That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
Then May should give Sturgeon her referendum. Let's see if she does.
Why should she? Not one poll is currently showing a Yes vote so there is clearly no change from the last No vote and of course with her own party now taking votes from the SNP as well as Scottish Labour she has little to fear from Sturgeon
There is zero evidence of SNP to Tory switchers.
Latest poll has SNP vote down and a 7.5% swing from SNP to Tory
There is precious little evidence that the Speaker has misread the mood of the House of Commons. Much of the squawking about him, coming as it does from the usual noisy minority of Bercow-haters, ignores that.
As to the substance of the decision, the matter seems to have been handled ineptly by all concerned from start to date. I'm agog at how badly a relatively simple thing has been dealt with by the government.
There is precious little evidence that Trump was going to speak in Parliament, which means the speaker was polishing his virtue rather than responding to a request. Had the government asked, and had the speaker taken soundings and responded in kind that would be entirely reasonable, that is not what happened. The speaker exceeded his powers and caused embarrassment to HMG in relation to our most important ally. Considering your detestation of Trump and your delight at discomfort for the government I am not holding my breath for you to see it this way
The Speaker was asked a question (by Stephen Doughty MP) and he answered it. Neither you nor I know what soundings the Speaker had made before giving his answer.
On the detail, you're wrong on multiple fronts. I'm comfortable with the general principle of offering gewgaws to Donald Trump if that will serve Britain's cause well (and so the specific decision by John Bercow is one I wouldn't have sought if I were an MP). But the execution of this could hardly have been handled worse by the government if it had tried.
The speaker should have replied as the Lord Speaker correctly did, that he had received no such representation, and until such times retained an open mind.
He obviously did not retain an open mind, so that would have been a lie.
It was his job to do to, if he couldn't manage it, perhaps he should step down and let someone else have go ?
His job is to speak on behalf of the House of Commons. If the House of Commons does not retain an open mind on the subject, he should not either.
American exceptionalism. We expect better of the soi-disent leader of the free world. Different standards apply.
As a thought experiment, I wonder what our relationship with the US would be like if they still had Jim Crow laws.
Give it a couple of years and we might find out.
We don't need that though experiment. We just need to look back at what it was when they did have such laws.
Not really - we had different laws back then and the UK was a very different place.
Racism certainly existed in the UK, but even pre -war, a lot of British people who visited the US were shocked by legally-enforced segregation, and even more so when US forces stationed here in WWII tried to enforce it. Also shocking in its way, were the experiences of some black US visitors to this country, when they discovered they weren't barred from leading hotels.
This is one of the things that truly annoys me about Britons trying to import racism/BLM here.
It's complete nonsense and deliberately divisive race card playing. My Uncle Bart is from Sierra Leone - my five cousins are black and whilst an oddity back in the 70s in Newcastle, no one really commented at all. We all just got on and admired his gold teeth/fish gutting skills.
Frankly, I'm more outraged at what settlers did to the Native Americans than anything else. That was genocide and near deliberate extinction for bison to cut off their food source - imagine if we'd reservations for Jews in Europe in 2017. It's appalling.
The US history of race relations has almost no relevance to policy-making in this country.
On topic, it's a good piece but there are two important points missed.
snip.
Agree on the first. Point 5 covers your second point, albeit briefly. We should expect more of a US President. It worries me greatly that Trump's reaction to the courts putting his EO on hold is to attack the judge rather than consulting with lawyers to see how proposed actions could be made to comply with US law and the US Constitution. That is the mark of a spoilt baby lashing out rather than a serious grown up.
Well, sadly it's not as though our lot are immune to that reaction at times.
Obama rubbished judges - let's not apply exceptionalism to Trump here.
There is a huge difference between criticising a decision - which many presidents have done - and attacking the legitimacy of a judge.
This is what Obama actually said: "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong..." That's it.
Trump rubbishes judges if they disagree with him, but then he rubbishes anyone if they disagree with him. Can't take criticism at all.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned out in droves just as Indy supporters did last time. Will they do the same again? And if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
Of course they will, Union supporters tend to be older and they have higher turnout so whatever the No poll rating you can probably increase it by at least 2 to 3%. Leaving the EU and the Single Market the SNP told us would lead to a Yes landslide, the most interesting thing is that is not happening
It will only take a few percent to switch, and a few percent not to turnout, to permit an Indy win. That is frighteningly manageable. It is a shame we decide these things on a 50%+1 vote basishey are so significant, but that is the way things are so I cannot complain.
Yes underperformed every poll in indyref. There is also nothing frightening about it, an independent Scotland would make barely any difference to the prospects of England and Wales post Brexit but it would make it even tougher for Scotland given most of its exports go to the rest of the UK
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned out in droves just as Indy supporters did last time. Will they do the same again? And if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
Of course they will, Union supporters tend to be older and they have higher turnout so whatever the No poll rating you can probably increase it by at least 2 to 3%. Leaving the EU and the Single Market the SNP told us would lead to a Yes landslide, the most interesting thing is that is not happening
It will only take a few percent to switch, and a few percent not to turnout, to permit an Indy win. That is frighteningly manageable. It is a shame we decide these things on a 50%+1 vote basishey are so significant, but that is the way things are so I cannot complain.
Yes underperformed every poll in indyref. There is also nothing frightening about it, an independent Scotland would make barely any difference to the prospects of England and Wales post Brexit but it would make it even tougher for Scotland
The final polls had Yes on a range of 44 to 46%. The polling was spot on.
Mr. kle4, there was a more forthright (ahem) attitude to ends justifying means in classical and medieval times. Livy praised a Roman army (in Rome and Italy) for slaughtering a huge number of adult males in a rival city. Likewise when Richard the Lionheart and Saladin were having hardball negotiations outside a city (maybe Acre, I forget).
The Lionheart had won a battle before Saladin arrived and taken a large number of prisoners. However, food and water supplies were low. Saladin was stringing out negotiations to weaken the Crusader army. The Lionheart responded by killing most/all of the prisoners even though he'd promised them their lives if they surrendered (NB Saladin did likewise to prisoners).
Worth also noting that many kings we might consider tyrants today were praised and admired for their vigorous/vicious approach to law and order. And we see with the 'punch a Nazi' idiocy that a lot of people are still quite happy to support violence beyond the law if it's directed at those they consider wrong (ie a moral cause, in their eyes).
Couldn't be an effective, and therefore a good ruler without being strong and probably at least a bit of a bastard. Different times, different necessities. Weakness led to anarchy. Institutions are stronger now, for better and for worse,
Because the poorest members of society were most vulnerable to crime and private war among the Barons, they especially admired a King who cracked down on such things.
