before it could be implemented.
Regardless of the merits of the system, it'll be viewed as party A changing the system to prevent party B from getting into power again. Now we all know the parties will adapt afterwards, but that is how it will be sold on the doorstep to waverers.
That will always be the way though. PR is better, so in this particular case I don't much mind what the thoughts on it are.
I think it has a reasonable chance of winning support in the country.
Alliances can be tricky in terms of who best to stand back will be different dependent on national and local position.
Look at East Renfrewshire. Labour held for 10 years and lost to the SNP, with Labour 4000 votes back and and Conservatives 11000 votes back. Easy to think a tactical unionist vote should go for Labour. Come 2017 and although nationally Labour gained and the Tories fell back, the Tories won the day with 7000 mote votes than Labour.
Am I missing something or can Johnson just ignore a second referendum forever
You’re not missing something. Constitutional affairs are a reserved matter, a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament, as was the case with the 2014 referendum.
What is the law against an advisory referendum?
It would depend on who pays for it. The Scottish Government cannot spend public money on such an exercise.
Am I missing something or can Johnson just ignore a second referendum forever
You’re not missing something. Constitutional affairs are a reserved matter, a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament, as was the case with the 2014 referendum.
What is the law against an advisory referendum?
It would depend on who pays for it. The Scottish Government cannot spend public money on such an exercise.
The German Federal elections next September are certainly the main international elections next year and will be the first since 2002 in which Merkel will not be the CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate. In my view the CDU membership will pick Friedrich Merz to be their candidate who is more rightwing and conservative than Merkel is as well as being a multimillionaire corporate lawyer and former CDU/CSU Bundestag leader from 2000 to 2002.
In terms of the election itself the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be the largest party in the Bundestag but I cannot see the Greens who are likely to overtake the SPD for second as Robert states supporting Merz for Chancellor and nor can I see a CDU led by Merz supporting the Greens leader, Annalena Baerbock for Chancellor either.
So that leaves Baerbock to become Chancellor if the Greens, SPD and Linke combined seat total is more than that for the CDU/CSU and FDP combined or Merz to become Chancellor if the CDU/CSU and FDP combined total is more than the Greens, SPD and Linke combined. Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the AfD
Yes, why not keep on speculating about a subject on which you clearly know very little.
Well what makes you the oracle of German politics then if you want to make such a pompous, patronising comment?
Every time you comment on Germany you talk about the possibility of the CDU and the Afd doing a deal.
It's as if a German keeps commenting on British politics and every time says "if the LibDems fail to get an absolute majority at the next election...."
Where? Where did I mention that, nowhere.
However if say Merz is CDU chancellor candidate I think it is unlikely the Greens will do a deal with him and vice versa and if the only viable alternatives are a Green and SPD and Linke deal or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal who knows what would happen.
You're unbelievable, literally in the post I replied to you said
"Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the Afd"
And now again
"or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal"
It's not going to happen. I'll indulge you: Say Merz becomes CDU chair (possible though far from certain) And say the CDU/CSU are the largest group after the next election (probable) And say the only 2 party coalition that can mathematically command a majority is with the Greens(which seems to be what you are suggesting) or Union plus AfD (which looks unlikely) And say the CDU first choice chancellor candidate is Merz And say the price for the Greens going into coalition is Merz not being chancellor Then we know what won't happen: the CDU won't go into coalition with the AfD. Either there will be a Union Green coalition with someone else as chancellor, or the CDU will go into coalition with FDP SPD, or there will be a CDU minority government, or there will be fresh elections (in that order of likelihood).
You suggest the possibility of a Green SPD Linke coalition, but as I think you will realise on reflection, if Union plus AfD (plus FDP) is a majority then Green plus SPD plus Linke isn't.
Wrong, if the CDU /CSU will not do a deal with the AfD and the Greens plus SPD plus Linke has more seats than the CDU/CSU and FDP then the Greens plus SPD plus Linke can form a government without a majority if say Merz is leader and the Greens refuse to do a deal with a Merz led CDU and the SPD prefer the Greens to Merz.
That would be even with the CDU/CSU still the largest party in the Bundestag
You are, with respect, talking out of your arse. A minority government even involving just one party is very unlikely in Germany (apart from anything else because no other party wants to give the AfD the power it would give them). A coalition of three parties that doesn't even make a majority is less likely than the monster raving loony party winning a majority at the next UK general election.
Every post you write about German politics just offers further proof that you know nothing about it.
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Keir has been so far quiet on the issue, a good number of his SC support it.
Although I don't know whether such a policy would require a conference vote or whether he could just pledge to introduce it? Perhaps a referendum first.
I think Labour should undoubtedly back it.
I think the electorate will view it quite cynically. Changing the electoral system just for partisan advantage won't go down well.
PR is better for all of us, it's not just a partisan issue. I get what you're saying so I think it would need to be a referendum before it could be implemented.
Regardless of the merits of the system, it'll be viewed as party A changing the system to prevent party B from getting into power again. Now we all know the parties will adapt afterwards, but that is how it will be sold on the doorstep to waverers.
That will always be the way though. PR is better, so in this particular case I don't much mind what the thoughts on it are.
I think it has a reasonable chance of winning support in the country.
Well, I am just saying how it would be sold, and I think it would be quite convincing. Look how badly AV was trounced in the previous referendum.
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
I think it is perfectly possible for Labour to do so.
Without Scotland, and with the Welsh seats reduced in number by the next GE... I don't see how Labour get a majority of seats.
They can get to largest party, sure, but win a majority?
Perhaps not 2024, but we are talking never. Sturgeon won't go on forever, and the SNP fall from grace will come. Every party eventually oversees enough balls up that people start to give somebody else the benefit of the doubt.
But, that is basically what I said. Without something from Scotland, Labour can't do it.
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Keir has been so far quiet on the issue, a good number of his SC support it.
Although I don't know whether such a policy would require a conference vote or whether he could just pledge to introduce it? Perhaps a referendum first.
I think Labour should undoubtedly back it.
I think the electorate will view it quite cynically. Changing the electoral system just for partisan advantage won't go down well.
PR is better for all of us, it's not just a partisan issue. I get what you're saying so I think it would need to be a referendum before it could be implemented.
Regardless of the merits of the system, it'll be viewed as party A changing the system to prevent party B from getting into power again. Now we all know the parties will adapt afterwards, but that is how it will be sold on the doorstep to waverers.
That will always be the way though. PR is better, so in this particular case I don't much mind what the thoughts on it are.
I think it has a reasonable chance of winning support in the country.
Well, I am just saying how it would be sold, and I think it would be quite convincing. Look how badly AV was trounced in the previous referendum.
But that was opposed by the Government of the day. It would be a bit different this time and anyway, AV was crap
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Keir has been so far quiet on the issue, a good number of his SC support it.
Although I don't know whether such a policy would require a conference vote or whether he could just pledge to introduce it? Perhaps a referendum first.
I think Labour should undoubtedly back it.
I think the electorate will view it quite cynically. Changing the electoral system just for partisan advantage won't go down well.
PR is better for all of us, it's not just a partisan issue. I get what you're saying so I think it would need to be a referendum before it could be implemented.
Regardless of the merits of the system, it'll be viewed as party A changing the system to prevent party B from getting into power again. Now we all know the parties will adapt afterwards, but that is how it will be sold on the doorstep to waverers.
That will always be the way though. PR is better, so in this particular case I don't much mind what the thoughts on it are.
I think it has a reasonable chance of winning support in the country.
Well, I am just saying how it would be sold, and I think it would be quite convincing. Look how badly AV was trounced in the previous referendum.
But that was opposed by the Government of the day. It would be a bit different this time and anyway, AV was crap
Wasn't the government neutral on that one? And who listens to what the government says anyway. See Brexit 2016.
Am I missing something or can Johnson just ignore a second referendum forever
You’re not missing something. Constitutional affairs are a reserved matter, a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament, as was the case with the 2014 referendum.
What is the law against an advisory referendum?
