politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB could get squeezed in Witney and end up with a single figu
Comments
-
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlandsalex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I agree "classic remainer comment"Big_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats. Furthermore, it is one thing to take into account public opinion on immigration, quite another to pander to it and even stoke it up to the extent that they have been. The amount of time they have spent having to "explain" and clarify their comments should be a warning sign. There was clearly a sizeable vote for Brexit who were not motivated by pulling up the drawbridge. It would also be electoral suicide to simply ignore the views of half the population just because they voted remain. They are potentially driving themselves into an electoral cul-de-sac with out an easy option to reverse.
It amazes me that reaminers still haven't come to terms that the majority voted to leave. Its like those Japanese soldiers long after the war that continued hiding in the jungles....only to merge decades later.
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry saying
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"0 -
-
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlandsalex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I agree "classic remainer comment"Big_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats. Furthermore, it is one thing to take into account public opinion on immigration, quite another to pander to it and even stoke it up to the extent that they have been. The amount of time they have spent having to "explain" and clarify their comments should be a warning sign. There was clearly a sizeable vote for Brexit who were not motivated by pulling up the drawbridge. It would also be electoral suicide to simply ignore the views of half the population just because they voted remain. They are potentially driving themselves into an electoral cul-de-sac with out an easy option to reverse.
It amazes me that reaminers still haven't come to terms that the majority voted to leave. Its like those Japanese soldiers long after the war that continued hiding in the jungles....only to merge decades later.
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry saying
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"0 -
Classic remainer comment ?
I agree "classic remainer comment"
It amazes me that reaminers still haven't come to terms that the majority voted to leave. Its like those Japanese soldiers long after the war that continued hiding in the jungles....only to merge decades later.
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry saying
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment.
Beyond what is acceptable to whom. The people or their liberal moral guardians?
Question: when do you think it is acceptable for politicians to deliberately stir up anti-foreigner sentiment?
Before that gets answered, explain why companies monitoring nationality is "deliberately stir[ring] up anti foreign sentiment", with not even a n "appear to be" or a "could be construed as"
Because the intention is to make it less socially acceptable to employ 'foreigners' over native Brits.
It would be funny to see how football fans react!
Indeed it may well lend a certain continental chic to some companies.
Best value and fast service with www.polishplumber.com etc.
It should be "less socially acceptable to employ foreigners"
What has this country come to when someone could think otherwise.0 -
No, the intention is to make it as unacceptable to discriminate against Brits as to discriminate against women and blacks. What's wrong with that?williamglenn said:
Because the intention is to make it less socially acceptable to employ 'foreigners' over native Brits.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Before that gets answered, explain why companies monitoring nationality is "deliberately stir[ring] up anti foreign sentiment", with not even a n "appear to be" or a "could be construed as"alex. said:
Question: when do you think it is acceptable for politicians to deliberately stir up anti-foreigner sentiment?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Beyond what is acceptable to whom. The people or their liberal moral guardians?alex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment.NoEasyDay said:
I agree "classic remainer comment"Big_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats. Furthermore, it is one thing to take into account public opinion on immigration, quite another to pander to it and even stoke it up to the extent that they have been. The amount of time they have spent having to "explain" and clarify their comments should be a warning sign. There was clearly a sizeable vote for Brexit who were not motivated by pulling up the drawbridge. It would also be electoral suicide to simply ignore the views of half the population just because they voted remain. They are potentially driving themselves into an electoral cul-de-sac with out an easy option to reverse.
It amazes me that reaminers still haven't come to terms that the majority voted to leave. Its like those Japanese soldiers long after the war that continued hiding in the jungles....only to merge decades later.
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry saying
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"0 -
My recollection is that the plane crash occurred in Russia when the deceased president insisted on landing in foul weather against the advice of Russian ATC, and the pilot meekly went along with the President's demand.Black_Rook said:Hmmmm...
My knowledge of the internal politics of Poland could be written on the back of a postage stamp, BUT... isn't the party to the Right of Tusk's now in the driving seat in Warsaw, and part of this "illiberal democracy" trend in the V4 states? I distinctly remember a big row over appointments to the constitutional court, in which the EU institutions tried to intervene, making the news earlier this year.
Thus, it seems quite possible that either (a) there's some measure of truth to this, or (b) it's a politically motivated inquiry. Regardless, sounds like yet another headache that the European institutions could really do without right now.
The charges are not evidence-based ...0 -
Having a previous PM that was pro EU and they sent him back with a kick in the pants and a flea in his ear destroys any goodwill there might be. If there ever was of course for the majority.williamglenn said:
Having a government ostensibly led by a pro-EU PM should have been an opportunity to keep things amicable, but the rhetoric, above all about listing foreign workers destroys any goodwill there might be.tyson said:Big_G_NorthWales said:
So tell me - how would you take us out of the EU - by a quick two year process with the obvious ups and downs or by fudge and delay creating more uncertainty.tyson said:
I don't think you answered my question comrade....one is currently wrecking the future of the economy and one is laughable. Choose punk and make my day.....Big_G_NorthWales said:
One is acting on the democratic will of the people, the other is a nobody outside the London leftie luvvy circle of marxiststyson said:Guys...what do you think is worse for the UK?
Theresa May's intervention at the Tory party conference causing a run on sterling, or Jezza picking Abbott as Shadow Home Secretary?
A clue to the answer... one is meaningless nonsense, and one is destructive...and pushes the UK into the hinterland.
.
Or maybe by just ignoring the will of the people
Considering we have singlehandedly managed to create an enemy of there entire EU...Hollande, Merkel, Junker, Tusk etc......all of them lining their guns against us, I would choose the option that is most pisses them off.....
The more sane people saw the EU for what it was and more importantly .....what it aspired to be.
No thanks. Dead in water.0 -
.
And exactly what does make it right then, who has the authority to decide what is or isnt right?Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlandsalex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I agree "classic remainer comment"Big_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats.
It amazes me that reaminers still haven't come to terms that the majority voted to leave. Its like those Japanese soldiers long after the war that continued hiding in the jungles....only to merge decades later.
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry saying
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"
Is there a liberal ayatollah in a palace in Hampstead who issues binding fatwas?
You may not like the Tyranny of the majority but you dont seem to me too bothered about the tyranny of a minority?
0 -
I don't know what it's come to, but I worry about where it's going.NoEasyDay said:It should be "less socially acceptable to employ foreigners"
What has this country come to when someone could think otherwise.0 -
Classic remainer comment ?
I agree "classic remainer comment"
It amazes me that reaminers still haven't come to terms that the majority voted to leave. Its like those Japanese soldiers long after the war that continued hiding in the jungles....only to merge decades later.