Lady Godiva is a lovely example - and the source of 'peeping Tom'.
The aspect that Cyxlefree doesn't address is the Speaker's role as the representative of the Commons. Nobody disputes that when he, for instance, makes a speech stressing the need to protect backbench MPs against pressure (something I benefited from myself from a Soeaker - can't remember which one). If he believes - and I think from my own contacts and from published material that it's the case - that the majority of MPs are profoundly unhappy about Trump speaking in Parliament and that it would likely to be subject to both boycotts and disruption by Members, then in my view he had a duty to say so. There is literally nobody else who can speak for MPs without regard to party lines, Ministerial careers and so on.
The other examples given didn't attract any significant opposition from MPs. Perhaps they should have, and perhaps the row here will help stimulate a genuine debate in Parliament on who Members would really like to have.
Mr. Meeks, half the Commons was staring in stony silence whilst half (the opposition) was applauding. If the House is divided then how can the Speaker claim to speak for all of it by siding with one half over the other?
Mr. Blue, you're asking for a willing second class status for England. Scottish politicians can now vote on tax rates in both England and Scotland. That is not a defensible position.
If an offer to speak to parliament had been made, and Bercow had consulted with MPs and other relevant authorities, sounded out feelings and then made his announcement, there'd be no problem. If, as it appears to be the case, there was no offer, and he just likes the sound of his own voice, then he's a grandstanding tosspot. Quite simple really. Next!
If an offer to speak to parliament had been made, and Bercow had consulted with MPs and other relevant authorities, sounded out feelings and then made his announcement, there'd be no problem. If, as it appears to be the case, there was no offer, and he just likes the sound of his own voice, then he's a grandstanding tosspot. Quite simple really. Next!
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourabfore the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned nd if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
When you start worrying about things like that the game is up. The only way the UK stays together now is through a complete rethink of the constitutional settlement. It involves leaders making big, bold and uncomfortable decisions that will dilute their own power. It i
There was the vow in indyref which was rather more than the EU offered the UK. However given the UK is now leaving the single market Scotland has to choose between the EU and the UK. If it chooses the EU and independence that means border patrols at Berwick and customs duties on Scottish exports to the UK where most Scottish exports go. A majority of UK exports did not go to the EU
So there will be border patrols on the NI/Irish border?
There will only be customs duties if England chooses to impose them.
As we all know, economics does not always win the day.
There is precious little evidence that the Speaker has misread the mood of the House of Commons. Much of the squawking about him, coming as it does from the usual noisy minority of Bercow-haters, ignores that.
As to the substance of the decision, the matter seems to have been handled ineptly by all concerned from start to date. I'm agog at how badly a relatively simple thing has been dealt with by the government.
May invited him , no problem. It was the idiot Bercow who put a spanner in the works not the Govt. Lord Fowler has put the idiot back in his box hopefully. The sooner this man who has an overblown view of his own importance is silenced, the better. He is a complete hypocrite.
The executive has no right to issue invitations on behalf of the legislature.
Norman Fowler (the Lord Speaker) was very clear that there had been no incoming inquiry about a speech - and hence no invitation issued.
Bercow was grandstanding in a vainglorious way to win some cheap applause. In so doing he potentially created an issue with the leader of our closest ally. He overstepped the mark of his authority, and intervened in a political manner.
Indeed, he was asked a question to which he should have replied that he would consult and arrive at a consensus with others should a request me made and the need arise. Instead he chose to make a personal and very political speech which has embarrassed the government and drawn comment from across the Atlantic.
Maybe one saving grace is that in the US, the Speaker, Paul Ryan, is a partisan position rather than a supposedly neutral referee, so US commentators may struggle with the nuance of the position and quite why Bercow made such an arse of himself.
Mr. Meeks, half the Commons was staring in stony silence whilst half (the opposition) was applauding. If the House is divided then how can the Speaker claim to speak for all of it by siding with one half over the other?
Mr. Blue, you're asking for a willing second class status for England. Scottish politicians can now vote on tax rates in both England and Scotland. That is not a defensible position.
By my estimate, roughly 52% of the House of Commons supports the decision. The Speaker is implementing the will of the House of Commons. Those who are in the minority are losers who should suck it up.
Mr. Meeks, half the Commons was staring in stony silence whilst half (the opposition) was applauding. If the House is divided then how can the Speaker claim to speak for all of it by siding with one half over the other?
It seems Meeks' mind is made up on the subject, Trump is a dangerous idiot so anyone that says anything bad about him is at least correct, if not downright heroic.
he's a grandstanding tosspot. Quite simple really. Next!
Yes, but he's embarrassed the government and President Trump - so that's alright then (or at least I think that's the argument, his defenders are creative when it comes to making up invitations that were never made, or consultations which were never held...)
This is one of the things that truly annoys me about Britons trying to import racism/BLM here.
It's complete nonsense and deliberately divisive race card playing. My Uncle Bart is from Sierra Leone - my five cousins are black and whilst an oddity back in the 70s in Newcastle, no one really commented at all. We all just got on and admired his gold teeth/fish gutting skills.
Frankly, I'm more outraged at what settlers did to the Native Americans than anything else. That was genocide and near deliberate extinction for bison to cut off their food source - imagine if we'd reservations for Jews in Europe in 2017. It's appalling.
Experiences are different and contrary - your Uncle had one experience and a good one but to imagine there was no prejudice against black people is equally false - the Notting Hill riots being a prime example.
Yes, the Native Americans were treated shamefully by the Americans and the near extinction of the bison within just a few decades awful but the treatment of the Australian aborigines by the British wasn't brilliant either (the Maori did a bit better but not much).
2017 is better - not by much, and not by enough and in many parts of the world it's not better at all.
Mr. Meeks, half the Commons was staring in stony silence whilst half (the opposition) was applauding. If the House is divided then how can the Speaker claim to speak for all of it by siding with one half over the other?
Mr. Blue, you're asking for a willing second class status for England. Scottish politicians can now vote on tax rates in both England and Scotland. That is not a defensible position.
By my estimate, roughly 52% of the House of Commons supports the decision. The Speaker is implementing the will of the House of Commons. Those who are in the minority are losers who should suck it up.
We all know about the accuracy of polls before the real count.
Mr. Meeks, half the Commons was staring in stony silence whilst half (the opposition) was applauding. If the House is divided then how can the Speaker claim to speak for all of it by siding with one half over the other?
It seems Meeks' mind is made up on the subject, Trump is a dangerous idiot so anyone that says anything bad about him is at least correct, if not downright heroic.
Since you're unable to read the reply I've already given directly to you on the subject which directly contradicts that, I doubt I'm going to change your mind about what I think.
