politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s not just Manchester where there’ll be 2017 directly elect

chestnut said:

Speedy said:

SeanT said:

Angela Merkel should go down as the worst Chancellor in modern German history. Inter alia, her intransigence and stupidity on Free Movement (and her idiocy on Syrian migrants) led directly to Brexit.

She made the Eurozone a German Empire though.
And she would probably remain Chancellor for life if she chooses.

Schulz was not far behind her in a recent poll. Events like this will be the end for her.

He doesn't sound much better!!

This the vote that should put Trump officially over 270, it's live:

http://www.kvue.com/news/politics/texas-electors-to-meet-for-official-vote-monday/373043089

Jobabob said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.

The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.

There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.

Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.

It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.

The degree of 'sense' being used is entirely irrelevant. It is an attempt to destroy England.

Regional parliaments may be that, but I don't get that sense from regional mayors (they need a better name, IMO) - just that its a bloody poor idea.

It's worked extremely well for London. Why is it then a bad idea for Manchester or Liverpool? Bizarre logic.

Because people don't want them - which is why they are being imposed without a referendum.

Still they will be a nice job creation scheme for Labour politicians and their advisors, assistants, consultants and spin doctors.

Cyclefree said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

Telegraph reporting that Germany's N24 TV station say that nine are dead, including passenger in lorry. One man has been apprehended. Not a good day.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/19/lorry-ploughs-crowd-christmas-market-berlin/.

Passenger being dead in lorry sounds odd.

A terrible way to end a 2016 that's been fairly horrible for me personally, and very disruptive for the country and the world.

Described as a co-driver in some reports.

Sorry to hear that you've had a bad year. I hope 2017 will be better for your personally.

EDITED: And remember the year is not yet over. Think of all those NY Eve celebrations. The authorities must be having conniptions at the thought of policing those.

Thanks. I've seen the inside of A&E's a bit more than I'd like this year, but as all my nearest and dearest have lived through it I perhaps shouldn't have said 'horrible'.

I hope 2017 is brilliant for everyone on here (but I'm still Bah Humbug! over Christmas).

Your edit must worry everyone. I've never really liked large crowds (or flying), and generally try to avoid them, something that's got worse over time. Attacks like Nice and Berlin don't improve matters.

What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.

Gallowgate said:

What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_mayoral_referendums,_2012

10 Cities were asked in 2012 and 9 said no.

Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.

kle4 said:

Jobabob said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.

The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.

There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.

Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.

It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.

The degree of 'sense' being used is entirely irrelevant. It is an attempt to destroy England.

Regional parliaments may be that, but I don't get that sense from regional mayors (they need a better name, IMO) - just that its a bloody poor idea.

It's worked extremely well for London. Why is it then a bad idea for Manchester or Liverpool? Bizarre logic.

Only if you treat all situations equally and ignore that my point was about the whole scheme not specific examples, which strikes me as even more bizarre logic! Manchester and Liverpool seem among the more sensible ones, actually, but the approach in other areas, cobbled together, I have yet to be convinced make much sense, and therefore add unnecessary confusion to an already over complicated system.

Which of the five schemes that are actually going ahead do you oppose?

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_mayoral_referendums,_2012

10 Cities were asked in 2012 and 9 said no.

Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.

But they aren't the same thing. They were referendums on elected leaders of the already existing council. Nothing like the Mayor of Greater London who has control over infastructure like TFL.

If this tweet is correct, this is yet another humiliation for Hilary Clinton:

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/810948943001612290

All Trump's electors, bar one who was removed and replaced, appear to have voted for him.

At least four have not voted for her, which equals the faithless electors total for all elections since 1968 (not counting one abstention). It is also worth noting that this is the first election since 1872 where multiple electors have voted against the presidential, as opposed to the vice presidential, candidate (and that was because the candidate they were pledged to vote for was ineligible to be President on account of being dead at the time).

I have always said she was a terrible candidate and the Democrats should never have chosen her. But never, ever did I visualise a disaster like this. She can't even get votes that are promised to her by party loyalists when the alternative is Trump?

"I find it almost impossible to imagine that they will elect her again."

Her coalition is still on about 55% in most polls.

