Labour did a poor job of communicating the intended message (or what I presume the intended message was), that the cuts were the wrong kind of cuts, somehow, presumably an issue of Tory competence. As it was they were seemingly angry the Tories had cut too far and fast, and angry they had not cut far or fast enough.
The problem was that didn't have a coherent message. It wasn't a failure of communication, it was a refusal to face up to reality.
Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).
What referendum about PR was that?
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.
That was a one-off. All previous changes in the voting system have been by decision of Parliament. We didn’t, for example, have a referendum to lower the voting age, do away with two member and University seats, allow women to vote (twice), introduce the secret ballot and so on.
Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).
What referendum about PR was that?
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.
That was a one-off. All previous changes in the voting system have been by decision of Parliament. We didn’t, for example, have a referendum to lower the voting age, do away with two member and University seats, allow women to vote (twice), introduce the secret ballot and so on.
I think all of those were done under FPTP (although maybe the university seats used a form of PR)?
I see jezza is starting the week with another PR disaster. The idiots in the thick of it were tip top professionals compared to the great leaders motley crew.
Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
?
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe would pay.
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).
What referendum about PR was that?
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.
Established a precedent how? There's now law that such a change must be in a referendum, and parliaments do not bind their successors.
It may be that it is a good idea, and that it would and should be criticised if done otherwise, but particularly if it was a commitment of one party, as a red line in a negotiation, and the senior partner knowing that decided it was a price worth paying to get their commitments through, well that seems like standard political horse trading.
Not a legal precedent, but a political one. For example, it'd be very hard to argue for changes in the franchise or adding turnout requirements for any future indy ref.
That's true, unfortunately, though I think it would be easier to make the argument re changing the voting system generally. It could be Labour and LDs for instance both support it, in which case if they together form a majority in the house by the logic of those who oppose PR they have the right to implement that change even if together they have less than 50% of the vote. Sure, they might take some stick for that, but not so much it would ut them off necessarily.
One ‘mistake’ Blair made was not to face down Prescott over implementing the Jenkins proposals!
Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).
What referendum about PR was that?
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.
That was a one-off. All previous changes in the voting system have been by decision of Parliament. We didn’t, for example, have a referendum to lower the voting age, do away with two member and University seats, allow women to vote (twice), introduce the secret ballot and so on.
I think all of those were done under FPTP (although maybe the university seats used a form of PR)?
All the decisions were taken by Parliaments elected by FPTP. Not referenda
Who do Labour have who can command that kind of support?
But Labour does not need that kind of support. There is a huge difference between beating the Tories by 250 seats - as in 1997 - and doing sufficiently well to make it impossible for the Tories to form a minority Government. The latter scenario is very possible - but not if Corbyn remains leader.
Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).
What referendum about PR was that?
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.
That was a one-off. All previous changes in the voting system have been by decision of Parliament. We didn’t, for example, have a referendum to lower the voting age, do away with two member and University seats, allow women to vote (twice), introduce the secret ballot and so on.
I think all of those were done under FPTP (although maybe the university seats used a form of PR)?
All the decisions were taken by Parliaments elected by FPTP. Not referenda
Yep, but the actual voting system remained unchanged throughout.
English voters will never elect a Labour Coalition government which depends on SNP support.
That's all there is to it. Until and unless Labour solves its Scottish problem, and/or the Lib Dems take dozens of seats off the Tories, even a Coalition of the Left is very difficult to achieve - and a Labour majority is virtually impossible.
It's a curious phenomenon: "France's mass unemployment problem came up again and again as a key source of worry & anger at the political class"
So, the answer to the problem of high unemployment in France is to vote for policies guaranteed to make the problem worse. They haven't even got the excuse of it being unclear what works - they only need to look across the Channel at the UK's labour market.
Meanwhile .... Perhaps I might garner an opinion or several from the collective knowledge of the PB petrol-heads.
Audi SQ7
Content Or Not Content ?
Will the good Lady JackW be able to get enough new shoes in the back after a trip to the shops?
I offered a similar view and was met with a countenance that would have stopped Attila The Hun stone dead. It could be so much worse. Some months back Mrs JackW was transported in a Bentley Bentayga with an interior, she informed me, that matched several outfits. I fear she wasn't entirely being frivolous.
That said the SQ7 advice is for a relative of Mrs JackW with numerous young offspring.
Regarding a betting strategy for the next GE, I will wait until the outcome of the parliamentary vote on the boundary review in 2018, and until the shape of the Brexit deal becomes clear in late 2018 and early 2019, before fully committing myself. The former matters for the maths, the latter for the political reaction.
If Corbyn is still there at T-12 months to GE2020 I'll take that as a sign Labour have run out of time to claw back their position too, even if they do chuck him in the final months.
However, I expect Tories most seats to be a steal and might start backing that even earlier.
I was looking at that too. It's currently 1.29 on Betfair, which seems like free money at this point. Even more so if the boundaries go through. Four figures available on it too.