Mr. Meeks, half the Commons was staring in stony silence whilst half (the opposition) was applauding. If the House is divided then how can the Speaker claim to speak for all of it by siding with one half over the other?
Mr. Blue, you're asking for a willing second class status for England. Scottish politicians can now vote on tax rates in both England and Scotland. That is not a defensible position.
By my estimate, roughly 52% of the House of Commons supports the decision. The Speaker is implementing the will of the House of Commons. Those who are in the minority are losers who should suck it up.
We all know about the accuracy of polls before the real count.
The real count has spoken from the chair.
(No autocorrect was involved in the production of this post.)
Mr. Meeks, half the Commons was staring in stony silence whilst half (the opposition) was applauding. If the House is divided then how can the Speaker claim to speak for all of it by siding with one half over the other?
Mr. Blue, you're asking for a willing second class status for England. Scottish politicians can now vote on tax rates in both England and Scotland. That is not a defensible position.
By my estimate, roughly 52% of the House of Commons supports the decision. The Speaker is implementing the will of the House of Commons. Those who are in the minority are losers who should suck it up.
Mr. Meeks, half the Commons was staring in stony silence whilst half (the opposition) was applauding. If the House is divided then how can the Speaker claim to speak for all of it by siding with one half over the other?
Mr. Blue, you're asking for a willing second class status for England. Scottish politicians can now vote on tax rates in both England and Scotland. That is not a defensible position.
By my estimate, roughly 52% of the House of Commons supports the decision. The Speaker is implementing the will of the House of Commons. Those who are in the minority are losers who should suck it up.
We all know about the accuracy of polls before the real count.
The real count has spoken from the chair.
(No autocorrect was involved in the production of this post.)
This is one of the things that truly annoys me about Britons trying to import racism/BLM here.
It's complete nonsense and deliberately divisive race card playing. My Uncle Bart is from Sierra Leone - my five cousins are black and whilst an oddity back in the 70s in Newcastle, no one really commented at all. We all just got on and admired his gold teeth/fish gutting skills.
Frankly, I'm more outraged at what settlers did to the Native Americans than anything else. That was genocide and near deliberate extinction for bison to cut off their food source - imagine if we'd reservations for Jews in Europe in 2017. It's appalling.
Experiences are different and contrary - your Uncle had one experience and a good one but to imagine there was no prejudice against black people is equally false - the Notting Hill riots being a prime example.
Yes, the Native Americans were treated shamefully by the Americans and the near extinction of the bison within just a few decades awful but the treatment of the Australian aborigines by the British wasn't brilliant either (the Maori did a bit better but not much).
2017 is better - not by much, and not by enough and in many parts of the world it's not better at all.
The Maori did better because they were good at war, and rapidly learned how to use firearms efficiently.
Horrible as the treatment of the Native Americans was, they were quite capable of meting out horrible treatment as well. Had they been sufficiently numerous and well-armed, there would not be any White people left in North America.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourabfore the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned nd if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
When you start worrying about things like that the game is up. The only way the UK stays together now is through a complete rethink of the constitutional settlement. It involves leaders making big, bold and uncomfortable decisions that will dilute their own power. It i
There was the vow in indyref which was rather more than the EU offered the UK. However given the UK is now leaving the single market Scotland has to choose between the EU and the UK. If it chooses the EU and independence that means border patrols at Berwick and customs duties on Scottish exports to the UK where most Scottish exports go. A majority of UK exports did not go to the EU
There will only be customs duties if England chooses to impose them.
England may not be the problem - the EU may be. And under WTO rules England can't have 'Scotland tariffs'....
But in any case, its likely to be quite a few years before SINDY joins the EU anyway, what with currency, Central bank and budget deficit to sort out first....
he's a grandstanding tosspot. Quite simple really. Next!
Yes, but he's embarrassed the government and President Trump - so that's alright then (or at least I think that's the argument, his defenders are creative when it comes to making up invitations that were never made, or consultations which were never held...)
There is an argument for saying that in speaking out Bercow has taken everything on his shoulders and spared the government and MPs a lot of embarrassment. Neither has to say No to Trump now.
Mr. Meeks, there are always those in a majority or minority. Not everyone can win every vote. And nobody chooses to lose. But bleating forlornly or accepting defeat with grace is a choice that can be made.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourabfore the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned nd if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
When you start worrying about things like that the game is up. The only way the UK stays together now is through a complete rethink of the constitutional settlement. It involves leaders making big, bold and uncomfortable decisions that will dilute their own power. It i
There was the vow in indyref which was rather more than the EU offered the UK. However given the UK is now leaving the single market Scotland has to choose between the EU and the UK. If it chooses the EU and independence that means border patrols at Berwick and customs duties on Scottish exports to the UK where most Scottish exports go. A majority of UK exports did not go to the EU
There will only be customs duties if England chooses to impose them.
England may not be the problem - the EU may be. And under WTO rules England can't have 'Scotland tariffs'....
But in any case, its likely to be quite a few years before SINDY joins the EU anyway, what with currency, Central bank and budget deficit to sort out first....
Yep - there is no reason why an independent Scotland should formally join the EU. It would be quite possible to do some kind of beneficial associate deal and agree a customs union with England.
he's a grandstanding tosspot. Quite simple really. Next!
Yes, but he's embarrassed the government and President Trump - so that's alright then (or at least I think that's the argument, his defenders are creative when it comes to making up invitations that were never made, or consultations which were never held...)
There is an argument for saying that in speaking out Bercow has taken everything on his shoulders and spared the government and MPs a lot of embarrassment. Neither has to say No to Trump now.
Certainly it's less embarrassing than if there had been a vote and the government had lost.
So what is the story on Greece blowing up again mid-year. Is there likely to be another crisis, or is it all a bit AEP ?
It seems that the IMF has reached the end of its patience for pumping in money without any debt forgiveness, which the creditors appear to have ruled out.
If the IMF walks away then the Germans and Dutch will be forced to walk away as well because the IMF picking up a chunk of the bill was the condition given by their national parliaments for being involved in the bail outs.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned out in droves just as Indy supporters did last time. Will they do the same again? And if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
Of course they will, Union supporters tend to be older and they have higher turnout so whatever the No poll rating you can probably increase it by at least 2 to 3%. Leaving the EU and the Single Market the SNP told us would lead to a Yes landslide, the most interesting thing is that is not happening
It will only take a few percent to switch, and a few percent not to turnout, to permit an Indy win. That is frighteningly manageable. It is a shame we decide these things on a 50%+1 vote basishey are so significant, but that is the way things are so I cannot complain.