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry saying
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlands
Your point being?
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary people
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.
I would agree to an extent but it plays into the narrative of the liberal elite v the ordinary people and Theresa May has very much placed herself on the side of just ordinary people. It is a narrative that will become very popular as she introduces policies to change the direction from the elite and wealthy0 -
Hodges was exactly right in 2012 on early voting analysisnunu said:
Shit! Maybe Dan Hodges is actually right then.619 said:
um it means there are less republican voters voting this time compared to 2012, by around 23 points worthnunu said:
For comparison, the same model has Trump ahead by 24 among those who voted by this point in 2012
Nate Cohn added,
Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn
Our models suggest Trump is ahead by 1 point among NC absentee voters who have returned ballots https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/784370010701430784 …
WTF does this mean? Does this mean trump is underpreforming Romney by 23%? Is it good for him? Bad?0 -
Hodges was also right about Ed Miliband.Jobabob said:
Hodges was exactly right in 2012 on early voting analysisnunu said:
Shit! Maybe Dan Hodges is actually right then.619 said:
um it means there are less republican voters voting this time compared to 2012, by around 23 points worthnunu said:
For comparison, the same model has Trump ahead by 24 among those who voted by this point in 2012
Nate Cohn added,
Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn
Our models suggest Trump is ahead by 1 point among NC absentee voters who have returned ballots https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/784370010701430784 …
WTF does this mean? Does this mean trump is underpreforming Romney by 23%? Is it good for him? Bad?0 -
No much better that 1% of people with the correct views get to impose them?williamglenn said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:alex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I agree "classic remainer comment"Big_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats. Furthermore, it is one thing to take into account public opinion on immigration, quite another to pander to it and even stoke it up to the extent that they have been. The amount of time they have spent having to "explain" and clarify their comments should be a warning sign. There was clearly a sizeable vote for Brexit who were not motivated by pulling up the drawbridge. It would also be electoral suicide to simply ignore the views of half the population just because they voted remain. They are potentially driving themselves into an electoral cul-de-sac with out an easy option to reverse.
It amazes me that reaminers still haven't come to terms that the majority voted to leave. Its like those Japanese soldiers long after the war that continued hiding in the jungles....only to merge decades later.
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry saying
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"0 -
Two questions for PB experts: Is Larry Sanders at 82 the oldest candidate in a bye-election? There have been older candidates in GEs - Manny Shinwell and SO Davies at 86 and 84.
Second question - has a candidate in a bye-election asked voters to support one of the other candidates? This has now happened in Witney.0 -
Especially as rather more brits than say, eastern europeans, are blacks.ThreeQuidder said:
No, the intention is to make it as unacceptable to discriminate against Brits as to discriminate against women and blacks. What's wrong with that?williamglenn said:
Because the intention is to make it less socially acceptable to employ 'foreigners' over native Brits.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Before that gets answered, explain why companies monitoring nationality is "deliberately stir[ring] up anti foreign sentiment", with not even a n "appear to be" or a "could be construed as"alex. said:
Question: when do you think it is acceptable for politicians to deliberately stir up anti-foreigner sentiment?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Beyond what is acceptable to whom. The people or their liberal moral guardians?alex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment.NoEasyDay said:
I agree "classic remainer comment"Big_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats. Furthermore, it is one thing to take into account public opinion on immigration, quite another to pander to it and even stoke it up to the extent that they have been. The amount of time they have spent having to "explain" and clarify their comments should be a warning sign. There was clearly a sizeable vote for Brexit who were not motivated by pulling up the drawbridge. It would also be electoral suicide to simply ignore the views of half the population just because they voted remain. They are potentially driving themselves into an electoral cul-de-sac with out an easy option to reverse.
It amazes me that reaminers still haven't come to terms that the majority voted to leave. Its like those Japanese soldiers long after the war that continued hiding in the jungles....only to merge decades later.
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry saying
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"0 -
Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
0 -
Whatever happened to the Clinton wikileaks story?0
-
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.williamglenn said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlandsalex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry sayingBig_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats. Furthermore, it is one thing to take into account public opinion on immigration, quite another to pander to it and even stoke it up to the extent that they have been. The amount of time they have spent having to "explain" and clarify their comments should be a warning sign. There was clearly a sizeable vote for Brexit who were not motivated by pulling up the drawbridge. It would also be electoral suicide to simply ignore the views of half the population just because they voted remain. They are potentially driving themselves into an electoral cul-de-sac with out an easy option to reverse.
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"0 -
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlands
Your point being?
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary people
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.
50% + 2 actually - you need to get over it - we are leaving the undemocratic dying organisation known as the EU - and the sooner the better0 -
So if the vote had been to remain then you would have posted the same thing tonight.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlandsalex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I agree "classic remainer comment"Big_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats. Furthermore, it is one thing to take into account public opinion on immigration, quite another to pander to it and even stoke it up to the extent that they have been. The amount of time they have spent having to "explain" and clarify their comments should be a warning sign. There was clearly a sizeable vote for Brexit who were not motivated by pulling up the drawbridge. It would also be electoral suicide to simply ignore the views of half the population just because they voted remain. They are potentially driving themselves into an electoral cul-de-sac with out an easy option to reverse.
It amazes me that reaminers still haven't come to terms that the majority voted to leave. Its like those Japanese soldiers long after the war that continued hiding in the jungles....only to merge decades later.
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry saying
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"
Like feck you would have you would be shouting democracy rules from the EU rooftops.
0 -
Assanage turned up, wibbled for 30 mins incoherently, plugged some books, and said of course we wouldn't release such things at 3am (US EST)..you been trolled.Freggles said:Whatever happened to the Clinton wikileaks story?
0 -
There should be as little imposition as possible. Just as your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, the collective right of the majority ends at the point where it damages the rights of the individual.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
No much better that 1% of people with the correct views get to impose them?williamglenn said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.0 -
36% on a GB basis!AndyJS said:
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.williamglenn said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlandsalex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry sayingBig_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats. Furthermore, it is one thing to take into account public opinion on immigration, quite another to pander to it and even stoke it up to the extent that they have been. The amount of time they have spent having to "explain" and clarify their comments should be a warning sign. There was clearly a sizeable vote for Brexit who were not motivated by pulling up the drawbridge. It would also be electoral suicide to simply ignore the views of half the population just because they voted remain. They are potentially driving themselves into an electoral cul-de-sac with out an easy option to reverse.