Some months back Mrs JackW was transported in a Bentley Bentayga with an interior, she informed me, that matched several outfits. I fear she wasn't entirely being frivolous.
Count yourself lucky that she didn't conclude that it didn't match any of her outfits so she'd need an entire new wardrobe.
Regarding a betting strategy for the next GE, I will wait until the outcome of the parliamentary vote on the boundary review in 2018, and until the shape of the Brexit deal becomes clear in late 2018 and early 2019, before fully committing myself. The former matters for the maths, the latter for the political reaction.
If Corbyn is still there at T-12 months to GE2020 I'll take that as a sign Labour have run out of time to claw back their position too, even if they do chuck him in the final months.
However, I expect Tories most seats to be a steal and might start backing that even earlier.
I was just looking at that one, Tories are 1.29 on Betfair, with four figures available. With what we know now that's huge value, better than a savings account. If the new boundaries go through then doubly so.
Veldhiv & Vichy dominating French twitter today btw.
If French twitter resembles British twitter, I'd read about as much into that as I would into the Milifandom that hit twitter in the last general election.
Some months back Mrs JackW was transported in a Bentley Bentayga with an interior, she informed me, that matched several outfits. I fear she wasn't entirely being frivolous.
Count yourself lucky that she didn't conclude that it didn't match any of her outfits so she'd need an entire new wardrobe.
The thought had crossed my mind Nabbers but firmly went no further !!
Well I have come late to the party. As I read it, Don expects to achieve Government by having an electable leader.
Trouble is : the members who vote for the leader want a left wing leader who is politically pure.
So is Don proposing to change the memberships' opinions? Or hope they all leave?
I think people slightly (although only slightly) underestimate Labour members.
From what I've seen, a proportion either don't care about winning or are delusional "Canary" readers who believe that the polls (and by-elections) are rigged by Rupert Murdoch, the BBC, and Big Pharma.
There are more of these than sane Labour members would like, but they are not even close to a majority, let alone the Corbyn super-majority from 2016.
About 30% are die-hard anti-Corbyn. Remember, about 40% went for Owen Smith in 2016 - a nobody who was beaten by Corbyn in every debate, and who in all honesty had zero chance of winning a General Election either.
There's a big chunk of swing voters in the middle. They like Corbyn personally, see him as honest (wrongly in my view but there we are), feel he ought to be given more of a chance, hope he may grow on people etc. BUT... they do genuinely want to be in Government in 2020, they increasingly appreciate that it isn't ALL the fault of MPs and the media that Corbyn hasn't broken through, they felt let down over Corbyn's stance on the Brexit Bill, they like their councillor and MP and don't want them to lose, etc.
So it's a tough proposition for anti-Corbyn Labour people, but not totally hopeless.
Utter fantasy. If any thing is shifting its an acceleration of Labours decline. Labours polling average has been falling by around 1% every 2 Months for nearly a year now. That rate of decline could increase after Mays results are digested.
It has actually been fairly stable this year - though that is cold comfort for Labour.
It's a curious phenomenon: "France's mass unemployment problem came up again and again as a key source of worry & anger at the political class"
So, the answer to the problem of high unemployment in France is to vote for policies guaranteed to make the problem worse. They haven't even got the excuse of it being unclear what works - they only need to look across the Channel at the UK's labour market.
And the one single candidate who might possibly do something about it - Fillon - is the one who is slumping.
That said, there is an argument for voting either Melenchon or Le Pen, just to give such a shock to the system that, in the end, France HAS to reform, or collapse entirely. So maybe these voters aren't so dim after all.
A bit like how voting Labour in 1974 made Thatcher possible?
In this case I think it would be a mistake on the voters' part to go for a Melenchon or a Le Pen.
And the one single candidate who might possibly do something about it - Fillon - is the one who is slumping.
That said, there is an argument for voting either Melenchon or Le Pen, just to give such a shock to the system that, in the end, France HAS to reform, or collapse entirely. So maybe these voters aren't so dim after all.
Macron would nudge things in the right direction, albeit only slowly. But that's probably the best that can be done in France, given the vested interests and the stranglehold of the unions.
It's a curious phenomenon: "France's mass unemployment problem came up again and again as a key source of worry & anger at the political class"
So, the answer to the problem of high unemployment in France is to vote for policies guaranteed to make the problem worse. They haven't even got the excuse of it being unclear what works - they only need to look across the Channel at the UK's labour market.
You only have to look at the public reaction to hollande's attempt at was really minor labour reforms. To a British person nothing he proposed seemed in any way controversial, but the French went nuts.
How dare a company have any say over who should continue working for them!
Meanwhile .... Perhaps I might garner an opinion or several from the collective knowledge of the PB petrol-heads.
Audi SQ7
Content Or Not Content ?
Will the good Lady JackW be able to get enough new shoes in the back after a trip to the shops?
I offered a similar view and was met with a countenance that would have stopped Attila The Hun stone dead. It could be so much worse. Some months back Mrs JackW was transported in a Bentley Bentayga with an interior, she informed me, that matched several outfits. I fear she wasn't entirely being frivolous.