Yes underperformed every poll in indyref. There is also nothing frightening about it, an independent Scotland would make barely any difference to the prospects of England and Wales post Brexit but it would make it even tougher for Scotland given most of its exports go to the rest of the UK
The English and Welsh would be a few hundred quid a year richer per person and the Scots a few thousand quid poorer. Crudely speaking.
Mr. Meeks, half the Commons was staring in stony silence whilst half (the opposition) was applauding. If the House is divided then how can the Speaker claim to speak for all of it by siding with one half over the other?
Mr. Blue, you're asking for a willing second class status for England. Scottish politicians can now vote on tax rates in both England and Scotland. That is not a defensible position.
By my estimate, roughly 52% of the House of Commons supports the decision. The Speaker is implementing the will of the House of Commons. Those who are in the minority are losers who should suck it up.
This is one of the things that truly annoys me about Britons trying to import racism/BLM here.
It's complete nonsense and deliberately divisive race card playing. My Uncle Bart is from Sierra Leone - my five cousins are black and whilst an oddity back in the 70s in Newcastle, no one really commented at all. We all just got on and admired his gold teeth/fish gutting skills.
Frankly, I'm more outraged at what settlers did to the Native Americans than anything else. That was genocide and near deliberate extinction for bison to cut off their food source - imagine if we'd reservations for Jews in Europe in 2017. It's appalling.
Experiences are different and contrary - your Uncle had one experience and a good one but to imagine there was no prejudice against black people is equally false - the Notting Hill riots being a prime example.
Yes, the Native Americans were treated shamefully by the Americans and the near extinction of the bison within just a few decades awful but the treatment of the Australian aborigines by the British wasn't brilliant either (the Maori did a bit better but not much).
2017 is better - not by much, and not by enough and in many parts of the world it's not better at all.
The Maori did better because they were good at war, and rapidly learned how to use firearms efficiently.
Horrible as the treatment of the Native Americans was, they were quite capable of meting out horrible treatment as well. Had they been sufficiently numerous and well-armed, there would not be any White people left in North America.
That is probably what stopped full-scale, long-term Viking settlement in North America: there was an equivalence of destructive technology and the locals knew the land much better.
Mr. Observer, also, the very long distance made reinforcements much more difficult for the Vikings than their invasions/expeditions to Iceland and the British Isles.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, more trade, closer ties etc.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned out in droves just as Indy supporters did last time. Will they do the same again? And if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
Of course they will, Union supporters tend to be older and they have higher turnout so whatever the No poll rating you can probably increase it by at least 2 to 3%. Leaving the EU and the Single Market the SNP told us would lead to a Yes landslide, the most interesting thing is that is not happening
It will only take a few percent to switch, and a few percent not to turnout, to permit an Indy win. That is frighteningly manageable. It is a shame we decide these things on a 50%+1 vote basishey are so significant, but that is the way things are so I cannot complain.
Yes underperformed every poll in indyref. There is also nothing frightening about it, an independent Scotland would make barely any difference to the prospects of England and Wales post Brexit but it would make it even tougher for Scotland
The final polls had Yes on a range of 44 to 46%. The polling was spot on.
So what is the story on Greece blowing up again mid-year. Is there likely to be another crisis, or is it all a bit AEP ?
It seems that the IMF has reached the end of its patience for pumping in money without any debt forgiveness, which the creditors appear to have ruled out.
If the IMF walks away then the Germans and Dutch will be forced to walk away as well because the IMF picking up a chunk of the bill was the condition given by their national parliaments for being involved in the bail outs.
Mr. Glenn, not sure approval of and desire for trade with Canada, the US, New Zealand and Australia is the same as importing a victimhood fetish.
We already trade with all of those countries.
We already have trade with almost all nations in the world. Good clearly we can disband the Department of International Trade, close up all out international trade missions, ditch any negotiations and save a lot of money ?
So the solution to this whole predicament is for The Queen to make him Lord of Rutland or somewhere, have a whip round to buy him a nice big castle, tell him Lords can't go in the Commons because they're too lordly for the Commons and let him address the House of Lords. Then tell him that for the same reason he can't be president of the United States any more as this is also reserved for a commoner. Everyone will be relieved, including Trump himself whi is obviously finding himself wildly out of his depth in the new job, and a grateful America will probably buy Britain a nice new Trident.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned out in droves just as Indy supporters did last time. Will they do the same again? And if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
Of happening
It complain.
Yes underperformed every poll in indyref. There is also nothing frightening about it, an independent Scotland would make barely any difference to the prospects of England and Wales post Brexit but it would make it even tougher for Scotland given most of its exports go to the rest of the UK
The English and Welsh would be a few hundred quid a year richer per person and the Scots a few thousand quid poorer. Crudely speaking.
On the plus side, the Scots would no longer have to rely on a Tory government in Westminster, dependent solely on English votes, to dictate their economic and fiscal policies. And the English could focus on English-only issues. There would be an opportunity to invest a lot more money outside of London and the South East. What is not to like?
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourabfore the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned nd if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
When you start worrying about things like that the game is up. The only way the UK stays together now is through a complete rethink of the constitutional settlement. It involves leaders making big, bold and uncomfortable decisions that will dilute their own power. It i
There was the vow in indyref which was rather more than the EU offered the UK. However given the UK is now leaving the single market Scotland has to choose between the EU and the UK. If it chooses the EU and independence that means border patrols at Berwick and customs duties on Scottish exports to the UK where most Scottish exports go. A majority of UK exports did not go to the EU
So there will be border patrols on the NI/Irish border?
There will only be customs duties if England chooses to impose them.
As we all know, economics does not always win the day.
England will certainly impose border controls on Scotland to control free movement into the UK and there will likely inevitably be some on the Irish border too and customs duties on Scottish goods are also probably inevitable given Scotland will seek full membership of the EEA and will have to face the customs duties the UK imposes on EEA goods once the UK leaves the Single Market (of course the EEA will also have imposed some customs duties on UK goods)
Mr. Meeks, half the Commons was staring in stony silence whilst half (the opposition) was applauding. If the House is divided then how can the Speaker claim to speak for all of it by siding with one half over the other?
It seems Meeks' mind is made up on the subject, Trump is a dangerous idiot so anyone that says anything bad about him is at least correct, if not downright heroic.
And I'm a Nazi. I see Twitter has introduced a new censorship policy where it'll 'collapse' 'low quality tweets'
The liberal left have lost touch with reality, after losing political power.
This video on shadow-banning/throttling is spot on and insidious. I've seen hundreds of examples of it. NSFW Deadpool style voiceover.
