OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
middle class prude
There is a far better programme to watch tonight on BBC4 at 9 pm: Life of a Mountain - A Year on Blencathra. He did the film about Scafell Pike. Glorious.
The Midlands is a quadrilateral, with corners at The Wash, the Humber, the Mersey and the Severn. Outside of that is, going clockwise, is the North, East Anglia, the South and Wales.
That puts Manchester just barely in the North, which doesn't seem right. The North/Midlands boundary should be somewhere between Macclesfield and Stoke.
The North begins, precisely, half a mile north of Nantwich, Cheshire.
You can actually hear the accents change, quite suddenly.
The Midlands is a quadrilateral, with corners at The Wash, the Humber, the Mersey and the Severn. Outside of that is, going clockwise, is the North, East Anglia, the South and Wales.
That puts Manchester just barely in the North, which doesn't seem right. The North/Midlands boundary should be somewhere between Macclesfield and Stoke.
The North begins, precisely, half a mile north of Nantwich, Cheshire.
You can actually hear the accents change, quite suddenly.
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
middle class prude
There is a far better programme to watch tonight on BBC4 at 9 pm: Life of a Mountain - A Year on Blencathra. He did the film about Scafell Pike. Glorious.
I had to laugh
The Archbishop of Canterbury's father seemed to have a similar problem to Roger's deplorables
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.
Cameron hastened to close the container, but the whole contents had escaped except for one thing that lay at the bottom
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.
you mean we should have pre-screened and disenfranchised anyone who would vote leave ?
The Midlands is a quadrilateral, with corners at The Wash, the Humber, the Mersey and the Severn. Outside of that is, going clockwise, is the North, East Anglia, the South and Wales.
That puts Manchester just barely in the North, which doesn't seem right. The North/Midlands boundary should be somewhere between Macclesfield and Stoke.
The North begins, precisely, half a mile north of Nantwich, Cheshire.
You can actually hear the accents change, quite suddenly.
When are we building a wall?
Around Hull ?
There's nothing wrong with Hull, a place I know well.
The evidence is mounting that not only is Piers a total c***, he's also a pretty thick one.
twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/831552409302339588
Isn't the bragging part about her retweeting it? Not sure why the authorship of the list matters.
No one would doubt that Piers is a fawning little creep when it suits him, and is unable to keep tabs on all the sycophantic drivel he pumps out.
Piers, 2010: 'She would hate to be called a celebrity, and guards her private life intensely, so she doesn't play any part of the celebrity game. And that's why I've marked her quite far down my list. But by encouraging children to read, feel inspired and be creative, she has had a greater impact on the world than most of the other names on it.'
Piers, 2016: 'Nobody plays the celebrity game more abusively or ruthlessly than you, Ms 'Intensely Private Billionaire'.'
The endless, tedious Twitterspat between Morgan and Rowling does neither of them any favours. They should both shut up.
Twitter is great. My putting broadcasting right in the palm of celebrities (or politicians) it cuts through any carefully crafted veneer of PR.
First to show a left majority, too. What will the Express et al make of it if Angela is toppled from the left? Fortunately, there is a word...schadenfreude.
Second poll giving SPD the lead but taken mainly before new scandal on Schulz spending I think and the combined left parties still under 50%. It of course still makes zero difference to Brexit which of Schulz or Merkel is Chancellor given May's commitment to controlling free movement and leaving the single market, the only party who would make a difference are the AfD who are still third
You are correct. Meant majority in Bundestag. Combined left ahead of combined right. However, it is unlikely Die Linke would be invited into/accept a place in a coalition. A continuation of the Grand Coalition is most likely this far out, although it could be led by SPD.
Given the SPD will not stomach Die Linke and the CDU will not stomach the AfD another Grand Coalition is almost inevitable yes
I believe the SPD are in coalition with Die Linke in some Lander.
"Labour sources warned earlier this month that Mr Corbyn is "not a plus on the doorstep" amid reports he has been asked not to visit Stoke again for fear of putting people off."
One thing that strikes me on UKIP. When they no longer have MEPs thanks to Brexit, they will lose huge resources in staff and cash.
They strike me as a glorified walking corpse. A repository for a certain number of protest votes in the manner of a unfocused Liberal Democrat. Which is as is should be given that their work will be done once Art50 is through.