AndyJS said:

"I find it almost impossible to imagine that they will elect her again."

Her coalition is still on about 55% in most polls.

If this is confirmed as a terrorist attack then that won't last for long.

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.

Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.

Gateshead Borough isn't a town. It's in and of itself an amalgamation of several 'towns' created in the 1970s. It should never have existed as it is - as its many settlements are in any case functional satellites and suburbs of Newcastle. Only pathetic local parochialism (cheifly from councillors) has stopped it merging. It should be forced to.

So much for democracy.

Local government reorganisation should not be a matter for the public, unless you fancy the taxpayer funding the People's Republic of Doncaster and making Hackney a hipster city state.

The form of government is regulated. The decision to abolish a council and merge with a neighbouring one should be a decision made locally, not one that is imposed.

Then very few councils would ever merge because councillors would drone on about identity and drown out more rational voices who recognise that cities grow over time. Your model would be extremely expensive and deeply inefficient - it would also be counterproductive to the areas involved.

Gallowgate said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_mayoral_referendums,_2012

10 Cities were asked in 2012 and 9 said no.

Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.

But they aren't the same thing. They were referendums on elected leaders of the already existing council. Nothing like the Mayor of Greater London who has control over infastructure like TFL.

Correct.

Jobabob said:

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.

Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.

Gateshead Borough isn't a town. It's in and of itself an amalgamation of several 'towns' created in the 1970s. It should never have existed as it is - as its many settlements are in any case functional satellites and suburbs of Newcastle. Only pathetic local parochialism (cheifly from councillors) has stopped it merging. It should be forced to.

So much for democracy.

Local government reorganisation should not be a matter for the public, unless you fancy the taxpayer funding the People's Republic of Doncaster and making Hackney a hipster city state.

The form of government is regulated. The decision to abolish a council and merge with a neighbouring one should be a decision made locally, not one that is imposed.

Then very few councils would ever merge because councillors would drone on about identity and drown out more rational voices who recognise that cities grow over time. Your model would be extremely expensive and deeply inefficient - it would also be counterproductive to the areas involved.

Last time I checked there were fewer councillors than voters. If there is a desire to merge into a city, they will elect elect those who promise to do that.

kle4 said:

Jobabob said:

kle4 said:

Jobabob said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.

The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.

There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.

Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.

It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.

The degree of 'sense' being used is entirely irrelevant. It is an attempt to destroy England.

Regional parliaments may be that, but I don't get that sense from regional mayors (they need a better name, IMO) - just that its a bloody poor idea.

It's worked extremely well for London. Why is it then a bad idea for Manchester or Liverpool? Bizarre logic.

Only if you treat all situations equally and ignore that my point was about the whole scheme not specific examples, which strikes me as even more bizarre logic! Manchester and Liverpool seem among the more sensible ones, actually, but the approach in other areas, cobbled together, I have yet to be convinced make much sense, and therefore add unnecessary confusion to an already over complicated system.

Which of the five schemes that are actually going ahead do you oppose?

West of England specifically, mostly due to people I trust who have worked with the proposals saying what a mess the whole thing is, and how that is mirrored in other areas.

So you oppose one of them.
Gtr Manchester, Gtr Liverpool, Gtr Sheffield and Gtr Birmingham should be abandoned because there a few problems (according to you) in Bristol.

Jobabob said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_mayoral_referendums,_2012

10 Cities were asked in 2012 and 9 said no.

Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.

'A little different in scope'. Lol.

Manchester referendum - 1 council.

Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.

Still strong evidence that local mayors aren't a popular idea, so much so that they have to be imposed by central government.

JosiasJessop said:

Cyclefree said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

Telegraph reporting that Germany's N24 TV station say that nine are dead, including passenger in lorry. One man has been apprehended. Not a good day.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/19/lorry-ploughs-crowd-christmas-market-berlin/.

Passenger being dead in lorry sounds odd.

A terrible way to end a 2016 that's been fairly horrible for me personally, and very disruptive for the country and the world.

Described as a co-driver in some reports.

Sorry to hear that you've had a bad year. I hope 2017 will be better for your personally.

EDITED: And remember the year is not yet over. Think of all those NY Eve celebrations. The authorities must be having conniptions at the thought of policing those.