It would depend on who pays for it. The Scottish Government cannot spend public money on such an exercise.
Pretty sure doners could be found.
As long as they don't attempt to skewer the result.
The German Federal elections next September are certainly the main international elections next year and will be the first since 2002 in which Merkel will not be the CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate. In my view the CDU membership will pick Friedrich Merz to be their candidate who is more rightwing and conservative than Merkel is as well as being a multimillionaire corporate lawyer and former CDU/CSU Bundestag leader from 2000 to 2002.
In terms of the election itself the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be the largest party in the Bundestag but I cannot see the Greens who are likely to overtake the SPD for second as Robert states supporting Merz for Chancellor and nor can I see a CDU led by Merz supporting the Greens leader, Annalena Baerbock for Chancellor either.
So that leaves Baerbock to become Chancellor if the Greens, SPD and Linke combined seat total is more than that for the CDU/CSU and FDP combined or Merz to become Chancellor if the CDU/CSU and FDP combined total is more than the Greens, SPD and Linke combined. Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the AfD
Yes, why not keep on speculating about a subject on which you clearly know very little.
Well what makes you the oracle of German politics then if you want to make such a pompous, patronising comment?
Every time you comment on Germany you talk about the possibility of the CDU and the Afd doing a deal.
It's as if a German keeps commenting on British politics and every time says "if the LibDems fail to get an absolute majority at the next election...."
Where? Where did I mention that, nowhere.
However if say Merz is CDU chancellor candidate I think it is unlikely the Greens will do a deal with him and vice versa and if the only viable alternatives are a Green and SPD and Linke deal or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal who knows what would happen.
You're unbelievable, literally in the post I replied to you said
"Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the Afd"
And now again
"or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal"
It's not going to happen. I'll indulge you: Say Merz becomes CDU chair (possible though far from certain) And say the CDU/CSU are the largest group after the next election (probable) And say the only 2 party coalition that can mathematically command a majority is with the Greens(which seems to be what you are suggesting) or Union plus AfD (which looks unlikely) And say the CDU first choice chancellor candidate is Merz And say the price for the Greens going into coalition is Merz not being chancellor Then we know what won't happen: the CDU won't go into coalition with the AfD. Either there will be a Union Green coalition with someone else as chancellor, or the CDU will go into coalition with FDP SPD, or there will be a CDU minority government, or there will be fresh elections (in that order of likelihood).
You suggest the possibility of a Green SPD Linke coalition, but as I think you will realise on reflection, if Union plus AfD (plus FDP) is a majority then Green plus SPD plus Linke isn't.
Wrong, if the CDU /CSU will not do a deal with the AfD and the Greens plus SPD plus Linke has more seats than the CDU/CSU and FDP then the Greens plus SPD plus Linke can form a government without a majority if say Merz is leader and the Greens refuse to do a deal with a Merz led CDU and the SPD prefer the Greens to Merz.
That would be even with the CDU/CSU still the largest party in the Bundestag
You are, with respect, talking out of your arse. A minority government even involving just one party is very unlikely in Germany (apart from anything else because no other party wants to give the AfD the power it would give them). A coalition of three parties that doesn't even make a majority is less likely than the monster raving loony party winning a majority at the next UK general election.
Every post you write about German politics just offers further proof that you know nothing about it.
So far we have a piece by a Unionist living in Scotland predicting that there will be another indy referendum after Johnson folds, followed by quite a few posts from people living outwith giving reasons why there shouldn't/won't be a referendum; an instructive wee snapshot of the UK today.
Worse than those that think Pineapple on Pizza is acceptable or that Radiohead are a good live act...who the f##k are the people who think Mrs Brown's Boys should be on tv? Who? Come on, who watches this s##t? Such viewers should be sent to Conservative Home for at least the next 5 years.
So far we have a piece by a Unionist living in Scotland predicting that there will be another indy referendum after Johnson folds, followed by quite a few posts from people living outwith giving reasons why there shouldn't/won't be a referendum; an instructive wee snapshot of the UK today.
I don't know that the shouldn't/might not/won't crowd should be lumped in together when taking a snapshot. Will or will not may be impacted by a combination of factors irrespective of whether someone thinks there should be one or not. It's pretty easy to think there should be one, but that many things that should happen do not. And living in Scotland, when the UK PM potentially acting silly will play a part in this, doesn't imbue someone with clairvoyance on whether that PM will act silly or not.
Am I missing something or can Johnson just ignore a second referendum forever
You’re not missing something. Constitutional affairs are a reserved matter, a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament, as was the case with the 2014 referendum.
What is the law against an advisory referendum?
It would depend on who pays for it. The Scottish Government cannot spend public money on such an exercise.
Pretty sure doners could be found.
As long as they don't attempt to skewer the result.
The vast majority of "cross border services" is regulation and tariff free, whether irrespective of whether it's between countries in the EU or not. Provision of Public Relations services, contract programming, (almost all) call centres - it's essentially a free for all.
Where there are barriers is in some regulated professional services. (And here, of course, there are even restrictions "in country". Can a Scottish Advocate appear at an English court? I don't know, but suspect not.)
These are mostly the result of government regulation requiring certain qualifications in order to practise.
Inside the EU, there was a certain amount of services deregulation. Mostly this consisted of mutual recognition of standards, but there were also prohibitions on countries erecting new barriers.
There is unlikely to be a major direct impact on British services businesses, as (for a start) most large corporates are built up of local subsidiaries which are the contracted entity. I suspect the bigger impact, long-term, may be due to immigration restriction. If you take a big financial PR company like Brunswick: they serve companies across Europe, and their offices will be full of young (not particularly well paid) people speaking a dozen languages at the start of their careers. Is it going to be easy for these people to work in London? Or will they choose Amsterdam or Dublin instead? I don't know. But that seems to me to be the biggest threat to some of these services businesses.
I notice none of the predictions so far mention transport. Personally I am expecting a drop of between a quarter and a third in daily commuting. Assuming I turn out to be correct I think this likely to have a fair amount of unforseen consequences. Not least of all calling some transport projects into question. Cleaner air. Increased leisure time. The rebalancing from centralised work places to a more spread out workforce, I am certainly for example looking now I am working from home 100% from now on to moving out of the south east and instead spending my salary in the south west.
That's not a bad prediction.
If it comes true it will have other consequences:
- Demand for office space in cities will come down sharply. This means that a lot of these buildings will be repurposed for residential. There's already a lot of residential property coming on the market in London. This could be very negative for London residential real estate prices. (Conversely, places outside London are likely to see some kind of "equalisation" of house prices. It'll be good to own bars and restaurants in the countryside.)
- It'll be bad for social mobility. Lower levels of daily commuting, means more working from home. That's easy for the well off, but poor for the less well office. You'll probably see low cost shared office spaces spring up outside city centers for people to work in.
Am I missing something or can Johnson just ignore a second referendum forever
You’re not missing something. Constitutional affairs are a reserved matter, a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament, as was the case with the 2014 referendum.
What is the law against an advisory referendum?
It would depend on who pays for it. The Scottish Government cannot spend public money on such an exercise.
I notice none of the predictions so far mention transport. Personally I am expecting a drop of between a quarter and a third in daily commuting. Assuming I turn out to be correct I think this likely to have a fair amount of unforseen consequences. Not least of all calling some transport projects into question. Cleaner air. Increased leisure time. The rebalancing from centralised work places to a more spread out workforce, I am certainly for example looking now I am working from home 100% from now on to moving out of the south east and instead spending my salary in the south west.
That's not a bad prediction.
If it comes true it will have other consequences:
- Demand for office space in cities will come down sharply. This means that a lot of these buildings will be repurposed for residential. There's already a lot of residential property coming on the market in London. This could be very negative for London residential real estate prices. (Conversely, places outside London are likely to see some kind of "equalisation" of house prices. It'll be good to own bars and restaurants in the countryside.)
- It'll be bad for social mobility. Lower levels of daily commuting, means more working from home. That's easy for the well off, but poor for the less well office. You'll probably see low cost shared office spaces spring up outside city centers for people to work in.