The evidence is mounting that not only is Piers a total c***, he's also a pretty thick one.
twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/831552409302339588
Isn't the bragging part about her retweeting it? Not sure why the authorship of the list matters.
No one would doubt that Piers is a fawning little creep when it suits him, and is unable to keep tabs on all the sycophantic drivel he pumps out.
Piers, 2010: 'She would hate to be called a celebrity, and guards her private life intensely, so she doesn't play any part of the celebrity game. And that's why I've marked her quite far down my list. But by encouraging children to read, feel inspired and be creative, she has had a greater impact on the world than most of the other names on it.'
Piers, 2016: 'Nobody plays the celebrity game more abusively or ruthlessly than you, Ms 'Intensely Private Billionaire'.'
The endless, tedious Twitterspat between Morgan and Rowling does neither of them any favours. They should both shut up.
Fame and wealth has really changed Rowling - this comes from my wife who met her and her publishers at the time that book 1 was just beginning to generating some momentum. Morgan has always been a complete weapon with no redeeming features.
The Midlands is a quadrilateral, with corners at The Wash, the Humber, the Mersey and the Severn. Outside of that is, going clockwise, is the North, East Anglia, the South and Wales.
That puts Manchester just barely in the North, which doesn't seem right. The North/Midlands boundary should be somewhere between Macclesfield and Stoke.
The North begins, precisely, half a mile north of Nantwich, Cheshire.
You can actually hear the accents change, quite suddenly.
That feels about right. Crewe and Nantwich, I would have to think about before I decided if they were North or Midlands.
A line from Crewe to Chesterfield looks a pretty defensible boundary for the North. Lincoln isn't the north. Hull is in the North. Grimsby? Who cares....
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.
you mean we should have pre-screened and disenfranchised anyone who would vote leave ?
It should have been in a manifesto. If the Party proposing it could get it through parliament then it would have been scrutinised. This is madness. It's the equivalent of allowing Shannon Matthews to drive a Jumbo jet.
First to show a left majority, too. What will the Express et al make of it if Angela is toppled from the left? Fortunately, there is a word...schadenfreude.
Second poll giving SPD the lead but taken mainly before new scandal on Schulz spending I think and the combined left parties still under 50%. It of course still makes zero difference to Brexit which of Schulz or Merkel is Chancellor given May's commitment to controlling free movement and leaving the single market, the only party who would make a difference are the AfD who are still third
You are correct. Meant majority in Bundestag. Combined left ahead of combined right. However, it is unlikely Die Linke would be invited into/accept a place in a coalition. A continuation of the Grand Coalition is most likely this far out, although it could be led by SPD.
Given the SPD will not stomach Die Linke and the CDU will not stomach the AfD another Grand Coalition is almost inevitable yes
I believe the SPD are in coalition with Die Linke in some Lander.
Only in East Germany, West Germany will not tolerate them
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
What an interesting point of view! So votes only for people with second houses abroad then ?
So Corbyn has been sent home from Stoke by his own party, and Nuttall has been disowned by Farage. Is this the most amateurish by-election in political history?
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.
Why not? Is a referendum more important than choosing a government, say?
I know that there was a minimum majority in relation to one of the Scottish devolution referenda.
But imposing a minimum bar that has to be reached has got nothing to with whether the people who would vote are incontinent in their procreative habits.
Would you have been happy with a referendum result 60/40 in favour of Leave if that Leave vote got over the line with the votes of the people you've described?
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
Ability to emphathise with a Guardian article on coping with the courgette and (imminent) olive oil crisis.
The evidence is mounting that not only is Piers a total c***, he's also a pretty thick one.
twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/831552409302339588
Isn't the bragging part about her retweeting it? Not sure why the authorship of the list matters.
No one would doubt that Piers is a fawning little creep when it suits him, and is unable to keep tabs on all the sycophantic drivel he pumps out.
Piers, 2010: 'She would hate to be called a celebrity, and guards her private life intensely, so she doesn't play any part of the celebrity game. And that's why I've marked her quite far down my list. But by encouraging children to read, feel inspired and be creative, she has had a greater impact on the world than most of the other names on it.'
Piers, 2016: 'Nobody plays the celebrity game more abusively or ruthlessly than you, Ms 'Intensely Private Billionaire'.'