The aspect that Cyxlefree doesn't address is the Speaker's role as the representative of the Commons. Nobody disputes that when he, for instance, makes a speech stressing the need to protect backbench MPs against pressure (something I benefited from myself from a Soeaker - can't remember which one). If he believes - and I think from my own contacts and from published material that it's the case - that the majority of MPs are profoundly unhappy about Trump speaking in Parliament and that it would likely to be subject to both boycotts and disruption by Members, then in my view he had a duty to say so. There is literally nobody else who can speak for MPs without regard to party lines, Ministerial careers and so on.
The other examples given didn't attract any significant opposition from MPs. Perhaps they should have, and perhaps the row here will help stimulate a genuine debate in Parliament on who Members would really like to have.
He should have given that advice in private.
Disagree. It's important that MPs feel their views are made known in public - not least because they weren't merely saying that they didn't want him there, but that they wished it to be known that Parliament disapproved of his approach.
Incidentally, it's a rare example where the speed of support for an Early Day Motion may have made a difference.
Of course, the Government, if it disagrees, could introduce a motion welcoming Trump to speak and see if they can get a majority for it. They've got a majority and everything, should be no problem, hmm? Good luck with that.
So what is the story on Greece blowing up again mid-year. Is there likely to be another crisis, or is it all a bit AEP ?
It seems that the IMF has reached the end of its patience for pumping in money without any debt forgiveness, which the creditors appear to have ruled out.
If the IMF walks away then the Germans and Dutch will be forced to walk away as well because the IMF picking up a chunk of the bill was the condition given by their national parliaments for being involved in the bail outs.
The IMF are completely right, it's not their job to bail out individual parts of a formal currency union in one of the richest parts of the world. It really is for the EZ and EU to sort this out among themselves.
So what is the story on Greece blowing up again mid-year. Is there likely to be another crisis, or is it all a bit AEP ?
It seems that the IMF has reached the end of its patience for pumping in money without any debt forgiveness, which the creditors appear to have ruled out.
If the IMF walks away then the Germans and Dutch will be forced to walk away as well because the IMF picking up a chunk of the bill was the condition given by their national parliaments for being involved in the bail outs.
Only just broken so no details beyond that, but I dislike the idea of legal rights being granted without any kind of contract (ie wedding). If this principle is extended then it would give property rights to long term girlfriends/boyfriends.
This is one of the things that truly annoys me about Britons trying to import racism/BLM here.
It's complete nonsense and deliberately divisive race card playing. My Uncle Bart is from Sierra Leone - my five cousins are black and whilst an oddity back in the 70s in Newcastle, no one really commented at all. We all just got on and admired his gold teeth/fish gutting skills.
Frankly, I'm more outraged at what settlers did to the Native Americans than anything else. That was genocide and near deliberate extinction for bison to cut off their food source - imagine if we'd reservations for Jews in Europe in 2017. It's appalling.
Experiences are different and contrary - your Uncle had one experience and a good one but to imagine there was no prejudice against black people is equally false - the Notting Hill riots being a prime example.
Yes, the Native Americans were treated shamefully by the Americans and the near extinction of the bison within just a few decades awful but the treatment of the Australian aborigines by the British wasn't brilliant either (the Maori did a bit better but not much).
2017 is better - not by much, and not by enough and in many parts of the world it's not better at all.
The Maori did better because they were good at war, and rapidly learned how to use firearms efficiently.
Horrible as the treatment of the Native Americans was, they were quite capable of meting out horrible treatment as well. Had they been sufficiently numerous and well-armed, there would not be any White people left in North America.
That is probably what stopped full-scale, long-term Viking settlement in North America: there was an equivalence of destructive technology and the locals knew the land much better.
Also, they were operating right at the end of their line of communications. The Scandinavians were probably some of the most successful conquerors in history, when you consider how many millions of their descendants live in the places they conquered so long ago.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourabfore the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned nd if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
When you start worrying about things like that the game is up. The only way the UK stays together now is through a complete rethink of the constitutional settlement. It involves leaders making big, bold and uncomfortable decisions that will dilute their own power. It i
There was the vow in indyref which was rather more than the EU offered the UK. However given the UK is now leaving the single market Scotland has to choose between the EU and the UK. If it chooses the EU and independence that means border patrols at Berwick and customs duties on Scottish exports to the UK where most Scottish exports go. A majority of UK exports did not go to the EU
So there will be border patrols on the NI/Irish border?
There will only be customs duties if England chooses to impose them.
As we all know, economics does not always win the day.
England will certainly impose border controls on Scotland to control free movement into the UK and customs duties are also probably inevitable given Scotland will seek full membership of the EEA and will have to face the customs duties the UK imposes on EEA goods once the UK leaves the Single Market (of course the EEA will also have imposed some customs duties on UK goods)
So we will see border patrols on the NI/Ireland border. Why doesn't the government admit this in the Brexit White Paper? There is absolutely no reason why Scotland should become a full member of the EEA, especially if it makes more sense not to.
So the solution to this whole predicament is for The Queen to make him Lord of Rutland or somewhere, have a whip round to buy him a nice big castle, tell him Lords can't go in the Commons because they're too lordly for the Commons and let him address the House of Lords. Then tell him that for the same reason he can't be president of the United States any more as this is also reserved for a commoner. Everyone will be relieved, including Trump himself whi is obviously finding himself wildly out of his depth in the new job, and a grateful America will probably buy Britain a nice new Trident.
And then he gets impeached due to the Title of Nobility Clause?
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned out in droves just as Indy supporters did last time. Will they do the same again? And if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
Of happening
It complain.
Yes underperformed every poll in indyref. There is also nothing frightening about it, an independent Scotland would make barely any difference to the prospects of England and Wales post Brexit but it would make it even tougher for Scotland given most of its exports go to the rest of the UK
The English and Welsh would be a few hundred quid a year richer per person and the Scots a few thousand quid poorer. Crudely speaking.
On the plus side, the Scots would no longer have to rely on a Tory government in Westminster, dependent solely on English votes, to dictate their economic and fiscal policies. And the English could focus on English-only issues. There would be an opportunity to invest a lot more money outside of London and the South East. What is not to like?
Sounds good to me. Shame we can't get enough Scots to vote for it!
MEN claiming that Rebecca Long Bailey is being 'positioned' to take over from Jez.
Wasn't this tipped by Mike or TSE the other day? I certainly remember getting on at about 30/1.
I backed her at 66/1, said she was still available at 33/1.
I felt so smug about backing her at 66/1 then in a game of oneupmanship, a PBer told me he had backed her at 350/1, then another outdid the both of us by informing us he had backed her at over 500/1
Frankly, 500/1 sounds more like reality. I mean - who? But we are no longer in reality, we have, in the words of the great Ken (when is he going to be knighted??), gone down a rabbit hole.