My employer has already hinted fairly strongly that things will never go back to the way they were.
Works for me.
I am aware of another Insurance concern already letting go of their expensive city office space and just going for a smaller space for meetings.
I notice none of the predictions so far mention transport. Personally I am expecting a drop of between a quarter and a third in daily commuting. Assuming I turn out to be correct I think this likely to have a fair amount of unforseen consequences. Not least of all calling some transport projects into question. Cleaner air. Increased leisure time. The rebalancing from centralised work places to a more spread out workforce, I am certainly for example looking now I am working from home 100% from now on to moving out of the south east and instead spending my salary in the south west.
That's not a bad prediction.
If it comes true it will have other consequences:
- Demand for office space in cities will come down sharply. This means that a lot of these buildings will be repurposed for residential. There's already a lot of residential property coming on the market in London. This could be very negative for London residential real estate prices. (Conversely, places outside London are likely to see some kind of "equalisation" of house prices. It'll be good to own bars and restaurants in the countryside.)
- It'll be bad for social mobility. Lower levels of daily commuting, means more working from home. That's easy for the well off, but poor for the less well office. You'll probably see low cost shared office spaces spring up outside city centers for people to work in.
Maybe some of these bars might find a new revenue stream in offering ‘desks’ for £10 a day, including coffee, or £20 including lunch.
Am I missing something or can Johnson just ignore a second referendum forever
You’re not missing something. Constitutional affairs are a reserved matter, a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament, as was the case with the 2014 referendum.
What is the law against an advisory referendum?
It would depend on who pays for it. The Scottish Government cannot spend public money on such an exercise.
Am I missing something or can Johnson just ignore a second referendum forever
You’re not missing something. Constitutional affairs are a reserved matter, a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament, as was the case with the 2014 referendum.
What is the law against an advisory referendum?
It would depend on who pays for it. The Scottish Government cannot spend public money on such an exercise.
Maybe that big lottery winner?
Maybe. But how does such a referendum not finish with a 90% yes vote on a 40% turnout?
I think now we have a Deal the chances of an SNP majority next year are significantly reduced compared to if there had been No Deal. However even if the SNP do win a majority Boris will refuse a legal indyref2 and even if Sturgeon does hold one anyway Unionists will boycott it thus rendering it redundant.
In the US I agree the GOP will likely hold at least 1 of the Georgia Senate seats thus making Biden the first incoming President since Bush Snr in 1989 not to have control of both chambers of Congress. However that could actually be a positive thing as it will force Biden to govern from the centre and pragmatic deals to be done with Congress and particularly the Senate.
In Germany while Von Der Leyen will continue as EU Commission President, when Merkel retires her successor as Chancellor after the autumn 2021 German Federal elections will either be whichever candidate for the Chancellory the CDU select, ie Merz, Laschet or Rottgen or the leader of the current 2nd place party in the polls the Greens, currently held jointly by Annalena Baerbock and Robert Habeck
The German Federal elections next September are certainly the main international elections next year and will be the first since 2002 in which Merkel will not be the CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate. In my view the CDU membership will pick Friedrich Merz to be their candidate who is more rightwing and conservative than Merkel is as well as being a multimillionaire corporate lawyer and former CDU/CSU Bundestag leader from 2000 to 2002.
In terms of the election itself the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be the largest party in the Bundestag but I cannot see the Greens who are likely to overtake the SPD for second as Robert states supporting Merz for Chancellor and nor can I see a CDU led by Merz supporting the Greens leader, Annalena Baerbock for Chancellor either.
So that leaves Baerbock to become Chancellor if the Greens, SPD and Linke combined seat total is more than that for the CDU/CSU and FDP combined or Merz to become Chancellor if the CDU/CSU and FDP combined total is more than the Greens, SPD and Linke combined. Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the AfD
Yes, why not keep on speculating about a subject on which you clearly know very little.
Well what makes you the oracle of German politics then if you want to make such a pompous, patronising comment?
Every time you comment on Germany you talk about the possibility of the CDU and the Afd doing a deal.
It's as if a German keeps commenting on British politics and every time says "if the LibDems fail to get an absolute majority at the next election...."
Where? Where did I mention that, nowhere.
However if say Merz is CDU chancellor candidate I think it is unlikely the Greens will do a deal with him and vice versa and if the only viable alternatives are a Green and SPD and Linke deal or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal who knows what would happen.
You're unbelievable, literally in the post I replied to you said
"Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the Afd"
And now again
"or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal"
It's not going to happen. I'll indulge you: Say Merz becomes CDU chair (possible though far from certain) And say the CDU/CSU are the largest group after the next election (probable) And say the only 2 party coalition that can mathematically command a majority is with the Greens(which seems to be what you are suggesting) or Union plus AfD (which looks unlikely) And say the CDU first choice chancellor candidate is Merz And say the price for the Greens going into coalition is Merz not being chancellor Then we know what won't happen: the CDU won't go into coalition with the AfD. Either there will be a Union Green coalition with someone else as chancellor, or the CDU will go into coalition with FDP SPD, or there will be a CDU minority government, or there will be fresh elections (in that order of likelihood).
You suggest the possibility of a Green SPD Linke coalition, but as I think you will realise on reflection, if Union plus AfD (plus FDP) is a majority then Green plus SPD plus Linke isn't.
Wrong, if the CDU /CSU will not do a deal with the AfD and the Greens plus SPD plus Linke has more seats than the CDU/CSU and FDP then the Greens plus SPD plus Linke can form a government without a majority if say Merz is leader and the Greens refuse to do a deal with a Merz led CDU and the SPD prefer the Greens to Merz.
That would be even with the CDU/CSU still the largest party in the Bundestag
You are, with respect, talking out of your arse. A minority government even involving just one party is very unlikely in Germany (apart from anything else because no other party wants to give the AfD the power it would give them). A coalition of three parties that doesn't even make a majority is less likely than the monster raving loony party winning a majority at the next UK general election.
Every post you write about German politics just offers further proof that you know nothing about it.
Given Merz is relatively sceptical about climate change policies compared to Merkel and concerned about their impact on business if he is CDU leader the idea there could be any CDU and Green deal is not very likely at all and quite possibly not a CDU/CSU and SPD deal either.
In which case if the CDU refuse also to do a deal with the AfD and there is no majority for the CDU/CSU and FDP either then the only alternative would be a Green, SPD and Linke no matter how patronising and rude you wish to be
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Keir has been so far quiet on the issue, a good number of his SC support it.
Although I don't know whether such a policy would require a conference vote or whether he could just pledge to introduce it? Perhaps a referendum first.
I think Labour should undoubtedly back it.
I think the electorate will view it quite cynically. Changing the electoral system just for partisan advantage won't go down well.
PR is better for all of us, it's not just a partisan issue. I get what you're saying so I think it would need to be a referendum before it could be implemented.
Apart from the part which allows politicians to decide what you voted for AFTER you have voted for them. No thanks its bad enough politicians failing to keep their commitments without them being able to make it up after they have your mandate
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
As an aside, I think the best thing for Biden would be not to hold the Senate.
It means they have an excuse to the Squad for not delivering any of their promises (and a reason for people to go out and vote in 2022).
And given McConnell's obstructivist stance, it gives the Dems easy political wins by choosing things that the Republicans actually quite like, solely for the purpose of having them shot down.
McConnell has held his caucus together extraordinarily well to date, but there are at least three interesting Senate races in 2022.
First up, Alaska. Trump has promised to head to Alaska to campaign against Lisa Murkowski. She won as a write-in candidate in 2016 after losing the Primary. What happens there? Almost any outcome is possible.
Then there's Pennsylvania. Pat Toomey is retiring. That makes the seat wide open.
And Wisconsin. Could go either way. Normally you'd make the party of the opposition the favourites, but if the Republicans are at war, who knows?