The endless, tedious Twitterspat between Morgan and Rowling does neither of them any favours. They should both shut up.
Fame and wealth has really changed Rowling - this comes from my wife who met her and her publishers at the time that book 1 was just beginning to generating some momentum. Morgan has always been a complete weapon with no redeeming features.
Just to be clear, the North consists of the three northern regions (North West, North East, Yorkshire & Humber), or, alternatively, the seven traditional northern counties (Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland, Durham, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cheshire). (This is the definnition the RFU have always used - I fondly remember the days of watching the North v South and South West on Grandstand on a Saturday afternoon.) Arguably it also includes Northern Lincolnshire (i.e. Scunthorpe and Grimsby) which falls within the first definition anyway), and possibly also some of northern Derbyshire (Glossop, New Mills? Almost certainly. Buxton? Probably. Chesterfield, Bakewell? Perhaps. Matlock, Alfreton? Possibly. Ashbourne, Belper? Probably not.)
It does include Nantwich by this definition, and also Crewe. But I concede that the two towns are stretching the north as farsouth as it will go, both in geography and in feel. Most of Cheshire is unequivocal in this regard though - I'm not having any doubt about Chester, Winsford, Middlewich, Congleton or Macclesfield - and I don't really want to cede any of Cheshire to the Midlands.
So Corbyn has been sent home from Stoke by his own party, and Nuttall has been disowned by Farage. Is this the most amateurish by-election in political history?
I'm taking back my previous comments that surely UKIP can't lose. I no don't see how either Labour or uKIP win with these candidates....
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.
you mean we should have pre-screened and disenfranchised anyone who would vote leave ?
It should have been in a manifesto. If the Party proposing it could get it through parliament then it would have been scrutinised. This is madness. It's the equivalent of allowing Shannon Matthews to drive a Jumbo jet.
The referendum was in the Conservative manifesto, it was subsequently voted on in Parliament and approved 316-53. The government then sent an expensive letter to all voters which promised to honor the result of that referendum. Then contemptible people like you and a couple of dozen MPs that voted for the referendum attempt to wriggle out because you don't like the answer.
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.
you mean we should have pre-screened and disenfranchised anyone who would vote leave ?
It should have been in a manifesto. If the Party proposing it could get it through parliament then it would have been scrutinised. This is madness. It's the equivalent of allowing Shannon Matthews to drive a Jumbo jet.
Er.... the EU referendum was in the Tory party's manifesto at the last election. And the referendum bill went through Parliament.
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.
you mean we should have pre-screened and disenfranchised anyone who would vote leave ?
It should have been in a manifesto. If the Party proposing it could get it through parliament then it would have been scrutinised. This is madness. It's the equivalent of allowing Shannon Matthews to drive a Jumbo jet.
Er.... the EU referendum was in the Tory party's manifesto at the last election. And the referendum bill went through Parliament.
Although the bill was so poorly written it didn't actually grant the power to trigger Brexit.
So Corbyn has been sent home from Stoke by his own party, and Nuttall has been disowned by Farage. Is this the most amateurish by-election in political history?
I'm taking back my previous comments that surely UKIP can't lose. I no don't see how either Labour or uKIP win with these candidates....
It certainly is hard to call @Mortimer - what an absolute shambles these two clowns are
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.
you mean we should have pre-screened and disenfranchised anyone who would vote leave ?
It should have been in a manifesto. If the Party proposing it could get it through parliament then it would have been scrutinised. This is madness. It's the equivalent of allowing Shannon Matthews to drive a Jumbo jet.
Er.... the EU referendum was in the Tory party's manifesto at the last election. And the referendum bill went through Parliament.
Although the bill was so poorly written it didn't actually grant the power to trigger Brexit.
Happily it didn't need to, parliament approved that last week 498 to 114.
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.
Perhaps - some countries do put extra requirements in such situations- but for whatever reason we have settled on that in this country for referendums. That sort of thing should have been resolved first, if it was an issue. Like the government making clear in law it would implement the result, which would have avoided many a silly argument.
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.
you mean we should have pre-screened and disenfranchised anyone who would vote leave ?
It should have been in a manifesto. If the Party proposing it could get it through parliament then it would have been scrutinised. This is madness. It's the equivalent of allowing Shannon Matthews to drive a Jumbo jet.