At the moment, there's probably good sense in backing anyone on Labour's front bench at any point who is in three figures as a scattergun approach.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourabfore the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned nd if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
When you start worrying about things like that the game is up. The only way the UK stays together now is through a complete rethink of the constitutional settlement. It involves leaders making big, bold and uncomfortable decisions that will dilute their own power. It i
There was the vow in indyref which was rather more than the EU offered the UK. However given the UK is now leaving the single market Scotland has to choose between the EU and the UK. If it chooses the EU and independence that means border patrols at Berwick and customs duties on Scottish exports to the UK where most Scottish exports go. A majority of UK exports did not go to the EU
So there will be border patrols on the NI/Irish border?
There will only be customs duties if England chooses to impose them.
As we all know, economics does not always win the day.
England will certainly impose border controls on Scotland to control free movement into the UK and there will likely inevitably be some on the Irish border too and customs duties on Scottish goods are also probably inevitable given Scotland will seek full membership of the EEA and will have to face the customs duties the UK imposes on EEA goods once the UK leaves the Single Market (of course the EEA will also have imposed some customs duties on UK goods)
The Maori did better because they were good at war, and rapidly learned how to use firearms efficiently.
Horrible as the treatment of the Native Americans was, they were quite capable of meting out horrible treatment as well. Had they been sufficiently numerous and well-armed, there would not be any White people left in North America.
The Maori story is fascinating - the Waitangi Treaty (timely with Waitangi Day just two days ago) was more an attempt to forestall a French move to take control of the islands. It's often forgotten most of the South Island was uninhabited - the Maori were on the North Island and only on the north shore of the South Island. There was a Catholic mission in Russell and the British feared the Maori would do a deal with the French.
As for North America, yes, the various Native tribes were known to be brutal but I'm left wondering if the defeat of the Iroquois League was more to do with smallpox and gold then numbers or muskets. Had the Native Americans been resistant to European illnesses (and the same is true of the Aztecs), I wonder how the history of the Americas would have turned out.
Only just broken so no details beyond that, but I dislike the idea of legal rights being granted without any kind of contract (ie wedding). If this principle is extended then it would give property rights to long term girlfriends/boyfriends.
As always, it's more complicated than the headline. The full judgment is here for those who are interested:
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned out in droves just as Indy supporters did last time. Will they do the same again? And if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
Of happening
It complain.
Yes underperformed every poll in indyref. There is also nothing frightening about it, an independent Scotland would make barely any difference to the prospects of England and Wales post Brexit but it would make it even tougher for Scotland given most of its exports go to the rest of the UK
The English and Welsh would be a few hundred quid a year richer per person and the Scots a few thousand quid poorer. Crudely speaking.
On the plus side, the Scots would no longer have to rely on a Tory government in Westminster, dependent solely on English votes, to dictate their economic and fiscal policies. And the English could focus on English-only issues. There would be an opportunity to invest a lot more money outside of London and the South East. What is not to like?
In the much anticipated IndyRef2 the SNP would be wise to extend the vote to England, Wales and N.Ireland should they wish to win independence.
So the solution to this whole predicament is for The Queen to make him Lord of Rutland or somewhere, have a whip round to buy him a nice big castle, tell him Lords can't go in the Commons because they're too lordly for the Commons and let him address the House of Lords. Then tell him that for the same reason he can't be president of the United States any more as this is also reserved for a commoner. Everyone will be relieved, including Trump himself whi is obviously finding himself wildly out of his depth in the new job, and a grateful America will probably buy Britain a nice new Trident.
And then he gets impeached due to the Title of Nobility Clause?
Blimey, I didn't realize there was an actual thing. It's worth a shot; He probably doesn't know about the clause, and even if he does it's hard to see him turning down a title.
What sounds more impressive, Lord, Earl or Marchioness?
On topic, it's a good piece but there are two important points missed.
snip.
Agree on the first. Point 5 covers your second point, albeit briefly. We should expect more of a US President. It worries me greatly that Trump's reaction to the courts putting his EO on hold is to attack the judge rather than consulting with lawyers to see how proposed actions could be made to comply with US law and the US Constitution. That is the mark of a spoilt baby lashing out rather than a serious grown up.
Well, sadly it's not as though our lot are immune to that reaction at times.
Obama rubbished judges - let's not apply exceptionalism to Trump here.
"WASHINGTON — It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices’ faces.
President George W. Bush, for instance, did not hesitate to criticize a 2008 ruling recognizing the rights of prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — but he did it at a news conference in Rome. President Richard M. Nixon said he was disappointed with a 1974 decision ordering him to turn over the tapes that would help end his presidency — in a statement read by his lawyer.
President Obama’s approach at the State of the Union address Wednesday night was more personal, and he seemed a little self-conscious about it.
Before he began his attack on a Supreme Court decision not yet a week old, Mr. Obama added a few words that had not been in the prepared text. The new preface — “with all due deference to separation of powers” — seemed to acknowledge that he was aiming unusual rhetorical fire at several Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., one of the justices in the majority in the decision under attack, shook his head as he heard the president’s summary of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and he appeared to mouth the words “not true.”
It was not quite the shouted “You lie!” from Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, at September’s presidential address to a joint session of Congress. But in its way, the breach of decorum on both sides was much starker.
Obama was criticising the judgment, not the judges. Typical for you to ignore subtleties such as this.
So what is the story on Greece blowing up again mid-year. Is there likely to be another crisis, or is it all a bit AEP ?
It seems that the IMF has reached the end of its patience for pumping in money without any debt forgiveness, which the creditors appear to have ruled out.
If the IMF walks away then the Germans and Dutch will be forced to walk away as well because the IMF picking up a chunk of the bill was the condition given by their national parliaments for being involved in the bail outs.
The Maori did better because they were good at war, and rapidly learned how to use firearms efficiently.
Horrible as the treatment of the Native Americans was, they were quite capable of meting out horrible treatment as well. Had they been sufficiently numerous and well-armed, there would not be any White people left in North America.
The Maori story is fascinating - the Waitangi Treaty (timely with Waitangi Day just two days ago) was more an attempt to forestall a French move to take control of the islands. It's often forgotten most of the South Island was uninhabited - the Maori were on the North Island and only on the north shore of the South Island. There was a Catholic mission in Russell and the British feared the Maori would do a deal with the French.
As for North America, yes, the various Native tribes were known to be brutal but I'm left wondering if the defeat of the Iroquois League was more to do with smallpox and gold then numbers or muskets. Had the Native Americans been resistant to European illnesses (and the same is true of the Aztecs), I wonder how the history of the Americas would have turned out.