That said the SQ7 advice is for a relative of Mrs JackW with numerous young offspring.
Bentley Bentayga is a wonderful piece of British engineering, but for a quarter of a million quid it should be.
It will also sell to footballers in huge quantities, which won't do much for the brand. The car park at Ascot or Henley would much prefer to see a Rolls.
You only have to look at the public reaction to hollande's attempt at was really minor labour reforms. To a British person nothing he proposed seemed in any way controversial, but the French went nuts.
Life working for a big French corporation really can be like being in a functional version of the Soviet Union. The word sclerotic is overused but it applies perfectly to too much of France.
You only have to look at the public reaction to hollande's attempt at was really minor labour reforms. To a British person nothing he proposed seemed in any way controversial, but the French went nuts.
Life working for a big French corporation really can be like being in a functional version of the Soviet Union. The word sclerotic is overused but it applies perfectly to too much of France.
They just need to organise things more like Denmark. Is that too 'northern European' for them? Uemployment currently lower than the UK, I think
High St Banks are closing down faster than you can say "charidee shop". But a lot of people like being able to go into a branch and speak to someone rather than be left hanging on the telephone.
Why don't several banks get together and have one shop with a window for each, or more if need be? Or why doesn't someone buy a shop and lease windows to banks? A bit like an airport/bureau de change set up?
Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).
What referendum about PR was that?
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.
That was a one-off. All previous changes in the voting system have been by decision of Parliament. We didn’t, for example, have a referendum to lower the voting age, do away with two member and University seats, allow women to vote (twice), introduce the secret ballot and so on.
I think all of those were done under FPTP (although maybe the university seats used a form of PR)?
All the decisions were taken by Parliaments elected by FPTP. Not referenda
Yep, but the actual voting system remained unchanged throughout.
You started off, IIRC, with the old Tory canard that the 2010 referendum had been about PR, and that that had set the bench mark for all changes in voting system to require a referendum. I pointed out that there had been many changes in the past which were passed by Act of Parliament without reference to a referendum. My point is, and remains that only on one occasion in our history have we put a change in the way Parliament is elected to a referendum, and there is no constitutional requirment for one. That we did so once isn’t binding.
It's a curious phenomenon: "France's mass unemployment problem came up again and again as a key source of worry & anger at the political class"
So, the answer to the problem of high unemployment in France is to vote for policies guaranteed to make the problem worse. They haven't even got the excuse of it being unclear what works - they only need to look across the Channel at the UK's labour market.
There are plenty of people who'd prefer French labour markets to our own, even when it does result in higher unemployment.
And the one single candidate who might possibly do something about it - Fillon - is the one who is slumping.
That said, there is an argument for voting either Melenchon or Le Pen, just to give such a shock to the system that, in the end, France HAS to reform, or collapse entirely. So maybe these voters aren't so dim after all.
Macron would nudge things in the right direction, albeit only slowly. But that's probably the best that can be done in France, given the vested interests and the stranglehold of the unions.
I can't see Macron being much more effective than Hollande. Possibly he'll be less effective, as he's even more the banker-ENA type who benefits from the French status quo.
Factoid: if Macron wins the presidency that will mean four of the last six French presidents will have been products of the ENA.
The ENA graduates 80 to 90 people a year.
The equivalent in the UK would be four of the last six prime ministers being schooled in the same House at Eton College
We're not a million miles away with our senior politicos and Oxford PPEs, of course.
I can't see Macron being much more effective than Hollande. Possibly he'll be less effective, as he's even more the banker-ENA type who benefits from the French status quo.
I think that's a bit unfair on him, he seems to be pragmatic and sensible enough, and as Hollande's economy minister he tried to do something. Still, it's hard to see him being in a position to do anything even vaguely radical. He might not be able to do much at all; a huge amount would depend on (a) whether he could muster any majority in the Assembly, and (b) if he could, which parties he had to rely on to get it.
It's a curious phenomenon: "France's mass unemployment problem came up again and again as a key source of worry & anger at the political class"
So, the answer to the problem of high unemployment in France is to vote for policies guaranteed to make the problem worse. They haven't even got the excuse of it being unclear what works - they only need to look across the Channel at the UK's labour market.
There are plenty of people who'd prefer French labour markets to our own, even when it does result in higher unemployment.
You started off, IIRC, with the old Tory canard that the 2010 referendum had been about PR, and that that had set the bench mark for all changes in voting system to require a referendum. I pointed out that there had been many changes in the past which were passed by Act of Parliament without reference to a referendum. My point is, and remains that only on one occasion in our history have we put a change in the way Parliament is elected to a referendum, and there is no constitutional requirment for one. That we did so once isn’t binding.
I know it wasn't about PR last time, but it was a referendum to change the voting system, which is what we were talking about! And yes, it is not binding. My point is it will be more difficult to argue that a referendum is not required this time, especially if the reason for not holding one is that they think they will lose it.