Thanks. I've seen the inside of A&E's a bit more than I'd like this year, but as all my nearest and dearest have lived through it I perhaps shouldn't have said 'horrible'.

I hope 2017 is brilliant for everyone on here (but I'm still Bah Humbug! over Christmas).

Your edit must worry everyone. I've never really liked large crowds (or flying), and generally try to avoid them, something that's got worse over time. Attacks like Nice and Berlin don't improve matters.

I'm not really one for mass NY Eve celebrations in the street. This year I am going to what promises to be a good party with some good friends with whom I always end up having a good time. One of my sons will be in Amsterdam with friends. You hope and pray that they will be safe. But I'm damned if I'm going to let a bunch of evil terrorists who are not fit to lick what comes out of my dog's bottom ruin my and my family's way of life and freedom.

I just wish we had leaders in charge who were determined to defeat this evil not appease it and excuse it and go all wibbly and generally behave like a chocolate teapot in front of a fire.

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

Anyone who seriously thinks that Salford isn't rightfully part of Manchester and Gateshead part of Newcastle should just look at a map.

Rightfully part of? Surey that's a matter for the residents of those towns.

Gateshead Borough isn't a town. It's in and of itself an amalgamation of several 'towns' created in the 1970s. It should never have existed as it is - as its many settlements are in any case functional satellites and suburbs of Newcastle. Only pathetic local parochialism (cheifly from councillors) has stopped it merging. It should be forced to.

So much for democracy.

Local government reorganisation should not be a matter for the public, unless you fancy the taxpayer funding the People's Republic of Doncaster and making Hackney a hipster city state.

The form of government is regulated. The decision to abolish a council and merge with a neighbouring one should be a decision made locally, not one that is imposed.

Then very few councils would ever merge because councillors would drone on about identity and drown out more rational voices who recognise that cities grow over time. Your model would be extremely expensive and deeply inefficient - it would also be counterproductive to the areas involved.

Last time I checked there were fewer councillors than voters. If there is a desire to merge into a city, they will elect elect those who promise to do that.

They already are in cities - real geography makes that so.

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_mayoral_referendums,_2012

10 Cities were asked in 2012 and 9 said no.

Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.

'A little different in scope'. Lol.

Manchester referendum - 1 council.

Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.

Still strong evidence that local mayors aren't a popular idea, so much so that they have to be imposed by central government.

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_mayoral_referendums,_2012

10 Cities were asked in 2012 and 9 said no.

Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.

'A little different in scope'. Lol.

Manchester referendum - 1 council.

Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.

Still strong evidence that local mayors aren't a popular idea, so much so that they have to be imposed by central government.

They haven't been imposed. The councils themselves chose to become metro mayoralries!

I thought this was one of Osbornes schemes? Sorry!

Doesn't change the facts that the referendums show they aren't a popular idea.

Again. There have been no referendums in metro areas. None.

Jobabob said:

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_mayoral_referendums,_2012

10 Cities were asked in 2012 and 9 said no.

Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.

'A little different in scope'. Lol.

Manchester referendum - 1 council.

Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.

Still strong evidence that local mayors aren't a popular idea, so much so that they have to be imposed by central government.

RobD said:

Jobabob said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

What's the evidence that people don't want local elected mayors? We can't keep using the North East assembly referendum as an example. The 'North East' is not a strong enough regional identity and this should have been obvious. The English identify with their cities and counties, not their 'regions'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_mayoral_referendums,_2012

10 Cities were asked in 2012 and 9 said no.

Perhaps they changed their minds, and the current round of ones are a little different in scope, but most were not that close at the time. But locals being against them is not a definitive reason if the proposals are decent I believe - I just don't think they work in as many places as is being attempted.

'A little different in scope'. Lol.

Manchester referendum - 1 council.

Gtr Manchester mayoralty - 10 councils.

Still strong evidence that local mayors aren't a popular idea, so much so that they have to be imposed by central government.

They haven't been imposed. The councils themselves chose to become metro mayoralries!

I thought this was one of Osbornes schemes? Sorry!

Doesn't change the facts that the referendums show they aren't a popular idea.

Again. There have been no referendums in metro areas. None.

No, but there have been referendums on local mayors.