In the case of the Aztecs, they drove Cortes out of Tenochtitlan, but had been decimated by smallpox before he came back. There were a lot of other factors - Cortes was able to recruit native American allies in large numbers (who were initially less vulnerable to disease because they didn't live in a densely populated metropolis as the Aztecs did) and he had superior weaponry, although the impact of that was less significant than you might think. But disease was decisive. So I agree: if Native Americans had been resistant to European illnesses things might have turned out very differently.
Interesting that we are hearing rumours that Jezza is off, but on the betting front no sign of a favourite. The best you can do is Lewis at 7.2 (on BF at least).
Only just broken so no details beyond that, but I dislike the idea of legal rights being granted without any kind of contract (ie wedding). If this principle is extended then it would give property rights to long term girlfriends/boyfriends.
As I understand it, the remaining partner has a right to the pension if the to-be-dead person grants it, in this case by literally ticking a box. I'm guessing this case must at least partially be based on divining what the intention of the dead person would be.
Incidentally, I'm outraged that you didn't pick up on the misuse of the word 'dependant' at the end of that piece.
Interesting that we are hearing rumours that Jezza is off, but on the betting front no sign of a favourite. The best you can do is Lewis at 7.2 (on BF at least).
I got 6.2 (Laying)
My Next Labour leader book looks very nice, unlike my Jezza book (Need him to hang on till 2018)
So the solution to this whole predicament is for The Queen to make him Lord of Rutland or somewhere, have a whip round to buy him a nice big castle, tell him Lords can't go in the Commons because they're too lordly for the Commons and let him address the House of Lords. Then tell him that for the same reason he can't be president of the United States any more as this is also reserved for a commoner. Everyone will be relieved, including Trump himself whi is obviously finding himself wildly out of his depth in the new job, and a grateful America will probably buy Britain a nice new Trident.
And then he gets impeached due to the Title of Nobility Clause?
Blimey, I didn't realize there was an actual thing. It's worth a shot; He probably doesn't know about the clause, and even if he does it's hard to see him turning down a title.
What sounds more impressive, Lord, Earl or Marchioness?
If we want to be sure then we need to go bigly - how about God-King?
Only just broken so no details beyond that, but I dislike the idea of legal rights being granted without any kind of contract (ie wedding). If this principle is extended then it would give property rights to long term girlfriends/boyfriends.
That's bonkers. I had assumed they had children and the payments might be for that, but no mention of children in the article. How does the taxpayer end up paying a pension for life to someone aged 42 who lived with someone who worked for the government?
he's a grandstanding tosspot. Quite simple really. Next!
Yes, but he's embarrassed the government and President Trump - so that's alright then (or at least I think that's the argument, his defenders are creative when it comes to making up invitations that were never made, or consultations which were never held...)
There is an argument for saying that in speaking out Bercow has taken everything on his shoulders and spared the government and MPs a lot of embarrassment. Neither has to say No to Trump now.
An interesting conception of the role of Speaker - Parliamentary Jester. Maybe Boris should be his successor ?
Interesting that we are hearing rumours that Jezza is off, but on the betting front no sign of a favourite. The best you can do is Lewis at 7.2 (on BF at least).
Can't see it myself. Next year looks more likely if the McDonnell amendment does not pass conference; 2019 if it does.
The Maori did better because they were good at war, and rapidly learned how to use firearms efficiently.
Horrible as the treatment of the Native Americans was, they were quite capable of meting out horrible treatment as well. Had they been sufficiently numerous and well-armed, there would not be any White people left in North America.
The Maori story is fascinating - the Waitangi Treaty (timely with Waitangi Day just two days ago) was more an attempt to forestall a French move to take control of the islands. It's often forgotten most of the South Island was uninhabited - the Maori were on the North Island and only on the north shore of the South Island. There was a Catholic mission in Russell and the British feared the Maori would do a deal with the French.
As for North America, yes, the various Native tribes were known to be brutal but I'm left wondering if the defeat of the Iroquois League was more to do with smallpox and gold then numbers or muskets. Had the Native Americans been resistant to European illnesses (and the same is true of the Aztecs), I wonder how the history of the Americas would have turned out.
In the case of the Aztecs, they drove Cortes out of Tenochtitlan, but had been decimated by smallpox before he came back. There were a lot of other factors - Cortes was able to recruit native American allies in large numbers (who were initially less vulnerable to disease because they didn't live in a densely populated metropolis as the Aztecs did) and he had superior weaponry, although the impact of that was less significant than you might think. But disease was decisive. So I agree: if Native Americans had been resistant to European illnesses things might have turned out very differently.
Really does sound like a plot for an alternative history novel
Interesting that we are hearing rumours that Jezza is off, but on the betting front no sign of a favourite. The best you can do is Lewis at 7.2 (on BF at least).
Can't see it myself. Next year looks more likely if the McDonnell amendment does not pass conference; 2019 if it does.
Well the rumour is he has given a date. There was a rumour at xmas that he'd given his 70th as a date - he could make the excuse that at that age time for a younger runner etc etc. He is 70 in 2019 I believe.
The Maori did better because they were good at war, and rapidly learned how to use firearms efficiently.
Horrible as the treatment of the Native Americans was, they were quite capable of meting out horrible treatment as well. Had they been sufficiently numerous and well-armed, there would not be any White people left in North America.
The Maori story is fascinating - the Waitangi Treaty (timely with Waitangi Day just two days ago) was more an attempt to forestall a French move to take control of the islands. It's often forgotten most of the South Island was uninhabited - the Maori were on the North Island and only on the north shore of the South Island. There was a Catholic mission in Russell and the British feared the Maori would do a deal with the French.
As for North America, yes, the various Native tribes were known to be brutal but I'm left wondering if the defeat of the Iroquois League was more to do with smallpox and gold then numbers or muskets. Had the Native Americans been resistant to European illnesses (and the same is true of the Aztecs), I wonder how the history of the Americas would have turned out.
In the case of the Aztecs, they drove Cortes out of Tenochtitlan, but had been decimated by smallpox before he came back. There were a lot of other factors - Cortes was able to recruit native American allies in large numbers (who were initially less vulnerable to disease because they didn't live in a densely populated metropolis as the Aztecs did) and he had superior weaponry, although the impact of that was less significant than you might think. But disease was decisive. So I agree: if Native Americans had been resistant to European illnesses things might have turned out very differently.
Really does sound like a plot for an alternative history novel
Sorry, it's been done. Robert Silverberg, The Gate of Worlds. Recommended.
Edit: though come to think of it, the twist in Silverberg's book was that the Black Death was even more deadly to Europeans that in real life, which sort of levelled the playing field.