And to be pedantic none of your examples were actual changes to the voting system (i.e. FPTP, AV, STV...)
High St Banks are closing down faster than you can say "charidee shop". But a lot of people like being able to go into a branch and speak to someone rather than be left hanging on the telephone.
Why don't several banks get together and have one shop with a window for each, or more if need be? Or why doesn't someone buy a shop and lease windows to banks? A bit like an airport/bureau de change set up?
Didn't the post office used to offer something akin to that many years ago?
High St Banks are closing down faster than you can say "charidee shop". But a lot of people like being able to go into a branch and speak to someone rather than be left hanging on the telephone.
Why don't several banks get together and have one shop with a window for each, or more if need be? Or why doesn't someone but a shop and lease windows to banks? A bit like an airport/bureau de change set up?
Not a bad idea, but the answer to why it's not happened is probably due to branding and marketing. The services they'd want to offer are those done by trained sales staff in larger branches (loans, credit cards, small business services etc.), a human teller is just a cost to the bank.
Some banks are I believe experimenting with smaller branches in city centres. (Can't find link on mobile).
Good to see Don trolling the PB tories in this post. I wish he'd hang around to contribute to discussion.
However, I don't see LibDems as that likely to get involved in any coalitions in the near term. With either Labour or Tories. The only exception I would see as worthwhile would be on the basis of an agreement to progress electoral reform. No bullshit referenda, a straight agreement involving support in exchange for Lords Reform and the introduction of PR.
Factoid: if Macron wins the presidency that will mean four of the last six French presidents will have been products of the ENA.
The ENA graduates 80 to 90 people a year.
The equivalent in the UK would be four of the last six prime ministers being schooled in the same House at Eton College
That's not really a direct equivalent in that entry to the ENA is via a highly competitive public examination whereas, whilst Eton has an entrance exam, it's to choose from amongst the tiny minority with the means to attend if they pass the exam.
The purpose of the ENA is also explicitly to churn out very senior public officials, whereas Eton may in fact educate some senior politicians but would also say it's aiming to produce brilliant scientists, surgeons, lawyers, generals etc.
So you would expect the ENA, as an elite institution which takes in only the very best and intends to turn them (almost exclusively) into senior public officials, to educate a disproportionate number of senior public officials.
You'd expect Eton - as an academically excellent school with an intake with many advantages in life - to turn out some, but not as many.
Good to see Don trolling the PB tories in this post. I wish he'd hang around to contribute to discussion.
However, I don't see LibDems as that likely to get involved in any coalitions in the near term. With either Labour or Tories. The only exception I would see as worthwhile would be on the basis of an agreement to progress electoral reform. No bullshit referenda, a straight agreement involving support in exchange for Lords Reform and the introduction of PR.
Life working for a big French corporation really can be like being in a functional version of the Soviet Union. The word sclerotic is overused but it applies perfectly to too much of France.
Whilst I expect that's particularly true of France, it's often been pointed out that large corporations the world over are like tiny (or sometimes not so tiny) command economies.
Some try to do things like setting up internal markets (so you bid for the services of competing teams within the company or whatever) but these have a mixed record of success, and basically the liberal free market remains what happens between corporations rather than within them.
High St Banks are closing down faster than you can say "charidee shop". But a lot of people like being able to go into a branch and speak to someone rather than be left hanging on the telephone.
Why don't several banks get together and have one shop with a window for each, or more if need be? Or why doesn't someone but a shop and lease windows to banks? A bit like an airport/bureau de change set up?
Not a bad idea, but the answer to why it's not happened is probably due to branding and marketing. The services they'd want to offer are those done by trained sales staff in larger branches (loans, credit cards, small business services etc.), a human teller is just a cost to the bank.
Some banks are I believe experimenting with smaller branches in city centres. (Can't find link on mobile).
Lloyds announced a movement to smaller branches last week.
Regarding a single point of access for all banking that is what the Post Office is trying to offer in its attempt to keep local branches open.... From memory as of January all banks allow most simple transactions to be performed through a post office counter... See http://www.postoffice.co.uk/branch-banking-services#hsbc
I don't see LibDems as that likely to get involved in any coalitions in the near term. With either Labour or Tories. The only exception I would see as worthwhile would be on the basis of an agreement to progress electoral reform. No bullshit referenda, a straight agreement involving support in exchange for Lords Reform and the introduction of PR.
I stand to be corrected, but think Farron has explicitly ruled out a deal with a Corbyn led Labour Party.
So even if the Tories were to lose a number of seats to the Lib Dems, it doesn't really get Corbyn much closer to power (it's just possible Farron's troops may abstain on a Queen's Speech and go confidence and supply, but it's not really viable long term and I struggle to see Corbyn as the sort of master deal-maker to pull off that sort of arrangement).