Er.... the EU referendum was in the Tory party's manifesto at the last election. And the referendum bill went through Parliament.
Although the bill was so poorly written it didn't actually grant the power to trigger Brexit.
Happily it didn't need to, parliament approved that last week 498 to 114.
And no bad thing too that they were required, for all it was a mistake by the government. And caused no appreciable delay either.
Going to be interesting next week when A50 gets to the Lords. How many ex EU Commissioners are in The Lord's atm ? Kinnock, Mandelson, Patten, Hill ? Will they be declaring their EU pensions, and the requirement that they maintain "duty of loyalty to the EU" in order to retain them ?
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.
Perhaps - some countries do put extra requirements in such situations- but for whatever reason we have settled on that in this country for referendums. That sort of thing should have been resolved first, if it was an issue. Like the government making clear in law it would implement the result, which would have avoided many a silly argument.
I thought Parliament considered such an ammendment to the bill, but it was defeated?
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.
you mean we should have pre-screened and disenfranchised anyone who would vote leave ?
It should have been in a manifesto. If the Party proposing it could get it through parliament then it would have been scrutinised. This is madness. It's the equivalent of allowing Shannon Matthews to drive a Jumbo jet.
Er.... the EU referendum was in the Tory party's manifesto at the last election. And the referendum bill went through Parliament.
Although the bill was so poorly written it didn't actually grant the power to trigger Brexit.
Did anyone at the time put forward an amendment for a minimum percentage for a Yes vote?
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
Ability to emphathise with a Guardian article on coping with the courgette and (imminent) olive oil crisis.
Labour must rue the day they abolished the university constituencies in 1950.
So Corbyn has been sent home from Stoke by his own party, and Nuttall has been disowned by Farage. Is this the most amateurish by-election in political history?
I'm taking back my previous comments that surely UKIP can't lose. I no don't see how either Labour or uKIP win with these candidates....
Have they been taking inspiration from the 2012 Olympic badminton?
So Corbyn has been sent home from Stoke by his own party, and Nuttall has been disowned by Farage. Is this the most amateurish by-election in political history?
I'm taking back my previous comments that surely UKIP can't lose. I no don't see how either Labour or uKIP win with these candidates....
Have they been taking inspiration from the 2012 Olympic badminton?
Shadsy still has UKIP under 20% at 8/1...
The reality is that most voters choose by party, no matter how crappy the candidate.
If it's a terrible candidate contest in Stoke, then short of a even-more-implausible-than-Richmond LD rise, surely Labour are are lock for the win? They've got a high base to fall from.
OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.
WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.
The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.
(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)
So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?
A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?
for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.
Why not? Is a referendum more important than choosing a government, say?
I know that there was a minimum majority in relation to one of the Scottish devolution referenda.
But imposing a minimum bar that has to be reached has got nothing to with whether the people who would vote are incontinent in their procreative habits.
Would you have been happy with a referendum result 60/40 in favour of Leave if that Leave vote got over the line with the votes of the people you've described?
It's irreversible. There are many things the country could vote for on a simple majority depending on the mood at the time. Laws take years to bed in. The idea that everything can be thrown into the air to see how they land because a simple majority of morons didn't have any idea of the consequence of their vote is not acceptable.
Why don't we have a referendum on hanging or on the Guillotine for the murder of children? There are some very uncivilized people in this country and their instincts have to be resisted.
I imagine the two resigning MPs must be thinking that it is all going nicely to plan.
One factor in Stoke I haven't seen mentioned - and that is Tristram Hunt leaving the job of MP for a cushy post at the V&A. People generally don't like by-elections where someone has tazzed off for a better offer. I was active in the 1977 Ashfield by-election, a rock-solid Labour seat where David Marquand went off to a job in the EEC (as it then was) to work for Roy Jenkins. The Tories won the seat with a 20% swing - speaking to Labour folks afterwards, they just couldn't get their voters out. Anybody who has been to Stoke/phone banked for it found this given as a reason for changed votes?
It was more than "looking at me funny". The allegations were pretty serious and were more akin to what was alleged to have been practiced in Guantanamo and in Iraq: waterboarding, hooding, sleep deprivation etc.