Sandpit said:

SeanT said:

ISIS takes responsibility for Berlin.

Time to buy shares in concrete bollard makers I think. They're about to be everywhere.

So the terrorists will move onto something else. Imagine what damage a couple of gun toting terrorists could do walking down Oxford Street on a busy Saturday afternoon during the sales. We can protect ourselves, to some extent, against the means which the terrorists use but we need to defeat the terrorists and the mindset which goes with it, as well as not let in potential or actual terrorists into our countries. That's the hard task and one to which, I feel, are leaders are simply not equal.

@RobD

Yes, some of which have been won (i.e. City of Bristol), others of which have been lost (i.e. City of Manchester). Yet won or lost they tell us nothing as they were for the city proper only and for an entirely different system to the metro mayors. You might as well argue that there is no point electing MPs as local people have already voted for their council - just use that result again, despite it being a) across a different scope b) to a different body c) for a package of different powers.

MaxPB said:

JonathanD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

Telegraph reporting that Germany's N24 TV station say that nine are dead, including passenger in lorry. One man has been apprehended. Not a good day.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/19/lorry-ploughs-crowd-christmas-market-berlin/.

Passenger being dead in lorry sounds odd.

Will probably be the actual truck driver whom the terrorist stole the truck from.

That's a really upsetting thought.

There's a man on Sky suggesting this right now.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Cyclefree said:

Sandpit said:

SeanT said:

ISIS takes responsibility for Berlin.

Time to buy shares in concrete bollard makers I think. They're about to be everywhere.

So the terrorists will move onto something else. Imagine what damage a couple of gun toting terrorists could do walking down Oxford Street on a busy Saturday afternoon during the sales. We can protect ourselves, to some extent, against the means which the terrorists use but we need to defeat the terrorists and the mindset which goes with it, as well as not let in potential or actual terrorists into our countries. That's the hard task and one to which, I feel, are leaders are simply not equal.

We'll turn into Israel in short order if that happens.

So what's your solution? Not to defeat the terrorists? Not to counter the ideology which animates them? To let in actual / potential terrorists into our countries? What exactly?

It seems to me that the most essential task a state has to do is to keep - or try to keep - its citizens safe from external and internal enemies. A state which gives up on that is failing in its most basic and essential duty.

Also, local authority boundaries in a region like Manchester mean very little meaningful.

The idea of a mayor is to help promote the economy primarily.

The economy of Manchester for example bear little resemblance to any political boundary, where it is commuting patterns, places of work or investment, the road down with the boundary between Manchester and Trafford or Salford or Tameside or Stockport is meaningless.

To drive the economy the mayor needs to plan for the whole region that makes up that economy, the metro mayor go along way to achieve that.

Anyone who has ever been to Manchester would soon recognise that where the city of Manchester boundaries lie are almost meaningless in terms of the local economy, as such to restrict a mayor to that area would be bonkers.

another_richard said:

Jobabob said:

kle4 said:

Jobabob said:

kle4 said:

Jobabob said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Actually he is right. The issue in going fully federal is that England is too large *relative* to its parent entity, the U.K. Any English parliament would therefore be either too powerful - delegitimising Westminster - or an expensive talking shop.

The only way to square the circle is regional devolution within England.

There seems/seemed little appetite for devolution to the regions. So let's try metros and counties.

Osborne's initiatives are a tiny step in the right direction.

It might have been, had it been done with any amount of sense (which is not necessarily Osborne's fault, given the lukewarm or varied reaction from regions), but the piecemeal nature of it and lack of clarity of who gets what means it will only add confusion.

The degree of 'sense' being used is entirely irrelevant. It is an attempt to destroy England.

Regional parliaments may be that, but I don't get that sense from regional mayors (they need a better name, IMO) - just that its a bloody poor idea.

It's worked extremely well for London. Why is it then a bad idea for Manchester or Liverpool? Bizarre logic.

Only if ym.

Which of the five schemes that are actually going ahead do you oppose?

West of England specifically, mostly due to people I trust who have worked with the proposals saying what a mess the whole thing is, and how that is mirrored in other areas.