Miss Plato, good video. It's stuff like this (and the spate of mentally ill loners called Dave) that makes people distrust media. Ultimately, it's counter-productive.
Only just broken so no details beyond that, but I dislike the idea of legal rights being granted without any kind of contract (ie wedding). If this principle is extended then it would give property rights to long term girlfriends/boyfriends.
That's bonkers. I had assumed they had children and the payments might be for that, but no mention of children in the article. How does the taxpayer end up paying a pension for life to someone aged 42 who lived with someone who worked for the government?
Mr McMullan died suddenly at Christmas in 2009, aged 43, two days after they had got engaged.
Only just broken so no details beyond that, but I dislike the idea of legal rights being granted without any kind of contract (ie wedding). If this principle is extended then it would give property rights to long term girlfriends/boyfriends.
As always, it's more complicated than the headline. The full judgment is here for those who are interested:
I really don't have a problem with this ruling, if noone is specified for a pension to go to his long term partner. I think the court has been fair, and this really isn't money grubbing. I can't recall who the beneficiary to my (modest) pension is, and I'd have no issue it going to my fiancee. I have no idea who she has nominated for hers, I'd probably give it back to her parents for neccesary 'expenses' if I was entitled to it if unfortunate events occurred.
In fact I think the ruling is extremely fair and correct.
The Maria Mills court case was the one that really got my back up yesterday. I can only think of one explanation for that ruling, out and out paternalism and sexism by the judge - it is completely demeaning - the unspoken part of it being that she can't stand on her own two feet because she is a woman, utterly disgusting.
Only just broken so no details beyond that, but I dislike the idea of legal rights being granted without any kind of contract (ie wedding). If this principle is extended then it would give property rights to long term girlfriends/boyfriends.
That's bonkers. I had assumed they had children and the payments might be for that, but no mention of children in the article. How does the taxpayer end up paying a pension for life to someone aged 42 who lived with someone who worked for the government?
It wouldn't be that much, the pot would have a certain value perhaps 50-100k or so (I have no idea), and she'd be entitled to that in the normal way a pension would be paid. The value would be less than if he had died at say 65.
Catching up on the thread. What is this stuff about Jezza quitting? There's no chance currently as the Left won't let him – the second he quits, they lose control of the party as left wing candidates won't be able to get the requisite number of nominations. The PLP won't make the same mistake twice.
Comments
There are probably hundreds of thousands men and women alive today, who wouldn't be alive today were it not for Lord Fowler.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Godiva
Mr. Blue, you're asking for a willing second class status for England. Scottish politicians can now vote on tax rates in both England and Scotland. That is not a defensible position.
There will only be customs duties if England chooses to impose them.
As we all know, economics does not always win the day.
Maybe one saving grace is that in the US, the Speaker, Paul Ryan, is a partisan position rather than a supposedly neutral referee, so US commentators may struggle with the nuance of the position and quite why Bercow made such an arse of himself.
Edit: Mr @TwistedFireStopper makes the point better than I.
One of the most interesting aspects of that whole story was that Mrs Thatcher was overruled by her cabinet.
Can't see that happening under Blair, Cameron, or May.
I'm attempting to back David Miliband at what I think is a realistic price if anyone has a mammoth green book and wants to oblige the -2/+1000...
Yes, the Native Americans were treated shamefully by the Americans and the near extinction of the bison within just a few decades awful but the treatment of the Australian aborigines by the British wasn't brilliant either (the Maori did a bit better but not much).
2017 is better - not by much, and not by enough and in many parts of the world it's not better at all.
It was a massive campaign - compare UK death rates with France.....
(No autocorrect was involved in the production of this post.)
Horrible as the treatment of the Native Americans was, they were quite capable of meting out horrible treatment as well. Had they been sufficiently numerous and well-armed, there would not be any White people left in North America.
But in any case, its likely to be quite a few years before SINDY joins the EU anyway, what with currency, Central bank and budget deficit to sort out first....
Mr. Stopper, quite agree.
It seems that the IMF has reached the end of its patience for pumping in money without any debt forgiveness, which the creditors appear to have ruled out.
If the IMF walks away then the Germans and Dutch will be forced to walk away as well because the IMF picking up a chunk of the bill was the condition given by their national parliaments for being involved in the bail outs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/07/eu-faces-crisis-imf-warns-greek-debts-explosive-path/
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, more trade, closer ties etc.
"The unanimous view of the campaign committee is that Michael Foot is the leader of the Labour Party and speaks for the Party".
Iz down wiv da kidz
The liberal left have lost touch with reality, after losing political power.
This video on shadow-banning/throttling is spot on and insidious. I've seen hundreds of examples of it. NSFW Deadpool style voiceover.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAAUD7jtFas&index=19&list=LL7l-OnxlJYiqYkLWPcqN1qQ
Incidentally, it's a rare example where the speed of support for an Early Day Motion may have made a difference.
Of course, the Government, if it disagrees, could introduce a motion welcoming Trump to speak and see if they can get a majority for it. They've got a majority and everything, should be no problem, hmm? Good luck with that.
This must be a cue to trot out my favourite Ian Lavery video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLcwhgrxTWs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38904268
Only just broken so no details beyond that, but I dislike the idea of legal rights being granted without any kind of contract (ie wedding). If this principle is extended then it would give property rights to long term girlfriends/boyfriends.
As for North America, yes, the various Native tribes were known to be brutal but I'm left wondering if the defeat of the Iroquois League was more to do with smallpox and gold then numbers or muskets. Had the Native Americans been resistant to European illnesses (and the same is true of the Aztecs), I wonder how the history of the Americas would have turned out.
https://t.co/Fd4dVggyWi
What sounds more impressive, Lord, Earl or Marchioness?
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/commons/early-day-motions/edm-detail1/?edmnumber=890&session=2016-17
Number of Conservative signatures: 0
Incidentally, I'm outraged that you didn't pick up on the misuse of the word 'dependant' at the end of that piece.
My Next Labour leader book looks very nice, unlike my Jezza book (Need him to hang on till 2018)
Maybe Boris should be his successor ?
Tories: you have about 2 years to make your move.
Edit: though come to think of it, the twist in Silverberg's book was that the Black Death was even more deadly to Europeans that in real life, which sort of levelled the playing field.
I hope the police looked closely at this case!
In fact I think the ruling is extremely fair and correct.
The Maria Mills court case was the one that really got my back up yesterday. I can only think of one explanation for that ruling, out and out paternalism and sexism by the judge - it is completely demeaning - the unspoken part of it being that she can't stand on her own two feet because she is a woman, utterly disgusting.
The value would be less than if he had died at say 65.