In 1976, the European Court ruled that the British government was guilty of torture and inhumane and degrading treatment.
Concerned by the damage to its international reputation, the government appealed and two years later, in 1978, the European Court ruled that while the five techniques amounted to inhumane and degrading treatment, they did not constitute torture.
That is pretty shaming for Britain.
The actions which Britain took were worse, in my view, than banning people from entering a country and placing a temporary ban on others. They involved degrading treatment to its own citizens and detention without trial and miscarriages of justice to its own citizens. It's something far worse, IMO, than doing something that you might not agree with.
Locking people up for 26 years on the basis of made up evidence, confessions beaten out of them, the withholding of evidence and risibly incompetent forensic work goes to the heart of the rule of law. A judicial system that shuts down a legal case because it cannot bear to contemplate what such a case might mean goes to the heart of the rule of law.
It was shaming and it might be as well for us to look at the beams in our own eyes before taking the moral high ground about others.
The picture and the sentiment are uninformed and do nothing to aid a debate - a difficult one - about how to deal with terrorist threats from those who live in and may also be citizens of a country.
There are some things I find shaming for Britain but doing stuff that is not illegal at the time is certainly not one of them. Inhumane and degrading is not torture. And given what the European Court considers breaches of human rights these days I am afraid I do not hold them up as an example to follow for the moral high ground.
As I say the UK did some things that it should be ashamed of. Diplock courts (which still exist by the way) and legal but harsh treatment are not things I think we should be apologising for. I am afraid your view is the one that leads to the Phil Shiners of this world.
Just to be clear, the North consists of the three northern regions (North West, North East, Yorkshire & Humber), or, alternatively, the seven traditional northern counties (Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland, Durham, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cheshire). (This is the definnition the RFU have always used - I fondly remember the days of watching the North v South and South West on Grandstand on a Saturday afternoon.) Arguably it also includes Northern Lincolnshire (i.e. Scunthorpe and Grimsby) which falls within the first definition anyway), and possibly also some of northern Derbyshire (Glossop, New Mills? Almost certainly. Buxton? Probably. Chesterfield, Bakewell? Perhaps. Matlock, Alfreton? Possibly. Ashbourne, Belper? Probably not.)
It does include Nantwich by this definition, and also Crewe. But I concede that the two towns are stretching the north as farsouth as it will go, both in geography and in feel. Most of Cheshire is unequivocal in this regard though - I'm not having any doubt about Chester, Winsford, Middlewich, Congleton or Macclesfield - and I don't really want to cede any of Cheshire to the Midlands.
Historically, Cheshire was very much a border zone, with significant links to Staffs; 100 years ago, the main railway company serving Macclesfield was the North Staffs Rly. Only lands north of the Mersey in the semi-separate Duchy of Lancaster were clearly part of the North of England. It is only since the post-war establishment of regions for state-directed activities such as the NHS and former public utility companies that Cheshire has been lumped with the North-West of England, although Mid and South Cheshire residents still tend to be referred for highly specialist health care to Stoke.
Suburban and overspill expansion from Manchester and Liverpool into places such as Wilmslow and Winsford has also altered perceptions. The High Peak area of Derbyshire (as far as Buxton) also tends to look towards Manchester rather than to the Midlands.
Why don't we have a referendum on hanging or on the Guillotine for the murder of children? There are some very uncivilized people in this country and their instincts have to be resisted.
There certainly are, but what you fail to realise is that you are one of them.
Could we be seeing the beginning of the end of Trump? Ch 4 News seem to think he's teetering and losing support fast
Fragged by his own troops is the way Trump exits the Whitehouse? I would love that, but can we have the State visit first?
Trouble is I can't really see anyway that Trump does leave the Whitehouse this side of the next Presidential election. As such I am not sure that leaving him isolated with only a few fanatics for counsel is a very good idea. What we need is for him to be broken but remain in power surrounded by wiser heads.
It does include Nantwich by this definition, and also Crewe. But I concede that the two towns are stretching the north as farsouth as it will go, both in geography and in feel. Most of Cheshire is unequivocal in this regard though - I'm not having any doubt about Chester, Winsford, Middlewich, Congleton or Macclesfield - and I don't really want to cede any of Cheshire to the Midlands.