The German Federal elections next September are certainly the main international elections next year and will be the first since 2002 in which Merkel will not be the CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate. In my view the CDU membership will pick Friedrich Merz to be their candidate who is more rightwing and conservative than Merkel is as well as being a multimillionaire corporate lawyer and former CDU/CSU Bundestag leader from 2000 to 2002.
In terms of the election itself the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be the largest party in the Bundestag but I cannot see the Greens who are likely to overtake the SPD for second as Robert states supporting Merz for Chancellor and nor can I see a CDU led by Merz supporting the Greens leader, Annalena Baerbock for Chancellor either.
So that leaves Baerbock to become Chancellor if the Greens, SPD and Linke combined seat total is more than that for the CDU/CSU and FDP combined or Merz to become Chancellor if the CDU/CSU and FDP combined total is more than the Greens, SPD and Linke combined. Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the AfD
Yes, why not keep on speculating about a subject on which you clearly know very little.
Well what makes you the oracle of German politics then if you want to make such a pompous, patronising comment?
Every time you comment on Germany you talk about the possibility of the CDU and the Afd doing a deal.
It's as if a German keeps commenting on British politics and every time says "if the LibDems fail to get an absolute majority at the next election...."
Where? Where did I mention that, nowhere.
However if say Merz is CDU chancellor candidate I think it is unlikely the Greens will do a deal with him and vice versa and if the only viable alternatives are a Green and SPD and Linke deal or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal who knows what would happen.
You're unbelievable, literally in the post I replied to you said
"Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the Afd"
And now again
"or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal"
It's not going to happen. I'll indulge you: Say Merz becomes CDU chair (possible though far from certain) And say the CDU/CSU are the largest group after the next election (probable) And say the only 2 party coalition that can mathematically command a majority is with the Greens(which seems to be what you are suggesting) or Union plus AfD (which looks unlikely) And say the CDU first choice chancellor candidate is Merz And say the price for the Greens going into coalition is Merz not being chancellor Then we know what won't happen: the CDU won't go into coalition with the AfD. Either there will be a Union Green coalition with someone else as chancellor, or the CDU will go into coalition with FDP SPD, or there will be a CDU minority government, or there will be fresh elections (in that order of likelihood).
You suggest the possibility of a Green SPD Linke coalition, but as I think you will realise on reflection, if Union plus AfD (plus FDP) is a majority then Green plus SPD plus Linke isn't.
Wrong, if the CDU /CSU will not do a deal with the AfD and the Greens plus SPD plus Linke has more seats than the CDU/CSU and FDP then the Greens plus SPD plus Linke can form a government without a majority if say Merz is leader and the Greens refuse to do a deal with a Merz led CDU and the SPD prefer the Greens to Merz.
That would be even with the CDU/CSU still the largest party in the Bundestag
You are, with respect, talking out of your arse. A minority government even involving just one party is very unlikely in Germany (apart from anything else because no other party wants to give the AfD the power it would give them). A coalition of three parties that doesn't even make a majority is less likely than the monster raving loony party winning a majority at the next UK general election.
Every post you write about German politics just offers further proof that you know nothing about it.
So your prediction for Bundeswahl 2021 is ?
Looking at the current polls it's CDU/CSU biggest party, Greens second biggest, probably CDU/CSU Green coalition. All kinds of options are possible, but nobody is going to be in coalition with the AfD.
No idea who chancellor would be, but I wouldn't be surprised if Söder somehow manages to wangle it.
I notice none of the predictions so far mention transport. Personally I am expecting a drop of between a quarter and a third in daily commuting. Assuming I turn out to be correct I think this likely to have a fair amount of unforseen consequences. Not least of all calling some transport projects into question. Cleaner air. Increased leisure time. The rebalancing from centralised work places to a more spread out workforce, I am certainly for example looking now I am working from home 100% from now on to moving out of the south east and instead spending my salary in the south west.
That's not a bad prediction.
If it comes true it will have other consequences:
- Demand for office space in cities will come down sharply. This means that a lot of these buildings will be repurposed for residential. There's already a lot of residential property coming on the market in London. This could be very negative for London residential real estate prices. (Conversely, places outside London are likely to see some kind of "equalisation" of house prices. It'll be good to own bars and restaurants in the countryside.)
- It'll be bad for social mobility. Lower levels of daily commuting, means more working from home. That's easy for the well off, but poor for the less well office. You'll probably see low cost shared office spaces spring up outside city centers for people to work in.
Maybe some of these bars might find a new revenue stream in offering ‘desks’ for £10 a day, including coffee, or £20 including lunch.
I suggested that to a local coffee shop owner a while back. She was complaining about the 1 coffee/8 hours types....
It turned out she hadn't heard on Edward Lloyd or what *that* experiment in hot desking led to...
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
The German Federal elections next September are certainly the main international elections next year and will be the first since 2002 in which Merkel will not be the CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate. In my view the CDU membership will pick Friedrich Merz to be their candidate who is more rightwing and conservative than Merkel is as well as being a multimillionaire corporate lawyer and former CDU/CSU Bundestag leader from 2000 to 2002.
In terms of the election itself the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be the largest party in the Bundestag but I cannot see the Greens who are likely to overtake the SPD for second as Robert states supporting Merz for Chancellor and nor can I see a CDU led by Merz supporting the Greens leader, Annalena Baerbock for Chancellor either.
So that leaves Baerbock to become Chancellor if the Greens, SPD and Linke combined seat total is more than that for the CDU/CSU and FDP combined or Merz to become Chancellor if the CDU/CSU and FDP combined total is more than the Greens, SPD and Linke combined. Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the AfD
Yes, why not keep on speculating about a subject on which you clearly know very little.
Well what makes you the oracle of German politics then if you want to make such a pompous, patronising comment?
Every time you comment on Germany you talk about the possibility of the CDU and the Afd doing a deal.
It's as if a German keeps commenting on British politics and every time says "if the LibDems fail to get an absolute majority at the next election...."
Where? Where did I mention that, nowhere.
However if say Merz is CDU chancellor candidate I think it is unlikely the Greens will do a deal with him and vice versa and if the only viable alternatives are a Green and SPD and Linke deal or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal who knows what would happen.
You're unbelievable, literally in the post I replied to you said
"Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the Afd"
And now again
"or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal"
It's not going to happen. I'll indulge you: Say Merz becomes CDU chair (possible though far from certain) And say the CDU/CSU are the largest group after the next election (probable) And say the only 2 party coalition that can mathematically command a majority is with the Greens(which seems to be what you are suggesting) or Union plus AfD (which looks unlikely) And say the CDU first choice chancellor candidate is Merz And say the price for the Greens going into coalition is Merz not being chancellor Then we know what won't happen: the CDU won't go into coalition with the AfD. Either there will be a Union Green coalition with someone else as chancellor, or the CDU will go into coalition with FDP SPD, or there will be a CDU minority government, or there will be fresh elections (in that order of likelihood).
You suggest the possibility of a Green SPD Linke coalition, but as I think you will realise on reflection, if Union plus AfD (plus FDP) is a majority then Green plus SPD plus Linke isn't.
Wrong, if the CDU /CSU will not do a deal with the AfD and the Greens plus SPD plus Linke has more seats than the CDU/CSU and FDP then the Greens plus SPD plus Linke can form a government without a majority if say Merz is leader and the Greens refuse to do a deal with a Merz led CDU and the SPD prefer the Greens to Merz.
That would be even with the CDU/CSU still the largest party in the Bundestag
You are, with respect, talking out of your arse. A minority government even involving just one party is very unlikely in Germany (apart from anything else because no other party wants to give the AfD the power it would give them). A coalition of three parties that doesn't even make a majority is less likely than the monster raving loony party winning a majority at the next UK general election.
Every post you write about German politics just offers further proof that you know nothing about it.
Given Merz is relatively sceptical about climate change policies compared to Merkel and concerned about their impact on business if he is CDU leader the idea there could be any CDU and Green deal is not very likely at all and quite possibly not a CDU/CSU and SPD deal either.