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"0 -
Non-starter, for four reasons: (1) Why would our EEA friends want to offer their pad as a temporary doss-house why we get our act together, in the full knowledge we were planning to abandon them? (2) Why would our EU friends - already fed up with us - want to prolong the disruption for a further five to seven years? (3) How would the UK government fend off the accusations of 'betrayal' if they said we're not actually leaving the EU fully for nearly a decade? (4) Why would business - which above all wants some certainty - be happy with 7 to 9 years of further uncertainty?rcs1000 said:The way to take us out is obvious. You enter into a time limited (say five to seven years) EEA agreement now, and which allows the UK to leave the EU in the next 12 months
0 -
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?0 -
Savilesque.SirBernard said:I think the truly toxic bit of these Trump comments is when he says 'if you're a star, you can do what you want'. There is a level of arrogance and entitlement there that the usual rules of decency don't apply to him. That will put a lot of people off, especially women.
0 -
williamglenn said:
Maybe but if the elected government ignores the majority who voted for it too long it will either be replaced by a party who will listen to them or there will be a revolution!Jobabob said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.alex. said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peopleBig_G_NorthWales said:
Your point being?alex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. blockquote>NoEasyDay said:
I agree "classic remainer comment"Big_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats. Furthermore, it is one thing to take into account public opinion on immigration, quite another to pander to it and even stoke it up to the extent that they have been. The amount of time they have spent having to "explain" and clarify their comments should be a warning sign. There was clearly a sizeable vote for Brexit who were not motivated by pulling up the drawbridge. It would also be electoral suicide to simply ignore the views of half the population just because they voted remain. They are potentially driving themselves into an electoral cul-de-sac with out an easy option to reverse.
It amazes me that reaminers still haven't come to terms that the majority voted to leave. Its like those Japanese soldiers long after the war that continued hiding in the jungles....only to merge decades later.
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry saying
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlands0 -
By what authority should such rights exist?rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
0 -
I was thinking more Keith o'Brien.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Savilesque.SirBernard said:I think the truly toxic bit of these Trump comments is when he says 'if you're a star, you can do what you want'. There is a level of arrogance and entitlement there that the usual rules of decency don't apply to him. That will put a lot of people off, especially women.
0 -
Expats will be given a 'vote for life' as Tories unveil plan to lift the 15-year limit that has barred 3million Britons from voting in general elections
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3827249/Expats-given-vote-life-Tories-unveil-plan-lift-15-year-limit-barred-3million-Britons-voting-general-elections.html0 -
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.0 -
Angela Merkel will BAN EU migrants from claiming unemployment benefits for five years as her open-door policy continues to hit Germany
Just a day ago Mrs Merkel said Britain cannot be given access EU markets if it limits immigration but Germany's coalition goverment has been losing support to the hard-right
The draft bill would stop EU migrants who move to Germany from receiving 'Hartz IV' unemployment and welfare benefits for five years
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3827365/Angela-Merkel-BAN-EU-migrants-claiming-unemployment-benefits-five-years-open-door-policy-continues-hit-Germany.html#ixzz4MR9XmfPX
Can't wait for the morning Sky news reporting the EU and co backed by foreign ministers are outraged that Germany could ever consider doing such a thing....... Not holding breath. Reason no 60956 for leaving the EU idiots to it.
In affect Merkel is saying have a job, ability to maintain yourself and somewhere to live before you arrive..... Basically what the UK was trying to say but was shot down by the EU for doing so.0 -
And which authority has decided that the rights of the individual shall not be damaged?williamglenn said:
There should be as little imposition as possible. Just as your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, the collective right of the majority ends at the point where it damages the rights of the individual.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
No much better that 1% of people with the correct views get to impose them?williamglenn said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.
There is no authority that even agrees on what an individual is. One reason abortion is legal.
Parliament could pass an act allowing me to smite you if they wished.
These rights you imagine dont actually exist unless you can get a majority in parliament to legislate them into existence or in the case of existing rights not repeal them.
0 -
And now the Tories are giving us hard brexit with less than 37%AndyJS said:
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.williamglenn said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlandsalex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry sayingBig_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats. Furthermore, it is one thing to take into account public opinion on immigration, quite another to pander to it and even stoke it up to the extent that they have been. The amount of time they have spent having to "explain" and clarify their comments should be a warning sign. There was clearly a sizeable vote for Brexit who were not motivated by pulling up the drawbridge. It would also be electoral suicide to simply ignore the views of half the population just because they voted remain. They are potentially driving themselves into an electoral cul-de-sac with out an easy option to reverse.
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"0 -
Despite the hard talk, it is in both the interests of the EU and the UK to come to an amicable agreement. Such an agreement will almost certainly - in the medium to long-term - look like the Canada-EU CETA treaty.Richard_Nabavi said:
Non-starter, for four reasons: (1) Why would our EEA friends want to offer their pad as a temporary doss-house why we get our act together, in the full knowledge we were planning to abandon them? (2) Why would our EU friends - already fed up with us - want to prolong the disruption for a further five to seven years? (3) How would the UK government fend off the accusations of 'betrayal' if they said we're not actually leaving the EU fully for nearly a decade? (4) Why would business - which above all wants some certainty - be happy with 7 to 9 years of further uncertainty?rcs1000 said:The way to take us out is obvious. You enter into a time limited (say five to seven years) EEA agreement now, and which allows the UK to leave the EU in the next 12 months
This is not going to be agreed in two years.
The EU would benefit from a gradual unravelling of the arrangement. It would benefit from the tens of billions of contributions that it would recieve if the UK remained in the EEA. The Eurozone economy - while it is recovering - is still fragile.0 -
Ah - so, perhaps (b) the stitch-up? Which in turn begs the question, how long do they expect to get away with shenanigans like that within the supposedly rules-based EU club?MTimT said:
My recollection is that the plane crash occurred in Russia when the deceased president insisted on landing in foul weather against the advice of Russian ATC, and the pilot meekly went along with the President's demand.Black_Rook said:Hmmmm...
My knowledge of the internal politics of Poland could be written on the back of a postage stamp, BUT... isn't the party to the Right of Tusk's now in the driving seat in Warsaw, and part of this "illiberal democracy" trend in the V4 states? I distinctly remember a big row over appointments to the constitutional court, in which the EU institutions tried to intervene, making the news earlier this year.
Thus, it seems quite possible that either (a) there's some measure of truth to this, or (b) it's a politically motivated inquiry. Regardless, sounds like yet another headache that the European institutions could really do without right now.
The charges are not evidence-based ...
Probably an impossibly naïve question, I know. Viktor Orban isn't exactly a standard bearer for Western values. And in some of the less developed ex-Eastern bloc countries, the judicial system barely functions.
It all makes us here in Britain look very silly - for following the rules. We didn't like the way the EU operated so we voted to Leave it. Cue anguished cries and threats. When almost everyone else doesn't like something about the EU, they just tell it to fuck off. Only politically unstable and/or crippled debtor states like Greece are made to bend, and even they at least try to resist first. It's not even just the peripheral or ex-Communist countries: look at the violations of the Stability and Growth Pact by Germany and France during the 2000s, for example.