Rather than man-made boundaries I'd suggest natural ones - the Mersey basin is the North, the Trent basin is almost all Midlands (although the Ouse is clearly the North too, the Humber estuary is clearly the boundary on the east coast but I don't quite know how you draw the line between Nottingham and the North Sea). But the watersheds follow the county boundaries quite closely around Stoke and Crewe.
Congleton's an interesting one as although it's normally grouped with Macclesfield it had more affinity with the outlying bits of the Potteries like Kidsgrove than with the Manchester-facing Macclesfield. But the influence of better commuter transport links and regional TV have made Congleton look far more towards Manchester than it used to 30 years ago.
Another signifier of common culture is the colour of beer - Staffordshire drinks far more dark beer, whereas Cheshire definitely prefers beer that's the colour of Boddingtons (RIP)...
- Internment without trial was imposed in a part of the United Kingdom. - Trial by jury was suspended in a part of the United Kingdom. - The British Government was found guilty by an international court of having committed acts against detainees which were one level below actual torture. - People travelling to and from Ireland were subject to increased checks. - The English police and judicial systems disgraced themselves in a series of miscarriages of justice which took far far too long to correct. - Innocent people were beaten up in prison and by the police - And Lord Denning blotted his copybook by coming out with a judgment which showed that he valued the reputation of the authorities above justice for individuals. - Irish people and Irish Catholics were not exactly popular in mainland Britain during the Troubles.
What point precisely was this Twitter user seeking to make?
I suspect that we are better than Trump and the deplorables.
Are we? Or, rather, were we when we faced a serious terrorist threat? Britain did not exactly cover itself in glory during the Troubles. Look at those first two points. Is Trump's much maligned EO even remotely as bad as that?
What about the third point? I felt pretty ashamed at the time that the British government was pleased to have that result rather than the infinitely worse finding of torture.
And what was the Labour government's response to the threat of Islamic terrorism in more recent times? Detention without trial for 90 days. Very liberal that.
I dislike Trump intensely. But when people on Twitter make jejeune and ill-informed comments without bothering to do some basic research, it gets my goat, frankly.
By all means let's have a debate. But posting pictures, using swear words and making a frankly risible point is for children not grown ups.
I agree with you, Cyclefree. Re-reading my post, it looks as though I agree with that position - I do not.
I find it one of the most distasteful things about a large chunk of the European elite - their totally unfounded, automatic, knee-jerk supposition of moral and intellectual superiority over all things American. It is a belief rooted in ignorance of the fundamental differences in world view of the US vs Europe - an ignorance which is lacking (at least in the elites) on the other foot.
The evidence is mounting that not only is Piers a total c***, he's also a pretty thick one.
twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/831552409302339588
Isn't the bragging part about her retweeting it? Not sure why the authorship of the list matters.
No one would doubt that Piers is a fawning little creep when it suits him, and is unable to keep tabs on all the sycophantic drivel he pumps out.
Piers, 2010: 'She would hate to be called a celebrity, and guards her private life intensely, so she doesn't play any part of the celebrity game. And that's why I've marked her quite far down my list. But by encouraging children to read, feel inspired and be creative, she has had a greater impact on the world than most of the other names on it.'
Piers, 2016: 'Nobody plays the celebrity game more abusively or ruthlessly than you, Ms 'Intensely Private Billionaire'.'
The endless, tedious Twitterspat between Morgan and Rowling does neither of them any favours. They should both shut up.
Fame and wealth has really changed Rowling - this comes from my wife who met her and her publishers at the time that book 1 was just beginning to generating some momentum. Morgan has always been a complete weapon with no redeeming features.
I was intrigued to hear that Rowling flattened a £1m house next door to hers, just so she could "extend her garden".
Hm.
Did she force the people out of their house via a compulsory purchase order?
I imagine the two resigning MPs must be thinking that it is all going nicely to plan.
One factor in Stoke I haven't seen mentioned - and that is Tristram Hunt leaving the job of MP for a cushy post at the V&A. People generally don't like by-elections where someone has tazzed off for a better offer. I was active in the 1977 Ashfield by-election, a rock-solid Labour seat where David Marquand went off to a job in the EEC (as it then was) to work for Roy Jenkins. The Tories won the seat with a 20% swing - speaking to Labour folks afterwards, they just couldn't get their voters out. Anybody who has been to Stoke/phone banked for it found this given as a reason for changed votes?