In which case if the CDU refuse also to do a deal with the AfD and there is no majority for the CDU/CSU and FDP either then the only alternative would be a Green, SPD and Linke no matter how patronising and rude you wish to be
I'm just stating facts. You repeatedly make claims about German politics which are just totally unrealistic, I have pointed this out to you politely several times in the past but you just keep on insisting that you are right. I have no expertise in German politics or UK politics, but I know enough to know that what you are suggesting just isn't realistic, just as I know that suggesting the libdems might win a majority at the next election is a possibility not worth wasting time considering. If the only problem is the Greens not liking Merz as chancellor, there will simply be someone else as chancellor.
There will not be a 3-party minority coalition after the next election in Germany. It will not even be attempted.
I'm sorry for being rude, but you can be quite frustrating.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
According to Rishi there are no more Leavers or Remainers, only believers in Britain. Apart from the whiff of ein Volk-ness, I would have though his 17 minute visit to Scotland might have alerted him to a certain cup of cold sick interpretation of that sort of thing.
The German Federal elections next September are certainly the main international elections next year and will be the first since 2002 in which Merkel will not be the CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate. In my view the CDU membership will pick Friedrich Merz to be their candidate who is more rightwing and conservative than Merkel is as well as being a multimillionaire corporate lawyer and former CDU/CSU Bundestag leader from 2000 to 2002.
In terms of the election itself the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be the largest party in the Bundestag but I cannot see the Greens who are likely to overtake the SPD for second as Robert states supporting Merz for Chancellor and nor can I see a CDU led by Merz supporting the Greens leader, Annalena Baerbock for Chancellor either.
So that leaves Baerbock to become Chancellor if the Greens, SPD and Linke combined seat total is more than that for the CDU/CSU and FDP combined or Merz to become Chancellor if the CDU/CSU and FDP combined total is more than the Greens, SPD and Linke combined. Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the AfD
Yes, why not keep on speculating about a subject on which you clearly know very little.
Well what makes you the oracle of German politics then if you want to make such a pompous, patronising comment?
Every time you comment on Germany you talk about the possibility of the CDU and the Afd doing a deal.
It's as if a German keeps commenting on British politics and every time says "if the LibDems fail to get an absolute majority at the next election...."
Where? Where did I mention that, nowhere.
However if say Merz is CDU chancellor candidate I think it is unlikely the Greens will do a deal with him and vice versa and if the only viable alternatives are a Green and SPD and Linke deal or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal who knows what would happen.
You're unbelievable, literally in the post I replied to you said
"Assuming too of course Merz will follow Merkel's lead and still refuse to do any deal with the Afd"
And now again
"or a CDU and FDP and AfD deal"
It's not going to happen. I'll indulge you: Say Merz becomes CDU chair (possible though far from certain) And say the CDU/CSU are the largest group after the next election (probable) And say the only 2 party coalition that can mathematically command a majority is with the Greens(which seems to be what you are suggesting) or Union plus AfD (which looks unlikely) And say the CDU first choice chancellor candidate is Merz And say the price for the Greens going into coalition is Merz not being chancellor Then we know what won't happen: the CDU won't go into coalition with the AfD. Either there will be a Union Green coalition with someone else as chancellor, or the CDU will go into coalition with FDP SPD, or there will be a CDU minority government, or there will be fresh elections (in that order of likelihood).
You suggest the possibility of a Green SPD Linke coalition, but as I think you will realise on reflection, if Union plus AfD (plus FDP) is a majority then Green plus SPD plus Linke isn't.
Wrong, if the CDU /CSU will not do a deal with the AfD and the Greens plus SPD plus Linke has more seats than the CDU/CSU and FDP then the Greens plus SPD plus Linke can form a government without a majority if say Merz is leader and the Greens refuse to do a deal with a Merz led CDU and the SPD prefer the Greens to Merz.
That would be even with the CDU/CSU still the largest party in the Bundestag
You are, with respect, talking out of your arse. A minority government even involving just one party is very unlikely in Germany (apart from anything else because no other party wants to give the AfD the power it would give them). A coalition of three parties that doesn't even make a majority is less likely than the monster raving loony party winning a majority at the next UK general election.
Every post you write about German politics just offers further proof that you know nothing about it.
Given Merz is relatively sceptical about climate change policies compared to Merkel and concerned about their impact on business if he is CDU leader the idea there could be any CDU and Green deal is not very likely at all and quite possibly not a CDU/CSU and SPD deal either.
In which case if the CDU refuse also to do a deal with the AfD and there is no majority for the CDU/CSU and FDP either then the only alternative would be a Green, SPD and Linke no matter how patronising and rude you wish to be
I'm just stating facts. You repeatedly make claims about German politics which are just totally unrealistic, I have pointed this out to you politely several times in the past but you just keep on insisting that you are right. I have no expertise in German politics or UK politics, but I know enough to know that what you are suggesting just isn't realistic, just as I know that suggesting the libdems might win a majority at the next election is a possibility not worth wasting time considering. If the only problem is the Greens not liking Merz as chancellor, there will simply be someone else as chancellor.
There will not be a 3-party minority coalition after the next election in Germany. It will not even be attempted.
I'm sorry for being rude, but you can be quite frustrating.
If the CDU membership have voted for Merz as their Chancellor candidate the idea they would accept any deal which did not see him as Chancellor is ridiculous, in which case if the Greens and SPD refused to deal with Merz and accept him as Chancellor then the CDU/CSU would go into opposition even if they were largest party in the Bundestag
I notice none of the predictions so far mention transport. Personally I am expecting a drop of between a quarter and a third in daily commuting. Assuming I turn out to be correct I think this likely to have a fair amount of unforseen consequences. Not least of all calling some transport projects into question. Cleaner air. Increased leisure time. The rebalancing from centralised work places to a more spread out workforce, I am certainly for example looking now I am working from home 100% from now on to moving out of the south east and instead spending my salary in the south west.
That's not a bad prediction.
If it comes true it will have other consequences:
- Demand for office space in cities will come down sharply. This means that a lot of these buildings will be repurposed for residential. There's already a lot of residential property coming on the market in London. This could be very negative for London residential real estate prices. (Conversely, places outside London are likely to see some kind of "equalisation" of house prices. It'll be good to own bars and restaurants in the countryside.)
- It'll be bad for social mobility. Lower levels of daily commuting, means more working from home. That's easy for the well off, but poor for the less well office. You'll probably see low cost shared office spaces spring up outside city centers for people to work in.
My employer has already hinted fairly strongly that things will never go back to the way they were.
Works for me.
I am aware of another Insurance concern already letting go of their expensive city office space and just going for a smaller space for meetings.
We have small but nice offices in West LA. Our plan had been to get a much larger space for our growing team. But I think we'll instead stick with our current space, but go (almost) entirely hotdesking.
It'll be Finance Mondays, Developer Tuesdays, Marketing Wednesdays, etc. In this way, we'll get all the teams in together once or twice a week, but we won't force everyone into the office every day.
I notice none of the predictions so far mention transport. Personally I am expecting a drop of between a quarter and a third in daily commuting. Assuming I turn out to be correct I think this likely to have a fair amount of unforseen consequences. Not least of all calling some transport projects into question. Cleaner air. Increased leisure time. The rebalancing from centralised work places to a more spread out workforce, I am certainly for example looking now I am working from home 100% from now on to moving out of the south east and instead spending my salary in the south west.
That's not a bad prediction.
If it comes true it will have other consequences:
- Demand for office space in cities will come down sharply. This means that a lot of these buildings will be repurposed for residential. There's already a lot of residential property coming on the market in London. This could be very negative for London residential real estate prices. (Conversely, places outside London are likely to see some kind of "equalisation" of house prices. It'll be good to own bars and restaurants in the countryside.)
- It'll be bad for social mobility. Lower levels of daily commuting, means more working from home. That's easy for the well off, but poor for the less well office. You'll probably see low cost shared office spaces spring up outside city centers for people to work in.