If it wasn't for the chance event of a Hung Parliament in 2010 (because the Liberal Democrats would never have ditched their slavish devotion to all things European, even as they threw their tuition fees pledge on the bonfire,) then one can easily see how a Tory Government with a sufficiently ruthless leadership could've staunched a lot of the public disquiet over the EU by re-establishing border controls. A state of emergency would've provided sufficient pre-text. Declare that the country can't cope. Turn back speculative jobseekers or those with low-wage offers at the border. Tell the European Commission to fuck off, and tie the whole situation up in knots in the ECJ for years. It would've been ugly, but likely the referendum would never have happened and we would be in a very different place right now.0 -
LEAVE 52%Monksfield said:
And now the Tories are giving us hard brexit with less than 37%AndyJS said:
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.williamglenn said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlandsalex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry sayingBig_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats. Furthermore, it is one thing to take into account public opinion on immigration, quite another to pander to it and even stoke it up to the extent that they have beenreverse.
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"
REMAIN 48%
0 -
"My instinct is to view them as a human being, not consider what country they came from". - Nicola Sturgeon #WeAreScotland0
-
And the ECHR only has any influence so long as it pleases parliament to remain in the convention. A majority of one in the commons and the parliament act would do for it.NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
The inaliable right that overrides democracy is actually a plea for aristocracy. Learned Guardians of the People.
In this country, thanks to the bloody liberals they no longer exist, because Lloyd George abolished the House of Lords veto with the parliament act.
Liberals only like such democracy overriding rights when liberals get to choose what those rights are.0 -
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?0 -
That "could" word again!!!rcs1000 said:
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
0 -
That is true, but you're ignoring the politics. Just as Theresa May has a political imperative to come back with some deal which she can, with a straight face, sell to voters as giving 'control of our borders', our counterparties on the EU side have to be able to sell the deal to their voters. They also have a political imperative (as they see it) to maintain the integrity of the Union as a political project.rcs1000 said:
Despite the hard talk, it is in both the interests of the EU and the UK to come to an amicable agreement. Such an agreement will almost certainly - in the medium to long-term - look like the Canada-EU CETA treaty.Richard_Nabavi said:
Non-starter, for four reasons: (1) Why would our EEA friends want to offer their pad as a temporary doss-house why we get our act together, in the full knowledge we were planning to abandon them? (2) Why would our EU friends - already fed up with us - want to prolong the disruption for a further five to seven years? (3) How would the UK government fend off the accusations of 'betrayal' if they said we're not actually leaving the EU fully for nearly a decade? (4) Why would business - which above all wants some certainty - be happy with 7 to 9 years of further uncertainty?rcs1000 said:The way to take us out is obvious. You enter into a time limited (say five to seven years) EEA agreement now, and which allows the UK to leave the EU in the next 12 months
This is not going to be agreed in two years.
The EU would benefit from a gradual unravelling of the arrangement. It would benefit from the tens of billions of contributions that it would recieve if the UK remained in the EEA. The Eurozone economy - while it is recovering - is still fragile.
Just as the vote to Leave was despite the economics, the reaction of our EU friends won't be entirely about economics. If these things were all about economics, David Cameron would still be PM.0 -
I was thinking of something like the US constitution. (Maybe with something like the start of the Declaration of Independence in the preamble... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.")Paul_Bedfordshire said:
By what authority should such rights exist?rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?0 -
Fortunately unlikely, I agree.Sunil_Prasannan said:
That "could" word again!!!rcs1000 said:
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?0 -
As someone who like me has a PhD Dr Prasannan, you should know very well not to push data further than the question which the experiment was designed to answer.Sunil_Prasannan said:
LEAVE 52%Monksfield said:
And now the Tories are giving us hard brexit with less than 37%AndyJS said:
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.williamglenn said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlandsalex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry sayingBig_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats. Furthermore, it is one thing to take into account public opinion on immigration, quite another to pander to it and even stoke it up to the extent that they have beenreverse.
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"
REMAIN 48%0 -
...unless they are an English university student...bigjohnowls said:"My instinct is to view them as a human being, not consider what country they came from". - Nicola Sturgeon #WeAreScotland
Kaching !!0 -
* As long as they're not dark-skinned, of coursercs1000 said:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.")
0 -
As I understand it evangelicals are prepared to hold their nose and vote for Trump because of the Supreme Court. The court is currently set up as follows:
3 conservatives - Roberts (61), Thomas (68), Alito (66)
1 swing voter - Kennedy (80)
4 liberals - Ginsburg (83), Breyer (78), Sotomayor (62), Kagan (56)
1 vacancy from the death of Scalia
If Clinton wins that makes it 5-4 to the liberals. If Ginsburg and Breyer were also to retire during a Hilary presidency then the 'liberals' could have a lock for a couple of decades
0 -
Or more plausibly:rcs1000 said:
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
"If you think you're a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere... That's why my government will pass legislation to remove the right to vote from anyone who holds dual-nationality, or who doesn't pay their fair share of tax in the UK."0 -
Add in UKIP's 13% and you get to 50%Monksfield said:
And now the Tories are giving us hard brexit with less than 37%AndyJS said:
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.williamglenn said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the publicalex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry sayingBig_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats. Furthermore, it is one thing to take into account public opinion on immigration, quite another to pander to it and even stoke it up to the extent that they have been. The amount of time they have spent having to "explain" and clarify their comments should be a warning sign. There was clearly a sizeable vote for Brexit who were not motivated by pulling up the drawbridge. It would also be electoral suicide to simply ignore the views of half the population just because they voted remain. They are potentially driving themselves into an electoral cul-de-sac with out an easy option to reverse.
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"0 -
Could play badly with evangelicals, who were holding their noses supporting Trump in the hope of favourable supreme court nominations, compared with those likely to be appointed by Clinton.619 said:
whats even worse is that he is talking about ivanka here.Speedy said:Well this is the end, Trump has been caught on video admitting trying to commit infidelity with a married woman:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name:page/breaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews
" “I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it,” Trump is heard saying. It was unclear when the events he was describing took place. The tape was recorded several months after he married his third wife, Melania.
“Whoa,” another voice said.
“I did try and f--- her. She was married,” Trump says.
Trump continues: “And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’”
“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Trump says. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.” "
Will now Trump finally resign the nomination ?
He issued a statement. Its just 'banter', bill clinton has said worse on the golf course and 'i apologise for any offence caused'.
not 100% sure this will work...0 -
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlands
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary people
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.