In reality, I suspect Labour sticking with Corbyn will kill the Lib Dem challenge in a lot of places. The Tory leaflets write themselves in leafy shire seats - a sinister pic of Corbyn and the words "DON'T RISK IT" repeated in 100 different ways. Very hard to combat, however much Farron says "we won't do a deal".
Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.
You started off, IIRC, with the old Tory canard that the 2010 referendum had been about PR, and that that had set the bench mark for all changes in voting system to require a referendum. I pointed out that there had been many changes in the past which were passed by Act of Parliament without reference to a referendum. My point is, and remains that only on one occasion in our history have we put a change in the way Parliament is elected to a referendum, and there is no constitutional requirment for one. That we did so once isn’t binding.
I know it wasn't about PR last time, but it was a referendum to change the voting system, which is what we were talking about! And yes, it is not binding. My point is it will be more difficult to argue that a referendum is not required this time, especially if the reason for not holding one is that they think they will lose it.
And to be pedantic none of your examples were actual changes to the voting system (i.e. FPTP, AV, STV...)
Its all academic in the (hypothetical and relatively unlikely) circumstances being envisaged - the politicians with the majority won't want a referendum, the large mass of disinterested public won't want anothet referendum, and as OldKing rightly says, there isn't any requirement for one. The only people arguing otherwise will be the Tories - who in the scenario will be in the same position and with the same credibility as Gordon Brown in 2010 - and a few diehard opponents of reform. All of whom will be ignored.
You started off, IIRC, with the old Tory canard that the 2010 referendum had been about PR, and that that had set the bench mark for all changes in voting system to require a referendum. I pointed out that there had been many changes in the past which were passed by Act of Parliament without reference to a referendum. My point is, and remains that only on one occasion in our history have we put a change in the way Parliament is elected to a referendum, and there is no constitutional requirment for one. That we did so once isn’t binding.
I know it wasn't about PR last time, but it was a referendum to change the voting system, which is what we were talking about! And yes, it is not binding. My point is it will be more difficult to argue that a referendum is not required this time, especially if the reason for not holding one is that they think they will lose it.
And to be pedantic none of your examples were actual changes to the voting system (i.e. FPTP, AV, STV...)
i understand what you mean; I must say I think that with the exception of really major questions ..... independence, possibly devolution, and in the case of N. Ireland, union with the Republic, ..... referenda are almost certainly undesireable. I’m not saying that ‘the people’ aren’t to be trusted, but it’s very difficult to have a question with a yes or no answer.
I learnt a long time ago never to assume anything in politics except that if everyone says something can't happen it will at some point.
I firmly believe one day a Conservative Prime Minister will take us back into the European Union and into the Euro - when, I don't know, but I think it will happen.
What then of a non-Conservative Government after 2020? Assuming the maths work (and that's a huge if), what will happen after a decade of Conservative rule?
IndyRef2, STV without a referendum, a renegotiation of the A50 Treaty ?
What would the Conservatives offer to stay in power?
Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.
The hacking was primarily the DNC emails. Heaven forbid the public see what the campaign gets up to behind closed doors!
How times change.. less than a decade a go, a woman commentating on a mans game would have seemed very strange.. I still haven't really got used to female comm on MOTD, but Australia's Mel Jones cricket commentary seems very natural on the IPL. The best female sports comm for mine
Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.
The hacking was primarily the DNC emails. Heaven forbid the public see what the campaign gets up to behind closed doors!
If they hadn't been doing anything wrong, there wouldn't have been anything to 'hack'.
Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.
The hacking was primarily the DNC emails. Heaven forbid the public see what the campaign gets up to behind closed doors!
Unplanned transparency for only the Democrats, but not the Republicans.
I learnt a long time ago never to assume anything in politics except that if everyone says something can't happen it will at some point.
I firmly believe one day a Conservative Prime Minister will take us back into the European Union and into the Euro - when, I don't know, but I think it will happen.
What then of a non-Conservative Government after 2020? Assuming the maths work (and that's a huge if), what will happen after a decade of Conservative rule?
IndyRef2, STV without a referendum, a renegotiation of the A50 Treaty ?
What would the Conservatives offer to stay in power?
Maybe the current Tory parliamentary party couldn't offer very much because:
a) everyone saw what happened to the LibDems last time b) a significant minority of Tory MPs would rather be in opposition than have anything other than the hardest possible Brexit / relationship with Europe.
Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.
The hacking was primarily the DNC emails. Heaven forbid the public see what the campaign gets up to behind closed doors!
Unplanned transparency for only the Democrats, but not the Republicans.
I believe the RNC was also targeted, but they only got into the DNC servers because of an extremely unfortunate autocorrect in a text concerning a phishing email. In any case, I suspect both sides have made changes to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen again!
How times change.. less than a decade a go, a woman commentating on a mans game would have seemed very strange.. I still haven't really got used to female comm on MOTD, but Australia's Mel Jones cricket commentary seems very natural on the IPL. The best female sports comm for mine
Donna Symmonds of Barbados used to commentate on TMS in the late 90s early 2000s. She was very good.
Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.