And the young. Very bad for the young (WFH) for all kinds of reasons and hence I think it won't be as much of a thing as people are predicting. Employers will want to maintain the total employment attraction which does not comprise not seeing your peers from day to day.
Although my worst nightmare there is an awful lot of socialising done based upon office groupings.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
It was not a small utility company - it owned a very large amount of landscape* as well as the water supplies to a very large chunk of the Central Belt population.
But it stood in for the rest, and it had its impact.
The relevance to todfay is the assertion by some that advisory referenda are both illegal and meaningless.
Edit: think not only a very large English Midlands city but the big reservoirs in the Welsh hills linked to it (sorry, I forget which were which).
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
I said there can be no legal referendum without UK government approval, Sturgeon could hold an illegal one if she won an SNP majority in 2021 at Holyrood but it would not mean anything constitutionally and Unionists would boycott it
They've been calling for it for years... decades now.
It's simply not going to happen.
What might happen, in 2028 or 2030, is that you see a return of "GROT" (Get Rid of Them), and people will put up the old "LibDem tactically voting Labour" posters.
That, after all, was why the LibDems saw their vote share slump in 1997, but doubled their seat count.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
No, we were discussing the principle of advisory referendums and what sort of response they may get.
Your desperation to be an expert on every issue under the sun (regardless of actual knowledge) is very occasionally endearing, but a lot of the time it's just a pain in the hole.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
I said there can be no legal referendum without UK government approval, Sturgeon could hold an illegal one if she won an SNP majority in 2021 at Holyrood but it would not mean anything constitutionally and Unionists would boycott it
Would there be prosecutions after this 'illegal' referendum, or even (I don't want to over excite you) imprisonments?
According to Rishi there are no more Leavers or Remainers, only believers in Britain. Apart from the whiff of ein Volk-ness, I would have though his 17 minute visit to Scotland might have alerted him to a certain cup of cold sick interpretation of that sort of thing.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
It was not a small utility company - it owned a very large amount of landscape* as well as the water supplies to a very large chunk of the Central Belt population.
But it stood in for the rest, and it had its impact.
The relevance to todfay is the assertion by some that advisory referenda are both illegal and meaningless.
Edit: think not only a very large English Midlands city but the big reservoirs in the Welsh hills linked to it (sorry, I forget which were which).
You’re thinking of Birmingham and the Elan Valley, at least, I think you are.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
I said there can be no legal referendum without UK government approval, Sturgeon could hold an illegal one if she won an SNP majority in 2021 at Holyrood but it would not mean anything constitutionally and Unionists would boycott it
Would there be prosecutions after this 'illegal' referendum, or even (I don't want to over excite you) imprisonments?
Don't forget that by then Scotland will be under the Geneva Convention International Humanitarian Law (rules of war) so maybe yes there will be prosecutions.
According to Rishi there are no more Leavers or Remainers, only believers in Britain. Apart from the whiff of ein Volk-ness, I would have though his 17 minute visit to Scotland might have alerted him to a certain cup of cold sick interpretation of that sort of thing.
A Zoomer complaining about ein Volk-ness is priceless...
One's a not very successful comedian, the other's...och, well, you know the rest. Which of them do you think has most control over your and my existence?
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Keir has been so far quiet on the issue, a good number of his SC support it.
Although I don't know whether such a policy would require a conference vote or whether he could just pledge to introduce it? Perhaps a referendum first.
I think Labour should undoubtedly back it.
I think the electorate will view it quite cynically. Changing the electoral system just for partisan advantage won't go down well.
PR is better for all of us, it's not just a partisan issue. I get what you're saying so I think it would need to be a referendum before it could be implemented.
Apart from the part which allows politicians to decide what you voted for AFTER you have voted for them. No thanks its bad enough politicians failing to keep their commitments without them being able to make it up after they have your mandate
I think it's wrong to think that that Israel or the Netherlands, with their ridiculously fragmented PR systems, are less democratic than places with two party systems.
To given an example, if PR had existed, Euroscepticism would have been acknowledged a lot sooner. It would not have been a wasted vote that risked putting Labour in to vote UKIP.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
I said there can be no legal referendum without UK government approval, Sturgeon could hold an illegal one if she won an SNP majority in 2021 at Holyrood but it would not mean anything constitutionally and Unionists would boycott it
Would there be prosecutions after this 'illegal' referendum, or even (I don't want to over excite you) imprisonments?
Well the Spanish government did indeed order the arrest of members of the Catalan nationalist government in 2017 after they held an illegal independence referendum and declared UDI.
However that is unlikely to be needed as without consent of the UK government no referendum can be legal anyway (plus I think now we have a Deal the chances of an SNP majority next year are much reduced too)
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
No, we were discussing the principle of advisory referendums and what sort of response they may get.
Your desperation to be an expert on every issue under the sun (regardless of actual knowledge) is very occasionally endearing, but a lot of the time it's just a pain in the hole.
But it wasn’t an advisory referendum. It was, in effect, an opinion poll. Moreover, it made no pretence to follow rules on say, secret ballots (bear in mind it was an all-postal vote).
Holding a state sanctioned referendum with polling stations, counters, security etc would be in a somewhat different category, and the SNP (a few hare brained idiots like Cherry aside) have already conceded can only be held with Westminster’s approval. At the moment Johnson has said there are no circumstances under which he will give it. As I have said several times, he’s profoundly wrong from every point of view to say that, but nevertheless there is no way of forcing him to change his mind.
As for the rest, I can’t help it if you don’t like facts. They remain facts. It’s worrying to see the Nats vanishing down the altfacts rabbit hole, but I suppose given the Tories, Labour and the Greens appear to be joining them it says more about politics in general than Scotland in particular right now.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
No, we were discussing the principle of advisory referendums and what sort of response they may get.
Your desperation to be an expert on every issue under the sun (regardless of actual knowledge) is very occasionally endearing, but a lot of the time it's just a pain in the hole.
But it wasn’t an advisory referendum. It was, in effect, an opinion poll. Moreover, it made no pretence to follow rules on say, secret ballots (bear in mind it was an all-postal vote).
Holding a state sanctioned referendum with polling stations, counters, security etc would be in a somewhat different category, and the SNP (a few hare brained idiots like Cherry aside) have already conceded can only be held with Westminster’s approval. At the moment Johnson has said there are no circumstances under which he will give it. As I have said several times, he’s profoundly wrong from every point of view to say that, but nevertheless there is no way of forcing him to change his mind.
As for the rest, I can’t help it if you don’t like facts. They remain facts. It’s worrying to see the Nats vanishing down the altfacts rabbit hole, but I suppose given the Tories, Labour and the Greens appear to be joining them it says more about politics in general than Scotland in particular right now.
It wasn't an advisory referendum? Shockingly remiss of Wiki to put it under the advisory referendum heading on its Referendums in the United Kingdom page.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
No, we were discussing the principle of advisory referendums and what sort of response they may get.
Your desperation to be an expert on every issue under the sun (regardless of actual knowledge) is very occasionally endearing, but a lot of the time it's just a pain in the hole.
But it wasn’t an advisory referendum. It was, in effect, an opinion poll. Moreover, it made no pretence to follow rules on say, secret ballots (bear in mind it was an all-postal vote).
Holding a state sanctioned referendum with polling stations, counters, security etc would be in a somewhat different category, and the SNP (a few hare brained idiots like Cherry aside) have already conceded can only be held with Westminster’s approval. At the moment Johnson has said there are no circumstances under which he will give it. As I have said several times, he’s profoundly wrong from every point of view to say that, but nevertheless there is no way of forcing him to change his mind.
As for the rest, I can’t help it if you don’t like facts. They remain facts. It’s worrying to see the Nats vanishing down the altfacts rabbit hole, but I suppose given the Tories, Labour and the Greens appear to be joining them it says more about politics in general than Scotland in particular right now.
It wasn't an advisory referendum? Shockingly remiss of Wiki to put it under the advisory referendum heading on its Referendums in the United Kingdom page.
Yes.