50% + 2 actually - you need to get over it - we are leaving the undemocratic dying organisation known as the EU - and the sooner the better
I was talking about the YouGov opinion poll. You are arguing that because 59% of people said in an opinion poll that they supported foreigners being "flushed out" of companies, that such a policy was necessarily right. I disagree. It's wrong no matter how many survey respondents support it.0 -
How ironic it was a Bush that did this?Pong said:
I was thinking more Keith o'Brien.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Savilesque.SirBernard said:I think the truly toxic bit of these Trump comments is when he says 'if you're a star, you can do what you want'. There is a level of arrogance and entitlement there that the usual rules of decency don't apply to him. That will put a lot of people off, especially women.
0 -
-
Classic remainer comment ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
I agree "classic remainer comment"
It amazes me that reaminers still haven't come to terms that the majority voted to leave. Its like those Japanese soldiers long after the war that continued hiding in the jungles....only to merge decades later.
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry saying
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlands
Your point being?
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary people
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.
I would agree to an extent but it plays into the narrative of the liberal elite v the ordinary people and Theresa May has very much placed herself on the side of just ordinary people. It is a narrative that will become very popular as she introduces policies to change the direction from the elite and wealthy
Actions speak louder than words. Theresa's history suggests she's big on words but less so on actions.
Still it's the words that get the headlines I'll grant.0 -
But 37% who voted Tory voted for a PM committed to keeping us in the EU...HYUFD said:
Add in UKIP's 13% and you get to 50%Monksfield said:
And now the Tories are giving us hard brexit with less than 37%AndyJS said:
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.williamglenn said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the publicalex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry sayingBig_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats. Furthermore, it is one thing to take into account public opinion on immigration, quite another to pander to it and even stoke it up to the extent that they have been. The amount of time they have spent having to "explain" and clarify their comments should be a warning sign. There was clearly a sizeable vote for Brexit who were not motivated by pulling up the drawbridge. It would also be electoral suicide to simply ignore the views of half the population just because they voted remain. They are potentially driving themselves into an electoral cul-de-sac with out an easy option to reverse.
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"0 -
Least surprising news of the day...no, not that the Donald is a creep....
Diane Abbott took donation from Muslim charity barred from receiving Government cash over alleged extremism links
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/07/diane-abbott-took-donation-from-muslim-charity-barred-from-recei/0 -
But it would be an easy sell to the citizens of Germany, France, etc... "The UK is leaving the EU, it is true. In the fullness of time we expect that we will put in place a comprehensive set of treaties. In the meantime, the UK has opted to remain in the EEA, and will continue to make a full contribution to the EU budget. Hundreds of thousands of [French/German] jobs depend on trade with the UK, and this helps protect those jobs."Richard_Nabavi said:
That is true, but you're ignoring the politics. Just as Theresa May has a political imperative to come back with some deal which she can, with a straight face, sell to voters as giving 'control of our borders', our counterparties on the EU side have to be able to sell the deal to their voters. They also have a political imperative (as they see it) to maintain the integrity of the Union as a political project.rcs1000 said:
Despite the hard talk, it is in both the interests of the EU and the UK to come to an amicable agreement. Such an agreement will almost certainly - in the medium to long-term - look like the Canada-EU CETA treaty.Richard_Nabavi said:
Non-starter, for four reasons: (1) Why would our EEA friends want to offer their pad as a temporary doss-house why we get our act together, in the full knowledge we were planning to abandon them? (2) Why would our EU friends - already fed up with us - want to prolong the disruption for a further five to seven years? (3) How would the UK government fend off the accusations of 'betrayal' if they said we're not actually leaving the EU fully for nearly a decade? (4) Why would business - which above all wants some certainty - be happy with 7 to 9 years of further uncertainty?rcs1000 said:The way to take us out is obvious. You enter into a time limited (say five to seven years) EEA agreement now, and which allows the UK to leave the EU in the next 12 months
This is not going to be agreed in two years.
The EU would benefit from a gradual unravelling of the arrangement. It would benefit from the tens of billions of contributions that it would recieve if the UK remained in the EEA. The Eurozone economy - while it is recovering - is still fragile.
Just as the vote to Leave was despite the economics, the reaction of our EU friends won't be entirely about economics. If these things were all about economics, David Cameron would still be PM.0 -
That is a limitation of democracy. But unless you want to limit democracy with a vetoing aristocracy or monarchy, you just have to accept that democracy has shit outcomes sometimes.rcs1000 said:
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
If Parliament did something too extreme, say legislated to round up and gas all red headed people, you would hope that the people would rise up and revolt.
However modern technology to keep rioters in order combined with the abolition of Her Majesties and the Lords veto does leave us a bit exposed if a nutter got a majority.
0 -
If you can't fleece poshos coming to St Andrews then who can you fleece?Scott_P said:
...unless they are an English university student...bigjohnowls said:"My instinct is to view them as a human being, not consider what country they came from". - Nicola Sturgeon #WeAreScotland
Kaching !!0 -
I just saw that.FrancisUrquhart said:Least surprising news of the day...no, not that the Donald is a creep....
Diane Abbott took donation from Muslim charity barred from receiving Government cash over alleged extremism links
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/07/diane-abbott-took-donation-from-muslim-charity-barred-from-recei/
................New Labour.........0 -
The Tories have decided to give the tax dodgers the vote for life now.williamglenn said:
Or more plausibly:rcs1000 said:
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
"If you think you're a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere... That's why my government will pass legislation to remove the right to vote from anyone who holds dual-nationality, or who doesn't pay their fair share of tax in the UK."
No representation without taxation!0 -
Yeah... Not the finest hour of the early US.Richard_Nabavi said:
* As long as they're not dark-skinned, of coursercs1000 said:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.")
0 -
So were an opinion poll to find that ethnic minorities should be stripped of the vote you would advocate imposing that policy?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.0 -
LEAVE 52%williamglenn said:
But 37% who voted Tory voted for a PM committed to keeping us in the EU...HYUFD said:
Add in UKIP's 13% and you get to 50%Monksfield said:
And now the Tories are giving us hard brexit with less than 37%AndyJS said:
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.williamglenn said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the publicalex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry sayingBig_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the they voted remain. They are potentially driving themselves into an electoral cul-de-sac with out an easy option to reverse.
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"
REMAIN 48%
0 -
That was fairly obviously going to happen - it is the future migrants whose status will be insecure in some cases.Scott_P said:0 -
I'm struggling to understand why an aristocracy would improve things. Surely a written constitution - which can only be amended by a supermajority - and which explicitly limited the power of the government is the best solution.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
That is a limitation of democracy. But unless you want to limit democracy with a vetoing aristocracy or monarchy, you just have to accept that democracy has shit outcomes sometimes.rcs1000 said:
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
If Parliament did something too extreme, say legislated to round up and gas all red headed people, you would hope that the people would rise up and revolt.