The hacking was primarily the DNC emails. Heaven forbid the public see what the campaign gets up to behind closed doors!
If they hadn't been doing anything wrong, there wouldn't have been anything to 'hack'.
Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
If voters in Tory-Lib Dem marginal think for one moment that voting Lib Dem might put Jezza into Number 10, they'll vote Tory.
It really annoys me that ever since I've lived in a place where my vote might make a difference, voting Labour/Lib Dem has been (IMHO) for the birds (Mr Brown, Mr Miliband ...).
It annoys me even more that this fluke of fate has labelled me a "loyal" Conservative voter.
After all those years living in constituencies where I could happily vote Pro-Life or MRLP or anything at all, really, because it was Dead Donkey in a blue rosette territory.
Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.
The hacking was primarily the DNC emails. Heaven forbid the public see what the campaign gets up to behind closed doors!
If they hadn't been doing anything wrong, there wouldn't have been anything to 'hack'.
How times change.. less than a decade a go, a woman commentating on a mans game would have seemed very strange.. I still haven't really got used to female comm on MOTD, but Australia's Mel Jones cricket commentary seems very natural on the IPL. The best female sports comm for mine
I think what you've unwittingly done there is not to appreciate that neither cricket, nor football, nor boxing, are any longer in the "man's game" category.
Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.
The hacking was primarily the DNC emails. Heaven forbid the public see what the campaign gets up to behind closed doors!
If they hadn't been doing anything wrong, there wouldn't have been anything to 'hack'.
Is that why the Republicans weren't hacked?
No, the Republicans weren't hacked because Trump promised Russia that he wouldn't bomb Syria if....
The support levels for May/Davidson at 33/35% suggest the Tory revival in Scotland is continuing to go very well. If they were to poll anywhere near that level [30%] in an election they'd gain 5/6 seats on Baxter
I learnt a long time ago never to assume anything in politics except that if everyone says something can't happen it will at some point.
I firmly believe one day a Conservative Prime Minister will take us back into the European Union and into the Euro - when, I don't know, but I think it will happen.
What then of a non-Conservative Government after 2020? Assuming the maths work (and that's a huge if), what will happen after a decade of Conservative rule?
IndyRef2, STV without a referendum, a renegotiation of the A50 Treaty ?
What would the Conservatives offer to stay in power?
I would suggest that not renegotiating A50 would be one positive for the Conservatives and a big one at that.
I don't think Red Bull will win in Bahrain, but I do think if they can develop well that their excellent driver pairing could stand a chance against the number one/second driver situation at Mercedes and Ferrari.
It's a shame there wasn't more rain in China. I doubt the Hulkenberg top 6 bet would've come off, but the not to be classified bets might have.
How times change.. less than a decade a go, a woman commentating on a mans game would have seemed very strange.. I still haven't really got used to female comm on MOTD, but Australia's Mel Jones cricket commentary seems very natural on the IPL. The best female sports comm for mine
I think what you've unwittingly done there is not to appreciate that neither cricket, nor football, nor boxing, are any longer in the "man's game" category.
But you are making progress so well done you.
Not really, when men are playing it, as they are in the IPL game I am watching, it's a mans game, that is what I was saying
You've tried to be clever and made a ricket, unlucky you!
Meanwhile .... Perhaps I might garner an opinion or several from the collective knowledge of the PB petrol-heads.
Audi SQ7
Content Or Not Content ?
Will the good Lady JackW be able to get enough new shoes in the back after a trip to the shops?
I offered a similar view and was met with a countenance that would have stopped Attila The Hun stone dead. It could be so much worse. Some months back Mrs JackW was transported in a Bentley Bentayga with an interior, she informed me, that matched several outfits. I fear she wasn't entirely being frivolous.
That said the SQ7 advice is for a relative of Mrs JackW with numerous young offspring.
Just taken delivery of a Jaguar F Pace SUV 3 litre diesel. Excellent.
Admittedly a second slower than the Audi SQ7 at 6 secs 0-60 and 5mph slower at 150 mph but built in the Midlands.
Tried a Cayenne which is slightly bigger but does not drive as well as the Jaguar - and built in Volkswagen's Slovakia factory like the Audi SQ7.
Note there is an extra £300 pa Vehicle Excise duty on new cars over £40,000 registered after 1st April just gone.
I learnt a long time ago never to assume anything in politics except that if everyone says something can't happen it will at some point.
I firmly believe one day a Conservative Prime Minister will take us back into the European Union and into the Euro - when, I don't know, but I think it will happen.
What then of a non-Conservative Government after 2020? Assuming the maths work (and that's a huge if), what will happen after a decade of Conservative rule?
IndyRef2, STV without a referendum, a renegotiation of the A50 Treaty ?
What would the Conservatives offer to stay in power?
I would suggest that not renegotiating A50 would be one positive for the Conservatives and a big one at that.