No, I was looking out for it. One voter said that in general terms he hadn't much liked recent MPs and was pleased the candidate was a local bloke though he didn't know him. Nobody else commente positively or negatively about any candidate except Nuttall (about whom comments were 100% negative, even from people still planning to vote for him).
But I think everyone is going to struggle to get their vote out, frankly. It didn't feel like a constituency panting for the chance to cast February votes.
Could we be seeing the beginning of the end of Trump? Ch 4 News seem to think he's teetering and losing support fast
No-one has more insight and the insider connections in the Trump White House than Channel Four news.
That said. I read that somewhere else. Weird if actually true.
Calm down, there was a Fox News poll showing him with a net positive rating still. People just don't pay that much attention to this stuff. It has to affect then personally.
Comments
The Archbishop of Canterbury's father seemed to have a similar problem to Roger's deplorables
Nah!
"Labour sources warned earlier this month that Mr Corbyn is "not a plus on the doorstep" amid reports he has been asked not to visit Stoke again for fear of putting people off."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/14/jeremy-corbyn-has-given-fight-win-copeland-aides-confirm-has/
I know that there was a minimum majority in relation to one of the Scottish devolution referenda.
But imposing a minimum bar that has to be reached has got nothing to with whether the people who would vote are incontinent in their procreative habits.
Would you have been happy with a referendum result 60/40 in favour of Leave if that Leave vote got over the line with the votes of the people you've described?
That said. I read that somewhere else. Weird if actually true.
It does include Nantwich by this definition, and also Crewe. But I concede that the two towns are stretching the north as farsouth as it will go, both in geography and in feel. Most of Cheshire is unequivocal in this regard though - I'm not having any doubt about Chester, Winsford, Middlewich, Congleton or Macclesfield - and I don't really want to cede any of Cheshire to the Midlands.
Do you view the southern boundary of the North as the northern boundary of Mercia?
The reality is that most voters choose by party, no matter how crappy the candidate.
Why don't we have a referendum on hanging or on the Guillotine for the murder of children? There are some very uncivilized people in this country and their instincts have to be resisted.
One factor in Stoke I haven't seen mentioned - and that is Tristram Hunt leaving the job of MP for a cushy post at the V&A. People generally don't like by-elections where someone has tazzed off for a better offer. I was active in the 1977 Ashfield by-election, a rock-solid Labour seat where David Marquand went off to a job in the EEC (as it then was) to work for Roy Jenkins. The Tories won the seat with a 20% swing - speaking to Labour folks afterwards, they just couldn't get their voters out. Anybody who has been to Stoke/phone banked for it found this given as a reason for changed votes?
As I say the UK did some things that it should be ashamed of. Diplock courts (which still exist by the way) and legal but harsh treatment are not things I think we should be apologising for. I am afraid your view is the one that leads to the Phil Shiners of this world.
Suburban and overspill expansion from Manchester and Liverpool into places such as Wilmslow and Winsford has also altered perceptions. The High Peak area of Derbyshire (as far as Buxton) also tends to look towards Manchester rather than to the Midlands.
Congleton's an interesting one as although it's normally grouped with Macclesfield it had more affinity with the outlying bits of the Potteries like Kidsgrove than with the Manchester-facing Macclesfield. But the influence of better commuter transport links and regional TV have made Congleton look far more towards Manchester than it used to 30 years ago.
Another signifier of common culture is the colour of beer - Staffordshire drinks far more dark beer, whereas Cheshire definitely prefers beer that's the colour of Boddingtons (RIP)...
I find it one of the most distasteful things about a large chunk of the European elite - their totally unfounded, automatic, knee-jerk supposition of moral and intellectual superiority over all things American. It is a belief rooted in ignorance of the fundamental differences in world view of the US vs Europe - an ignorance which is lacking (at least in the elites) on the other foot.
If not, so what?
But I think everyone is going to struggle to get their vote out, frankly. It didn't feel like a constituency panting for the chance to cast February votes.
11h
Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn
Trump's best live interview poll yet (RVs helps some) puts his approval at +1; ban at -6 (link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/02/14/fox-news-poll-february-14-2017/) foxnews.com/politics/inter…