But if you’re quoting Wikipedia’s classification as gospel, you are rather proving my point about facts not being of interest.
I notice none of the predictions so far mention transport. Personally I am expecting a drop of between a quarter and a third in daily commuting. Assuming I turn out to be correct I think this likely to have a fair amount of unforseen consequences. Not least of all calling some transport projects into question. Cleaner air. Increased leisure time. The rebalancing from centralised work places to a more spread out workforce, I am certainly for example looking now I am working from home 100% from now on to moving out of the south east and instead spending my salary in the south west.
That's not a bad prediction.
If it comes true it will have other consequences:
- Demand for office space in cities will come down sharply. This means that a lot of these buildings will be repurposed for residential. There's already a lot of residential property coming on the market in London. This could be very negative for London residential real estate prices. (Conversely, places outside London are likely to see some kind of "equalisation" of house prices. It'll be good to own bars and restaurants in the countryside.)
- It'll be bad for social mobility. Lower levels of daily commuting, means more working from home. That's easy for the well off, but poor for the less well office. You'll probably see low cost shared office spaces spring up outside city centers for people to work in.
Hang on, if loads of city space is going to get repurposed for residential, won’t that rather ameliorate your depressing conclusion ?
I notice none of the predictions so far mention transport. Personally I am expecting a drop of between a quarter and a third in daily commuting. Assuming I turn out to be correct I think this likely to have a fair amount of unforseen consequences. Not least of all calling some transport projects into question. Cleaner air. Increased leisure time. The rebalancing from centralised work places to a more spread out workforce, I am certainly for example looking now I am working from home 100% from now on to moving out of the south east and instead spending my salary in the south west.
That's not a bad prediction.
If it comes true it will have other consequences:
- Demand for office space in cities will come down sharply. This means that a lot of these buildings will be repurposed for residential. There's already a lot of residential property coming on the market in London. This could be very negative for London residential real estate prices. (Conversely, places outside London are likely to see some kind of "equalisation" of house prices. It'll be good to own bars and restaurants in the countryside.)
- It'll be bad for social mobility. Lower levels of daily commuting, means more working from home. That's easy for the well off, but poor for the less well office. You'll probably see low cost shared office spaces spring up outside city centers for people to work in.
Hang on, if loads of city space is going to get repurposed for residential, won’t that rather ameliorate your depressing conclusion ?
What about former shops as well? Lots of space going there, and it’s not likely to be used for retail again.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
Equally to the point, it was accepted as significant, by HMG who abandoned their plans for privatising Scottish waters.
Did the two of you really just compare Scottish independence to privatising a small utility company?
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
No, we were discussing the principle of advisory referendums and what sort of response they may get.
Your desperation to be an expert on every issue under the sun (regardless of actual knowledge) is very occasionally endearing, but a lot of the time it's just a pain in the hole.
But it wasn’t an advisory referendum. It was, in effect, an opinion poll. Moreover, it made no pretence to follow rules on say, secret ballots (bear in mind it was an all-postal vote).
Holding a state sanctioned referendum with polling stations, counters, security etc would be in a somewhat different category, and the SNP (a few hare brained idiots like Cherry aside) have already conceded can only be held with Westminster’s approval. At the moment Johnson has said there are no circumstances under which he will give it. As I have said several times, he’s profoundly wrong from every point of view to say that, but nevertheless there is no way of forcing him to change his mind.
As for the rest, I can’t help it if you don’t like facts. They remain facts. It’s worrying to see the Nats vanishing down the altfacts rabbit hole, but I suppose given the Tories, Labour and the Greens appear to be joining them it says more about politics in general than Scotland in particular right now.
It wasn't an advisory referendum? Shockingly remiss of Wiki to put it under the advisory referendum heading on its Referendums in the United Kingdom page.
Yes.
But if you’re quoting Wikipedia’s classification as gospel, you are rather proving my point about facts not being of interest.
You'll be putting up those links to authoritative sources (as opposed to some anonymous rando on the internet) on the Strathclyde 'opinion poll' not being an advisory referendum shortly?
The only stat worth comparing is excess deaths, assuming you can even get good data about that.
With COVID-19 Mexico is nearly at 1 death per 1,000, but their excess deaths for 2020 are over double that, and it can't all be down to the Mexican drug war. Likewise Russia had 47,000 excess deaths in October, and 165,000 from March to October, but COVID-19 deaths are a third of that latter figure. So there are potentially several countries doing worse than the ones in that table, and likely many more will join them in 2021.
At least we've moved on from a referendum cannot take place without primary legislation in the U.K. Parliament to who would pay for it and it would be boycotted by Unionists therefore meaningless. Perhaps HYUFD can hand out the number for his goal post movers.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
We hear this is a possibility every election. If there was ever going to be such a PA, it would have been the last GE, where they could have stopped Brexit, give 16 year olds the vote and introduce PR.
Agree, although I think like 1997 there is a slim possibility Labour doesn't bother to campaign in certain seats and vice versa for LDs?
To get to PR, Labour have to believe they will never, ever win a UK General Election under FPTP again.
I probably do believe that, but I bet most Labour Party members don't.
Keir has been so far quiet on the issue, a good number of his SC support it.
Although I don't know whether such a policy would require a conference vote or whether he could just pledge to introduce it? Perhaps a referendum first.
I think Labour should undoubtedly back it.
I think the electorate will view it quite cynically. Changing the electoral system just for partisan advantage won't go down well.
PR is better for all of us, it's not just a partisan issue. I get what you're saying so I think it would need to be a referendum before it could be implemented.
Apart from the part which allows politicians to decide what you voted for AFTER you have voted for them. No thanks its bad enough politicians failing to keep their commitments without them being able to make it up after they have your mandate
You mean like Johnson, Cameron & Co and the way they decided what the EU Referendum meant after it had taken place? When I voted, it was just advisory.....
I notice none of the predictions so far mention transport. Personally I am expecting a drop of between a quarter and a third in daily commuting. Assuming I turn out to be correct I think this likely to have a fair amount of unforseen consequences. Not least of all calling some transport projects into question. Cleaner air. Increased leisure time. The rebalancing from centralised work places to a more spread out workforce, I am certainly for example looking now I am working from home 100% from now on to moving out of the south east and instead spending my salary in the south west.
That's not a bad prediction.
If it comes true it will have other consequences:
- Demand for office space in cities will come down sharply. This means that a lot of these buildings will be repurposed for residential. There's already a lot of residential property coming on the market in London. This could be very negative for London residential real estate prices. (Conversely, places outside London are likely to see some kind of "equalisation" of house prices. It'll be good to own bars and restaurants in the countryside.)
- It'll be bad for social mobility. Lower levels of daily commuting, means more working from home. That's easy for the well off, but poor for the less well office. You'll probably see low cost shared office spaces spring up outside city centers for people to work in.
Hang on, if loads of city space is going to get repurposed for residential, won’t that rather ameliorate your depressing conclusion ?
What about former shops as well? Lots of space going there, and it’s not likely to be used for retail again.
Absolutely. I think the process is likely to be quite messy, though, absent really effective local planning policies (which absence would be a reasonable assumption).
That article looks quite damaging. If the situation wasn't so critical I'd expect the authorities to tell them to go away and do it again, properly this time.
Comments
Labour/SNP deal but before a referendum on Independence, PR is implemented (via a successful referendum).
Then Labour could just call an election assuming that has reverted to the PM by then
I think it has a reasonable chance of winning support in the country.
Look at East Renfrewshire. Labour held for 10 years and lost to the SNP, with Labour 4000 votes back and and Conservatives 11000 votes back. Easy to think a tactical unionist vote should go for Labour. Come 2017 and although nationally Labour gained and the Tories fell back, the Tories won the day with 7000 mote votes than Labour.
A minority government even involving just one party is very unlikely in Germany (apart from anything else because no other party wants to give the AfD the power it would give them). A coalition of three parties that doesn't even make a majority is less likely than the monster raving loony party winning a majority at the next UK general election.
Every post you write about German politics just offers further proof that you know nothing about it.