I would suggest negotiating A50 wouldn't be an option for any UK government. A50 is a part of the Lisbon Treaty, it is an EU treaty matter. We could negotiate specific areas or termsin both perties desired that action or we could negotiate terms for re joining the EU, but not A50.
Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.
Exactly. There's no evidence at all from anywhere about actual 'hacking' of the process of the election. What the Russians are being accused of is Propaganda, which almost every major nation has engaged in at some point in the recent past.
The DNC emails were obtained through social engineering rather than hacking.
Phone 'hacking' was just taking advantage of default voicemail access codes - not difficult and not particularly secret either - a certain Mr Morgan from the Mirror wrote about it in a book!
An acrimonious Brexit, in which Britain declines to honour its existing financial obligations could put pressure on the European Union's 'double A' rating, S&P Global said on Monday. ...
That's a very strange set of statements from S & P, which seems to have got everything back to front. For a start, absolutely no-one is saying Britain won't honour its obligations; of course it will honour its obligations, any dispute will be over what those obligations are. Secondly, how can S & P argue that the UK not honouring its obligations wouldn't constitute a default? That seems to be a contradiction in terms. Thirdly, what matters to the EU's credit rating is surely whether the remaining members (in practice, Germany) will pay up, not what an ex-member did or did not do..
How times change.. less than a decade a go, a woman commentating on a mans game would have seemed very strange.. I still haven't really got used to female comm on MOTD, but Australia's Mel Jones cricket commentary seems very natural on the IPL. The best female sports comm for mine
I think what you've unwittingly done there is not to appreciate that neither cricket, nor football, nor boxing, are any longer in the "man's game" category.
But you are making progress so well done you.
Not really, when men are playing it, as they are in the IPL game I am watching, it's a mans game, that is what I was saying
You've tried to be clever and made a ricket, unlucky you!
It's cricket, Sam, cricket. Whichever the organisation behind it. "IPL" isn't a sport, now, is it?
An acrimonious Brexit, in which Britain declines to honour its existing financial obligations could put pressure on the European Union's 'double A' rating, S&P Global said on Monday. ...
That's a very strange set of statements from S & P, which seems to have got everything back to front. For a start, absolutely no-one is saying Britain won't honour its obligations; of course it will honour its obligations, any dispute will be over what those obligations are. Secondly, how can S & P argue that the UK not honouring its obligations wouldn't constitute a default? That seems to be a contradiction in terms. Thirdly, what matters to the EU's credit rating is surely whether the remaining members (in practice, Germany) will pay up, not what an ex-member did or did not do..
I think the issue is that some of our 'obligations' may not actually be obligations. There was a research paper doing the rounds not so long ago that suggested hardly any of them were binding.
The House of Lords EU Financial Affairs Committee seems to have reached a similar conclusion.
Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
If voters in Tory-Lib Dem marginal think for one moment that voting Lib Dem might put Jezza into Number 10, they'll vote Tory.
It really annoys me that ever since I've lived in a place where my vote might make a difference, voting Labour/Lib Dem has been (IMHO) for the birds (Mr Brown, Mr Miliband ...).
It annoys me even more that this fluke of fate has labelled me a "loyal" Conservative voter.
After all those years living in constituencies where I could happily vote Pro-Life or MRLP or anything at all, really, because it was Dead Donkey in a blue rosette territory.
Grrrr.
And good afternoon, everybody.
Roll the dice Ms JGP. Don't make the mistake of supposing that the Tories are not just as much a coalition of the sane bound up with their own frothers, lunatics, weirdos and obsessives as any other party.
An ideal of a 1950s society in 2020 is just as dangerous as Jez's socialist paradise imho.
Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.
The hacking was primarily the DNC emails. Heaven forbid the public see what the campaign gets up to behind closed doors!
If they hadn't been doing anything wrong, there wouldn't have been anything to 'hack'.
The GOP had good security measures in place, changed passwords regularly, used 2FA for sensitive stuff and would meet in person to take key strategic decisions.
The Democrat IT team are never going to work again for anyone outside the Democrat party - they should retrain as mobile phone salesmen. Rule #1 in IT is to know what you don't know, they were so far out of their depth it was unreal. They deserved to be hacked.
I would be interested to know how large the vehicle financing element of overall consumer credit is. You can't drive past exceedingly modest houses these days without seeing a brand spanking new Evoque parked outside.
Comments
We didn’t, for example, have a referendum to lower the voting age, do away with two member and University seats, allow women to vote (twice), introduce the secret ballot and so on.
See '79, '97, '10.
middling to good competence is a crucial part of course.
So, the answer to the problem of high unemployment in France is to vote for policies guaranteed to make the problem worse. They haven't even got the excuse of it being unclear what works - they only need to look across the Channel at the UK's labour market.
That said the SQ7 advice is for a relative of Mrs JackW with numerous young offspring.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.119040697
From what I've seen, a proportion either don't care about winning or are delusional "Canary" readers who believe that the polls (and by-elections) are rigged by Rupert Murdoch, the BBC, and Big Pharma.