However modern technology to keep rioters in order combined with the abolition of Her Majesties and the Lords veto does leave us a bit exposed if a nutter got a majority.0 -
williamglenn said:
Most Tory voters voted Leave which was why that PM went, as did a third of Labour votersHYUFD said:
But 37% who voted Tory voted for a PM committed to keeping us in the EU...Monksfield said:
Add in UKIP's 13% and you get to 50%AndyJS said:
And now the Tories are giving us hard brexit with less than 37%williamglenn said:
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.Jobabob said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.alex. said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peopleBig_G_NorthWales said:
Your point being?alex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It'sblockquote>NoEasyDay said:
I am sure in ten years time Paddy Pantsdown will emerge from a West country hostelry sayingBig_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas where they have little prospect of winning seats. Furthermore, it is one thing to take into account public opinion on immigration, quite another to pander to it and even stoke it up to the extent that they have been. The amount of time they have spent having to "explain" and clarify their comments should be a warning sign. There was clearly a sizeable vote for Brexit who were not motivated by pulling up the drawbridge. It would also be electoral suicide to simply ignore the views of half the population just because they voted remain. They are potentially driving themselves into an electoral cul-de-sac with out an easy option to reverse.
"We could have another referendum, and change this situation we left the EU eight years ago but we didn't really want to leave, it was all a ghastly plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public0 -
It might have been an easy-ish sell in some EU counties (but not all) if we'd asked for that, but we didn't. We voted to leave on the basis of a campaign completely dominated by arguments incompatible with EEA membership. It also wouldn't be an easy sell in the UK, which thought it was being asked to vote largely on freedom of movement. Plus it would just prolong the period of business uncertainty even more.rcs1000 said:But it would be an easy sell to the citizens of Germany, France, etc... "The UK is leaving the EU, it is true. In the fullness of time we expect that we will put in place a comprehensive set of treaties. In the meantime, the UK has opted to remain in the EEA, and will continue to make a full contribution to the EU budget. Hundreds of thousands of [French/German] jobs depend on trade with the UK, and this helps protect those jobs."
0 -
So you support local elections only having council tax payers on the franchise?foxinsoxuk said:
The Tories have decided to give the tax dodgers the vote for life now.williamglenn said:
Or more plausibly:rcs1000 said:
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
"If you think you're a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere... That's why my government will pass legislation to remove the right to vote from anyone who holds dual-nationality, or who doesn't pay their fair share of tax in the UK."
No representation without taxation!
0 -
Scotland, the standard bearer for diversity.Scott_P said:
...unless they are an English university student...bigjohnowls said:"My instinct is to view them as a human being, not consider what country they came from". - Nicola Sturgeon #WeAreScotland
Kaching !!
- 93% UK born, 96% white. Less than half the number of ethnic minority citizens than are resident in Birmingham, despite its population being five times the size (based on 2011 census data)
- Net international migration (mid year estimate, 2014-15): 19,600. Equivalent figure for England: 307,300 - vastly more in absolute terms, and also a significantly greater proportion relative to total population size
Always easy to take the moral high ground on an issue the complexities of which you scarcely need address.0 -
Have you been drinkingJobabob said:
So were an opinion poll to find that ethnic minorities should be stripped of the vote you would advocate imposing that policy?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
The results of opinion polls do not constitute law.
0 -
I agree it would be a difficult sell in the UK. It would be painted as a betrayal.Richard_Nabavi said:
It might have been an easy-ish sell in some EU counties (but not all) if we'd asked for that, but we didn't. We voted to leave on the basis of a campaign completely dominated by arguments incompatible with EEA membership. It also wouldn't be an easy sell in the UK, which thought it was being asked to vote largely on freedom of movement. Plus it would just prolong the period of business uncertainty even more.rcs1000 said:But it would be an easy sell to the citizens of Germany, France, etc... "The UK is leaving the EU, it is true. In the fullness of time we expect that we will put in place a comprehensive set of treaties. In the meantime, the UK has opted to remain in the EEA, and will continue to make a full contribution to the EU budget. Hundreds of thousands of [French/German] jobs depend on trade with the UK, and this helps protect those jobs."
But it is still the only sensible way forward.0 -
As long as they pay VAT and beer tax they contribute to the national coffers.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
So you support local elections only having council tax payers on the franchise?foxinsoxuk said:
The Tories have decided to give the tax dodgers the vote for life now.williamglenn said:
Or more plausibly:rcs1000 said:
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
"If you think you're a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere... That's why my government will pass legislation to remove the right to vote from anyone who holds dual-nationality, or who doesn't pay their fair share of tax in the UK."
No representation without taxation!
If they live abroad for more than a year they should forfit the right.0 -
LEAVE 17,410,742Monksfield said:
As someone who like me has a PhD Dr Prasannan, you should know very well not to push data further than the question which the experiment was designed to answer.Sunil_Prasannan said:
LEAVE 52%Monksfield said:
And now the Tories are giving us hard brexit with less than 37%AndyJS said:
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.williamglenn said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlandsalex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I am sure in ten plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"Big_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas .
REMAIN 48%
REMAIN 16,141,241-1 -
Speedy - why do you keep running this concept of Trump resigning the nomination. It's not going to happen any more than Corbyn is going to resign.0
-
"Can only" is a bit strong given how the USA came into being.rcs1000 said:I'm struggling to understand why an aristocracy would improve things. Surely a written constitution - which can only be amended by a supermajority - and which explicitly limited the power of the government is the best solution.
0 -
I think the lesson is more that things are not as absolute as they appear. Autre temps, autres moeursrcs1000 said:
Yeah... Not the finest hour of the early US.Richard_Nabavi said:
* As long as they're not dark-skinned, of coursercs1000 said:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.")
After all, there would would have been a pretty much 100% consensus in the Western world in 1776 that the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator arose from the moment of conception. Now, not so much.0 -
Opinion polls are NOT referendaJobabob said:
So were an opinion poll to find that ethnic minorities should be stripped of the vote you would advocate imposing that policy?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.0 -
So only tax payers should vote in elections? Why not go the whole hog - only freehold owners can vote?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
So you support local elections only having council tax payers on the franchise?foxinsoxuk said:
The Tories have decided to give the tax dodgers the vote for life now.williamglenn said:
Or more plausibly:rcs1000 said:
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
"If you think you're a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere... That's why my government will pass legislation to remove the right to vote from anyone who holds dual-nationality, or who doesn't pay their fair share of tax in the UK."