They are already On The List.
Where there are barriers is in some regulated professional services. (And here, of course, there are even restrictions "in country". Can a Scottish Advocate appear at an English court? I don't know, but suspect not.)
These are mostly the result of government regulation requiring certain qualifications in order to practise.
Inside the EU, there was a certain amount of services deregulation. Mostly this consisted of mutual recognition of standards, but there were also prohibitions on countries erecting new barriers.
There is unlikely to be a major direct impact on British services businesses, as (for a start) most large corporates are built up of local subsidiaries which are the contracted entity. I suspect the bigger impact, long-term, may be due to immigration restriction. If you take a big financial PR company like Brunswick: they serve companies across Europe, and their offices will be full of young (not particularly well paid) people speaking a dozen languages at the start of their careers. Is it going to be easy for these people to work in London? Or will they choose Amsterdam or Dublin instead? I don't know. But that seems to me to be the biggest threat to some of these services businesses.
If it comes true it will have other consequences:
- Demand for office space in cities will come down sharply. This means that a lot of these buildings will be repurposed for residential. There's already a lot of residential property coming on the market in London. This could be very negative for London residential real estate prices. (Conversely, places outside London are likely to see some kind of "equalisation" of house prices. It'll be good to own bars and restaurants in the countryside.)
- It'll be bad for social mobility. Lower levels of daily commuting, means more working from home. That's easy for the well off, but poor for the less well office. You'll probably see low cost shared office spaces spring up outside city centers for people to work in.
Works for me.
I am aware of another Insurance concern already letting go of their expensive city office space and just going for a smaller space for meetings.
Died last year
In the US I agree the GOP will likely hold at least 1 of the Georgia Senate seats thus making Biden the first incoming President since Bush Snr in 1989 not to have control of both chambers of Congress. However that could actually be a positive thing as it will force Biden to govern from the centre and pragmatic deals to be done with Congress and particularly the Senate.
In Germany while Von Der Leyen will continue as EU Commission President, when Merkel retires her successor as Chancellor after the autumn 2021 German Federal elections will either be whichever candidate for the Chancellory the CDU select, ie Merz, Laschet or Rottgen or the leader of the current 2nd place party in the polls the Greens, currently held jointly by Annalena Baerbock and Robert Habeck
In which case if the CDU refuse also to do a deal with the AfD and there is no majority for the CDU/CSU and FDP either then the only alternative would be a Green, SPD and Linke no matter how patronising and rude you wish to be
Though with this version of the Conservative Party, it's pretty unlikely for the foreseeable future.
For your delectation there was quite a big advisory referendum in Strathclyde held very much at HMG's displeasure.
'In March 1994 Strathclyde Regional Council held a postal referendum of Strathclyde residents on whether control of water and sewerage services should be privatised. Seven out of ten voters returned papers, a total of 1.2 million people, of whom 97% voted against privatisation.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Strathclyde_water_referendum
It means they have an excuse to the Squad for not delivering any of their promises (and a reason for people to go out and vote in 2022).
And given McConnell's obstructivist stance, it gives the Dems easy political wins by choosing things that the Republicans actually quite like, solely for the purpose of having them shot down.
McConnell has held his caucus together extraordinarily well to date, but there are at least three interesting Senate races in 2022.
First up, Alaska. Trump has promised to head to Alaska to campaign against Lisa Murkowski. She won as a write-in candidate in 2016 after losing the Primary. What happens there? Almost any outcome is possible.
Then there's Pennsylvania. Pat Toomey is retiring. That makes the seat wide open.
And Wisconsin. Could go either way. Normally you'd make the party of the opposition the favourites, but if the Republicans are at war, who knows?
No idea who chancellor would be, but I wouldn't be surprised if Söder somehow manages to wangle it.
There's probably a tenuous link to Brexit but I'll let someone else figure it out.
It turned out she hadn't heard on Edward Lloyd or what *that* experiment in hot desking led to...
https://twitter.com/TelePolitics/status/1343242405198311428
If the only problem is the Greens not liking Merz as chancellor, there will simply be someone else as chancellor.
There will not be a 3-party minority coalition after the next election in Germany. It will not even be attempted.
I'm sorry for being rude, but you can be quite frustrating.
I mean, seriously?
(Incidentally, the referendum was one factor among many that caused the idea to be dropped.)
Apart from the whiff of ein Volk-ness, I would have though his 17 minute visit to Scotland might have alerted him to a certain cup of cold sick interpretation of that sort of thing.
It'll be Finance Mondays, Developer Tuesdays, Marketing Wednesdays, etc. In this way, we'll get all the teams in together once or twice a week, but we won't force everyone into the office every day.
Although my worst nightmare there is an awful lot of socialising done based upon office groupings.
But it stood in for the rest, and it had its impact.
The relevance to todfay is the assertion by some that advisory referenda are both illegal and meaningless.
Edit: think not only a very large English Midlands city but the big reservoirs in the Welsh hills linked to it (sorry, I forget which were which).
What might happen, in 2028 or 2030, is that you see a return of "GROT" (Get Rid of Them), and people will put up the old "LibDem tactically voting Labour" posters.
That, after all, was why the LibDems saw their vote share slump in 1997, but doubled their seat count.
Special Report-How a British COVID-19 vaccine went from pole position to troubled start
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN28Y0XU
At least one high profile scientist is unimpressed with AZN’s measuring protocol:
https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1343027864162107392
Your desperation to be an expert on every issue under the sun (regardless of actual knowledge) is very occasionally endearing, but a lot of the time it's just a pain in the hole.
From case data
From hospital data
https://twitter.com/misterhsk/status/1342859648647442434
A Zoomer complaining about ein Volk-ness is priceless...
"Wales: no data on 25 December and 1 January"
In addition the reported cases for Wales in the data set look like this -
15/12/2020 3181
16/12/2020 3142
17/12/2020 2776
18/12/2020 2536
19/12/2020 2170
20/12/2020 2200
21/12/2020 2724
22/12/2020 2623
23/12/2020 2294
24/12/2020 485
25/12/2020 42
26/12/2020 6
27/12/2020 0
Which strongly suggests we are seeing a big version of "weekend effect"
Which of them do you think has most control over your and my existence?
To given an example, if PR had existed, Euroscepticism would have been acknowledged a lot sooner. It would not have been a wasted vote that risked putting Labour in to vote UKIP.
In a separate Scotland the Zoomer luvvies will be a very important bloc...
However that is unlikely to be needed as without consent of the UK government no referendum can be legal anyway (plus I think now we have a Deal the chances of an SNP majority next year are much reduced too)
Holding a state sanctioned referendum with polling stations, counters, security etc would be in a somewhat different category, and the SNP (a few hare brained idiots like Cherry aside) have already conceded can only be held with Westminster’s approval. At the moment Johnson has said there are no circumstances under which he will give it. As I have said several times, he’s profoundly wrong from every point of view to say that, but nevertheless there is no way of forcing him to change his mind.
As for the rest, I can’t help it if you don’t like facts. They remain facts. It’s worrying to see the Nats vanishing down the altfacts rabbit hole, but I suppose given the Tories, Labour and the Greens appear to be joining them it says more about politics in general than Scotland in particular right now.
It is, however, complete bollocks.
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1343000976215535617
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/692716437681610752
But the headline should really have been, ‘Cock meets Balls.’
But if you’re quoting Wikipedia’s classification as gospel, you are rather proving my point about facts not being of interest.
This Tuesday will be Murder Tuesday, quite definitely.
With COVID-19 Mexico is nearly at 1 death per 1,000, but their excess deaths for 2020 are over double that, and it can't all be down to the Mexican drug war. Likewise Russia had 47,000 excess deaths in October, and 165,000 from March to October, but COVID-19 deaths are a third of that latter figure. So there are potentially several countries doing worse than the ones in that table, and likely many more will join them in 2021.
The deal is done
I think the process is likely to be quite messy, though, absent really effective local planning policies (which absence would be a reasonable assumption).