So you oppose one of them.
Gtr Manchester, Gtr Liverpool, Gtr Sheffield and Gtr Birmingham should be abandoned because there a few problems (according to you) in Bristol.

Of course the easy thing to do would be have referendums in the areas affected to see if they want this new layer of government.

That we are not is pretty clear evidence that the government knows what the results would be.

Indeed. Personally I see greater amalgamation of powers for larger areas as, by and large, probably a good thing, if there was a clearer structure to it so it was less of a mess, and direct imposition does not offend my sensibilities (and which did not happen here of course) - but clearly the government wanted people to choose to have elected mayors, and they said no, and they don't want to risk that happening again with these new proposals, but if they thought it was a good idea for a referendum before why not now, why was council approval not the way back then?

It is not just Greater London that shows that mayors can work and should be replicated around the world, but just about every major western city has a mayor that covers the economic area.

Alas, some people don't wish out non-London cities to have the same opportunity.

@pulpstar

This is getting boring now.

Come on betfair it's time to settle....

Y0kel said:

Just for the record. The policeman in Turkey. Initial thoughts are not that he is IS linked. Certainly jihadists have responded by inciting further attacks on Russian facilities.

Downthread comments about the joys of Northern Ireland-linked terrorism. I grew up in what can be best described as a difficult area of Belfast and the sense of tension of the randomness of terror attacks that people associate with events in Europe and the Middle East was very much a reality.

The state of hyper awareness of everything doesn't disappear. Many years ago, after the official Troubles were meant to have ended, I briefly met a guy called Ian Bothwell of the Crossfire Trust based near Darkley in South Armagh, a place with its own grim history. In one sentence he made it all clear in a way that somehow you could feel but just never realised.

'There is a lot of hurt and stress in this place'

It was the word 'stress' that really did it. It's there in people who lived through it. Sure its no Aleppo, it was certainly no Bosnia but the relentless grind, the tension never mind actual events just seeps in. That is how it is in such a conflicted place.

Recently my father told me about having to check under his car everyday before he went to work. The left's new found love for the IRA and their supporters is quite disturbing.

SeanT said:

AndyJS said:

"I find it almost impossible to imagine that they will elect her again."

Her coalition is still on about 55% in most polls.

Friend of mine (hardcore Labour) works for the German national broadcaster. He says the level of state censorship is quite unbelieveable (and I repeat he is a BBC liberal-lefty, hates Tories etc)

Anything remotely critical of refugees/immigrants is routinely ruled out of order. Not broadcast. Anything with even a hint of controversiality on the issue of race/culture is regarded as repulsive.

The liberal German consensus MUST be imposed and observed.

Also, there is no idea of a balance of opinion. So, if my pal recruits some liberal to say "Oooh look how well the refugees are integrating, it's all fantastic" then he naturally (as a British TV journo) seeks an opposing view, but his editors stare at him in horror and bewilderment. Thus the positive view is televised, without any balance.

That's German TV. I do not exaggerate.

Merkel may be re-elected.

Doubtless I will be criticized for saying this but the Germans do seem to have a historic need to feel superior.

This has taken various forms over the centuries - 'kultur', militarism, racism and since 1945 economics / business.

There now seems to be a need to feel morally superior as best evidenced by Merkel and her various decisions from nuclear power to migration.

as

MP_SE said:

The left's new found love for the IRA and their supporters is quite disturbing.

It's not "new found", sadly many of them were supporting the IRA whilst the Troubles were raging.

Speedy said:

In happier times, which where just a few hours ago before all the terror attacks:

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/810863828770689025

Only a couple of months ago Miliband was identified as Hillary Clinton's sex fixer:

http://americannews.com/hillary-clintons-hitman-reveals-dark-secret-that-she-thought-hed-take-to-the-grave/

Kle4

Again, in what ways are the metro mayoralties for Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Sheffield a "mess" ?

Jobabob said:

Kle4

In what way have the metro mayoralties in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Sheffield been handled poorly?