No representation without taxation!0 -
In
If you prevent half the country from voting they will express their frustrations on the streets if they are denied the ability to express them in the ballot boxMalmesbury said:
So only tax payers should vote in elections? Why not go the whole hog - only freehold owners can vote?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
So you support local elections only having council tax payers on the franchise?foxinsoxuk said:
The Tories have decided to give the tax dodgers the vote for life now.williamglenn said:
Or more plausibly:rcs1000 said:
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
"If you think you're a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere... That's why my government will pass legislation to remove the right to vote from anyone who holds dual-nationality, or who doesn't pay their fair share of tax in the UK."
No representation without taxation!0 -
If the majority of people would you just throw your hands up in the air and be like oh well the majority support it fuck the rest? Or would you protest?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
So you support local elections only having council tax payers on the franchise?foxinsoxuk said:
The Tories have decided to give the tax dodgers the vote for life now.williamglenn said:
Or more plausibly:rcs1000 said:
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
"If you think you're a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere... That's why my government will pass legislation to remove the right to vote from anyone who holds dual-nationality, or who doesn't pay their fair share of tax in the UK."
No representation without taxation!
hmmm I know a lot of different Muslim charities, never head of them tho....FrancisUrquhart said:Least surprising news of the day...no, not that the Donald is a creep....
Diane Abbott took donation from Muslim charity barred from receiving Government cash over alleged extremism links
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/07/diane-abbott-took-donation-from-muslim-charity-barred-from-recei/0 -
I refer you to my previous comment. You have no evidence that the majority favour hard brexit.Sunil_Prasannan said:
LEAVE 17,410,742Monksfield said:
As someone who like me has a PhD Dr Prasannan, you should know very well not to push data further than the question which the experiment was designed to answer.Sunil_Prasannan said:
LEAVE 52%Monksfield said:
And now the Tories are giving us hard brexit with less than 37%AndyJS said:
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.williamglenn said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlandsalex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I am sure in ten plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"Big_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas .
REMAIN 48%
REMAIN 16,141,2410 -
I voted Leave but would accept the EEA IF a clause were included in the legislation making it clear that membership would expire with the signature of a successor trade agreement. I would, however, imagine that it would leave a substantial minority fuming, and help to resuscitate Ukip should it be kept on life support up until that time.rcs1000 said:
I agree it would be a difficult sell in the UK. It would be painted as a betrayal.Richard_Nabavi said:
It might have been an easy-ish sell in some EU counties (but not all) if we'd asked for that, but we didn't. We voted to leave on the basis of a campaign completely dominated by arguments incompatible with EEA membership. It also wouldn't be an easy sell in the UK, which thought it was being asked to vote largely on freedom of movement. Plus it would just prolong the period of business uncertainty even more.rcs1000 said:But it would be an easy sell to the citizens of Germany, France, etc... "The UK is leaving the EU, it is true. In the fullness of time we expect that we will put in place a comprehensive set of treaties. In the meantime, the UK has opted to remain in the EEA, and will continue to make a full contribution to the EU budget. Hundreds of thousands of [French/German] jobs depend on trade with the UK, and this helps protect those jobs."
But it is still the only sensible way forward.
Of course, this is all highly speculative. Most likely the EU won't want to offer the EEA route.0 -
It solves some problems and creates others - US Gun law, cough...rcs1000 said:
I'm struggling to understand why an aristocracy would improve things. Surely a written constitution - which can only be amended by a supermajority - and which explicitly limited the power of the government is the best solution.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
That is a limitation of democracy. But unless you want to limit democracy with a vetoing aristocracy or monarchy, you just have to accept that democracy has shit outcomes sometimes.rcs1000 said:
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?NoEasyDay said:
.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
If Parliament did something too extreme, say legislated to round up and gas all red headed people, you would hope that the people would rise up and revolt.
However modern technology to keep rioters in order combined with the abolition of Her Majesties and the Lords veto does leave us a bit exposed if a nutter got a majority.
The problem is that we all generally assume that on the big important things all right thinking people agree.
Hoaever over time, not least due to technological change things change.
If such a constitution with supermajorities had been put in place by the victorians, one would likely have been the criminalisation of homosexuality which would even now be virtually impossible to repeal if it needed 2/3 in both houses.
The problem is that we can see the follies of previous ages but are blind to the follies of our own. Supermajorities bind future generations unwillingly to our generations follies.
That said, the liberals were pratts was to abolish the lords veto without something along the lines you suggest for major constitutional issues - not least it would have meant that we could not have joined the EU without a 2/3 maj in both houses!0 -
Less, in fact. Not only will not Trump resign but he cannot resign. His name is literally on the ballots.Mortimer said:Speedy - why do you keep running this concept of Trump resigning the nomination. It's not going to happen any more than Corbyn is going to resign.
0 -
Ask the OP. He suggested that the flushing out foreigners from companies policy was right because 59% supported it in a YouGov opinion poll.NoEasyDay said:
Have you been drinkingJobabob said:
So were an opinion poll to find that ethnic minorities should be stripped of the vote you would advocate imposing that policy?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
The results of opinion polls do not constitute law.0 -
Until a few of them are gunned down by paramilitary police pour encouragement les autres.HYUFD said:In
If you prevent half the country from voting they will express their frustrations on the streets if they are denied the ability to express them in the ballot boxMalmesbury said:
So only tax payers should vote in elections? Why not go the whole hog - only freehold owners can vote?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
So you support local elections only having council tax payers on the franchise?foxinsoxuk said:
The Tories have decided to give the tax dodgers the vote for life now.williamglenn said:
Or more plausibly:rcs1000 said:
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
"If you think you're a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere... That's why my government will pass legislation to remove the right to vote from anyone who holds dual-nationality, or who doesn't pay their fair share of tax in the UK."
No representation without taxation!
Problem is modern technology means violently suppressing riots has never been easier.0 -
Does our British slang for "Bush" cross the atlantic? I fear not.nunu said:
How ironic it was a Bush that did this?Pong said:
I was thinking more Keith o'Brien.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Savilesque.SirBernard said:I think the truly toxic bit of these Trump comments is when he says 'if you're a star, you can do what you want'. There is a level of arrogance and entitlement there that the usual rules of decency don't apply to him. That will put a lot of people off, especially women.
0 -
Yes. Neatly observed.slade said:I have spent the last couple of days in Witney. There is in fact little evidence of a bye-election in progress - with one exception. The village of Charlbury is a sea of orange - it is the home of Liz Leffman, the LD candidate and local ward councillor. Elsewhere there are a few Conservative posters in Cassington and one or two Labour ones in Witney. What is noticeable is that the fields and trees are not voting Conservative - perhaps a sign that the Cons have not got a ground game at the moment.
The Lib Dems' challenge is getting Leffman known: she's enormously popular in her ward (landslide majority in an otherwise blue area) but no name recognition in Witney itself. They are at least helped by Robert Courts (Conservative candidate) being even less well known: he represents a remote area on the District Council and has only done so for a couple of years.
He voted Leave.RobD said:Robert Courts. Not sure if his Brexit credentials.
Robert's prediction of the other day is the best I've seen here as to what might actually happen here in Witney. I wonder if the LDs may actually outdo it but let's see.0 -
I think you'd need to explicitly time limit it rather than simply being on the signature of a successor deal, as otherwise there's the possibility - perhaps the likelihood - that negotiations would take decades.Black_Rook said:
I voted Leave but would accept the EEA IF a clause were included in the legislation making it clear that membership would expire with the signature of a successor trade agreement. I would, however, imagine that it would leave a substantial minority fuming, and help to resuscitate Ukip should it be kept on life support up until that time.rcs1000 said:
I agree it would be a difficult sell in the UK. It would be painted as a betrayal.Richard_Nabavi said:
It might have been an easy-ish sell in some EU counties (but not all) if we'd asked for that, but we didn't. We voted to leave on the basis of a campaign completely dominated by arguments incompatible with EEA membership. It also wouldn't be an easy sell in the UK, which thought it was being asked to vote largely on freedom of movement. Plus it would just prolong the period of business uncertainty even more.rcs1000 said:But it would be an easy sell to the citizens of Germany, France, etc... "The UK is leaving the EU, it is true. In the fullness of time we expect that we will put in place a comprehensive set of treaties. In the meantime, the UK has opted to remain in the EEA, and will continue to make a full contribution to the EU budget. Hundreds of thousands of [French/German] jobs depend on trade with the UK, and this helps protect those jobs."
But it is still the only sensible way forward.
Of course, this is all highly speculative. Most likely the EU won't want to offer the EEA route.
If the UK came out and proposed a time limited EEA transition, I think it would be well received by most EU countries, because (a) there's a lot of real money involved, and (b) because the Eurozone is only now coming out of an extremely painful recession, and wants to avoid a relapse.0 -
Duh. Nor is a YouGov poll saying 59% support flushing out foreigners from private companies. Yet it is being used as justification for the policy. Why is this so hard to grasp?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Opinion polls are NOT referendaJobabob said:
So were an opinion poll to find that ethnic minorities should be stripped of the vote you would advocate imposing that policy?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.0 -
The first thing with supermajorities is you get a recursive situation about what things do and don't require them to change something.rcs1000 said:
I'm struggling to understand why an aristocracy would improve things. Surely a written constitution - which can only be amended by a supermajority - and which explicitly limited the power of the government is the best solution.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
That is a limitation of democracy. But unless you want to limit democracy with a vetoing aristocracy or monarchy, you just have to accept that democracy has shit outcomes sometimes.rcs1000 said:
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
If Parliament did something too extreme, say legislated to round up and gas all red headed people, you would hope that the people would rise up and revolt.
However modern technology to keep rioters in order combined with the abolition of Her Majesties and the Lords veto does leave us a bit exposed if a nutter got a majority.
The second is that if you believe something can be changed by majority will then why is it not legitimate to do so by simple majority. If it is not then a supermajority does not legitimise it.
The right to vote is the supreme right.0 -
Jobabob said:
Who is the OP ?NoEasyDay said:
Have you been drinkingJobabob said:
So were an opinion poll to find that ethnic minorities should be stripped of the vote you would advocate imposing that policy?NoEasyDay said:
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.rcs1000 said:
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?NoEasyDay said:Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
The results of opinion polls do not constitute law.
Why do i want to ask him anything ?
Lets leave it to one thing...otherwise it might confuse you
Who is the OP ?0 -
It is worth remembering that the US constitution is very, very short. See: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.htmlPaul_Bedfordshire said:
It solves some problems and creates others - US Gun law, cough...
The problem is that we all generally assume that on the big important things all right thinking people agree.
Hoaever over time, not least due to technological change things change.
If such a constitution with supermajorities had been put in place by the victorians, one would likely have been the criminalisation of homosexuality which would even now be virtually impossible to repeal if it needed 2/3 in both houses.
The problem is that we can see the follies of previous ages but are blind to the follies of our own. Supermajorities bind future generations unwillingly to our generations follies.
That said, the liberals were pratts was to abolish the lords veto without something along the lines you suggest for major constitutional issues - not least it would have meant that we could not have joined the EU without a 2/3 maj in both houses!
And constitutions don't make murder illegal or homosexuality wrong. They define the boundaries of executive and legislative power.0 -
Oi! What did the Yahs ever do to you? Socialist. ;-)Alistair said:
If you can't fleece poshos coming to St Andrews then who can you fleece?Scott_P said:
...unless they are an English university student...bigjohnowls said:"My instinct is to view them as a human being, not consider what country they came from". - Nicola Sturgeon #WeAreScotland
Kaching !!0 -
Wikileaks releases emails to help trump
all a bit boring and isnt going to stop pussy gate i feel
https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/wikileaks-appears-to-release-hillary-clintons-paid-speech-tr?utm_term=.xbmbAWQ3V#.sh7Jb6aLg0 -
We was asked a simple question:Monksfield said:
I refer you to my previous comment. You have no evidence that the majority favour hard brexit.Sunil_Prasannan said:
LEAVE 17,410,742Monksfield said:
As someone who like me has a PhD Dr Prasannan, you should know very well not to push data further than the question which the experiment was designed to answer.Sunil_Prasannan said:
LEAVE 52%Monksfield said:
And now the Tories are giving us hard brexit with less than 37%AndyJS said:
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.williamglenn said:
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.Jobabob said:
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary peoplealex. said:
Your point being?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlandsalex. said:
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?NoEasyDay said:
I am sure in ten plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"Big_G_NorthWales said:
Classic remainer comment ?alex. said:It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas .
REMAIN 48%
REMAIN 16,141,241
Should the UK leave or remain in the EU?
0 -
Good post -you put it better than I could.Black_Rook said:
Scotland, the standard bearer for diversity.Scott_P said:
...unless they are an English university student...bigjohnowls said:"My instinct is to view them as a human being, not consider what country they came from". - Nicola Sturgeon #WeAreScotland
Kaching !!
- 93% UK born, 96% white. Less than half the number of ethnic minority citizens than are resident in Birmingham, despite its population being five times the size (based on 2011 census data)
- Net international migration (mid year estimate, 2014-15): 19,600. Equivalent figure for England: 307,300 - vastly more in absolute terms, and also a significantly greater proportion relative to total population size
Always easy to take the moral high ground on an issue the complexities of which you scarcely need address.0