Oh for f*ck's sake, I do not have specific examples of bureaucratic minutiae for each individual scheme, I was making a general f*cking point about haphazard implementation you seem to have taken personally as though counsel for specific cities, and intent on ignoring when I said ones were sensible as you keep on bringing up cities I already stated I did not object to, so not to get all SeanT, I don't know how you respond to other points when you are unable to read others, strategically. The fact that different areas get different powers, that there is such confusion over which areas are included, or choose to be included, I think this is a problem. I think there should be a clear blueprint if you are going to have a new layer of local government, different arrangements (even if only marginally different) in different places just confuse an already confused system, if these are good ideas there should be a wholesale reorganization of how we do local government, not picking around the edges adding complexities.

Congratulations, you've won the day, via point 3 of the following.

http://www.basicinstructions.net/basic-instructions/2015/10/25/how-to-win-an-argument.html

Have a lovely evening.

Gardenwalker said:

Cyclefree said:

Sandpit said:

SeanT said:

ISIS takes responsibility for Berlin.

Time to buy shares in concrete bollard makers I think. They're about to be everywhere.

So the terrorists will move onto something else. Imagine what damage a couple of gun toting terrorists could do walking down Oxford Street on a busy Saturday afternoon during the sales. We can protect ourselves, to some extent, against the means which the terrorists use but we need to defeat the terrorists and the mindset which goes with it, as well as not let in potential or actual terrorists into our countries. That's the hard task and one to which, I feel, are leaders are simply not equal.

Just landed in Madrid. Not on holiday - am attending a board meeting.

Terrifying and appalling news from Berlin.

But, what does it actually mean to defeat Islamic terrorism? Despite the depressing regularity of the news, the chances of being hurt or killed by a terrorist incident remain vanishingly slight. Can it truly be eliminated, or are the costs to our own freedom too great to consider the measures that would be needed.

Sorry to be controversial tonight of all nights. Call me naive if you like. But I'm not sure what else should be done (in the UK) beyond what is already being done.

Letting in 1m Syrians is another matter...

It's not controversial it's grim facts. There will never be a way to eliminate terrorism.

We are a long way from the end of history although we have had a couple of false dawns in the past.

And as for imported terrorists, well look at 7/7 and also 9/11 (Saudis not Iraqis). It can come from anywhere. I am not, though, saying that importing large numbers of FAMs is a particularly great idea.

Kle4

You declared metro mayors as a bloody poor idea and a mess. Yet 4/5 you are apparently happy with (or neutral). The fifth, Bristol, you are unhappy with.

Gardenwalker said:

Cyclefree said:

Sandpit said:

SeanT said:

So the terrorists will move onto something else. Imagine what damage a couple of gun toting terrorists could do walking down Oxford Street on a busy Saturday afternoon during the sales. We can protect ourselves, to some extent, against the means which the terrorists use but we need to defeat the terrorists and the mindset which goes with it, as well as not let in potential or actual terrorists into our countries. That's the hard task and one to which, I feel, are leaders are simply not equal.

Just landed in Madrid. Not on holiday - am attending a board meeting.

Terrifying and appalling news from Berlin.

But, what does it actually mean to defeat Islamic terrorism? Despite the depressing regularity of the news, the chances of being hurt or killed by a terrorist incident remain vanishingly slight. Can it truly be eliminated, or are the costs to our own freedom too great to consider the measures that would be needed.

Sorry to be controversial tonight of all nights. Call me naive if you like. But I'm not sure what else should be done (in the UK) beyond what is already being done.

Letting in 1m Syrians is another matter...

I think far more could be done to confront the ideology which animates Islamists. Liberal values are better and we should say so and show how evil and horrible their world view is. When there were problems with the BNP and similar Nazi/fascist style groups in the 1970's, we had the Anti-Nazi movements and there was a vigorous - and largely successful - attempt to confront those who showed a penchant for fascism. We don't do anything like the same in relation to those who show a penchant for the Islamist version. Rather, we (or some of us, at any rate) are far too willing to explain it away or excuse it or justify it. If we do not provide a better belief system, a better account, a better story, if we do not say that what these people think and believe and do is wrong and repulsive, we can hardly be surprised if it attracts enough support to be a thorough nuisance or worse.

Yes, intelligence and prosecutions and a sensible immigration policy are essential. But bad ideas, bad ideologies are defeated by good ideas. We should have much more confidence in our virtues and values and ideas and stand up for them and promulgate them. Western Enlightenment values and what they have brought are good and better than the alternatives. Islamist thought is not good; it is horrible and dark and brings evil in its wake. We should not appease it. We should shun it and fight it and stop it spreading its tentacles amongst our Muslim young. They are our young too and I don't want them succumbing to something which will destroy them as much as it will destroy us.

kle4 said:

Jobabob said:

Kle4

In what way have the metro mayoralties in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Sheffield been handled poorly?

Oh for f*ck's sake, I do not have specific examples of bureaucratic minutiae for each individual scheme, I was making a general f*cking point about haphazard implementation you seem to have taken personally as though counsel for specific cities, and intent on ignoring when I said ones were sensible as you keep on bringing up cities I already stated I did not object to, so not to get all SeanT, I don't know how you respond to other points when you are unable to read others, strategically. The fact that different areas get different powers, that there is such confusion over which areas are included, or choose to be included, I think this is a problem. I think there should be a clear blueprint if you are going to have a new layer of local government, different arrangements (even if only marginally different) in different places just confuse an already confused system, if these are good ideas there should be a wholesale reorganization of how we do local government, not picking around the edges adding complexities.

Congratulations, you've won the day, via point 3 of the following.

http://www.basicinstructions.net/basic-instructions/2015/10/25/how-to-win-an-argument.html

Have a lovely evening.

I looked at your link. It's quite clever. It uses the same image in each of the four panels (have another look at it... )

Cyclefree said:

I think far more could be done to confront the ideology which animates Islamists. Liberal values are better and we should say so and show how evil and horrible their world view is. When there were problems with the BNP and similar Nazi/fascist style groups in the 1970's, we had the Anti-Nazi movements and there was a vigorous - and largely successful - attempt to confront those who showed a penchant for fascism. We don't do anything like the same in relation to those who show a penchant for the Islamist version. Rather, we (or some of us, at any rate) are far too willing to explain it away or excuse it or justify it. If we do not provide a better belief system, a better account, a better story, if we do not say that what these people think and believe and do is wrong and repulsive, we can hardly be surprised if it attracts enough support to be a thorough nuisance or worse.

Yes, intelligence and prosecutions and a sensible immigration policy are essential. But bad ideas, bad ideologies are defeated by good ideas. We should have much more confidence in our virtues and values and ideas and stand up for them and promulgate them. Western Enlightenment values and what they have brought are good and better than the alternatives. Islamist thought is not good; it is horrible and dark and brings evil. in its wake. We should not appease it. We should shun it and fight it and stop it spreading its tentacles amongst our Muslim young. They are our young too and I don't want them succumbing to something which will destroy them as much as it will destroy us.

I agree with you very strongly, then.

I fear we in the West have lost our ability to justify and defend our way of life. Why liberal democracy? Why freedom of speech? Why rule of law?

If we cannot defend it, we will lose it. If not to Islamist, then to others.

Pong said:

@pulpstar

This is getting boring now.

Come on betfair it's time to settle....

I'm less surprised that Betfair haven't yet settled the bet, than I am that the US has already declared & accepted the winner before the results are 100% certain.

Good evening, everyone.

Pulpstar said:

AnneJGP said:

Pong said:

@pulpstar

This is getting boring now.

Come on betfair it's time to settle....

I'm less surprised that Betfair haven't yet settled the bet, than I am that the US has already declared & accepted the winner before the results are 100% certain.

Good evening, everyone.

The results are 100% certain, all states are certified.

The result isn't official until Congress certifies it in January

New thread....

Pulpstar said:

viewcode said:

Pulpstar said:

AnneJGP said:

Pong said:

@pulpstar

This is getting boring now.

Come on betfair it's time to settle....

I'm less surprised that Betfair haven't yet settled the bet, than I am that the US has already declared & accepted the winner before the results are 100% certain.

Good evening, everyone.

The results are 100% certain, all states are certified.

The result isn't official until Congress certifies it in January

Balls, the results in each states are certified by attainment with signed certificates as of now.

My name is not "Balls". Read what I said again. The election is a three-stage process: the popular vote in November, the electoral college in December, the Congress certification in January. After those stages are complete, the Inauguration can then tak place (also in January).

[edit: 4->3]