There are more of these than sane Labour members would like, but they are not even close to a majority, let alone the Corbyn super-majority from 2016.
About 30% are die-hard anti-Corbyn. Remember, about 40% went for Owen Smith in 2016 - a nobody who was beaten by Corbyn in every debate, and who in all honesty had zero chance of winning a General Election either.
There's a big chunk of swing voters in the middle. They like Corbyn personally, see him as honest (wrongly in my view but there we are), feel he ought to be given more of a chance, hope he may grow on people etc. BUT... they do genuinely want to be in Government in 2020, they increasingly appreciate that it isn't ALL the fault of MPs and the media that Corbyn hasn't broken through, they felt let down over Corbyn's stance on the Brexit Bill, they like their councillor and MP and don't want them to lose, etc.
So it's a tough proposition for anti-Corbyn Labour people, but not totally hopeless.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/extremist-leads-muslim-lobby-group-7q2hg30zc
In this case I think it would be a mistake on the voters' part to go for a Melenchon or a Le Pen.
How dare a company have any say over who should continue working for them!
It will also sell to footballers in huge quantities, which won't do much for the brand. The car park at Ascot or Henley would much prefer to see a Rolls.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/unemployment-rate
A liberal labour market, but a comprehensive welfare state for those who need it.
1) the polling is wrong and that it's wrong in Francois Fillon's favour (there seems minimal evidence of that); or
2) there will be a late swing and it will be a swing in his favour (at present his polling figures seem to be at best static); or
3) a combination of the above.
And that's just round one.
I can see a route to victory for him, but it's not a 6/1 shot.
High St Banks are closing down faster than you can say "charidee shop". But a lot of people like being able to go into a branch and speak to someone rather than be left hanging on the telephone.
Why don't several banks get together and have one shop with a window for each, or more if need be? Or why doesn't someone buy a shop and lease windows to banks? A bit like an airport/bureau de change set up?
My point is, and remains that only on one occasion in our history have we put a change in the way Parliament is elected to a referendum, and there is no constitutional requirment for one. That we did so once isn’t binding.
And to be pedantic none of your examples were actual changes to the voting system (i.e. FPTP, AV, STV...)
Some banks are I believe experimenting with smaller branches in city centres. (Can't find link on mobile).
Good to see Don trolling the PB tories in this post. I wish he'd hang around to contribute to discussion.
However, I don't see LibDems as that likely to get involved in any coalitions in the near term. With either Labour or Tories. The only exception I would see as worthwhile would be on the basis of an agreement to progress electoral reform. No bullshit referenda, a straight agreement involving support in exchange for Lords Reform and the introduction of PR.
The purpose of the ENA is also explicitly to churn out very senior public officials, whereas Eton may in fact educate some senior politicians but would also say it's aiming to produce brilliant scientists, surgeons, lawyers, generals etc.
So you would expect the ENA, as an elite institution which takes in only the very best and intends to turn them (almost exclusively) into senior public officials, to educate a disproportionate number of senior public officials.
You'd expect Eton - as an academically excellent school with an intake with many advantages in life - to turn out some, but not as many.
Some try to do things like setting up internal markets (so you bid for the services of competing teams within the company or whatever) but these have a mixed record of success, and basically the liberal free market remains what happens between corporations rather than within them.
F1: markets for Bahrain are up on Ladbrokes. Nothing immediately leaps out.
Regarding a single point of access for all banking that is what the Post Office is trying to offer in its attempt to keep local branches open.... From memory as of January all banks allow most simple transactions to be performed through a post office counter... See http://www.postoffice.co.uk/branch-banking-services#hsbc
So even if the Tories were to lose a number of seats to the Lib Dems, it doesn't really get Corbyn much closer to power (it's just possible Farron's troops may abstain on a Queen's Speech and go confidence and supply, but it's not really viable long term and I struggle to see Corbyn as the sort of master deal-maker to pull off that sort of arrangement).
In reality, I suspect Labour sticking with Corbyn will kill the Lib Dem challenge in a lot of places. The Tory leaflets write themselves in leafy shire seats - a sinister pic of Corbyn and the words "DON'T RISK IT" repeated in 100 different ways. Very hard to combat, however much Farron says "we won't do a deal".
Spanish police have arrested a Russian programmer for alleged involvement in "hacking" the US election
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39553250
Nobody serious is claiming that Russia hacked the US election...no voter machines were tampered with, no voter registration lists purged etc....Its like Phone Hacking, what the media bang on about wasn't phone hacking...there was proper phone and computer hacking, but only the Indy covered it and it wasn't to see which Z-Listers were shagging each other.
I’m not saying that ‘the people’ aren’t to be trusted, but it’s very difficult to have a question with a yes or no answer.
I learnt a long time ago never to assume anything in politics except that if everyone says something can't happen it will at some point.
I firmly believe one day a Conservative Prime Minister will take us back into the European Union and into the Euro - when, I don't know, but I think it will happen.
What then of a non-Conservative Government after 2020? Assuming the maths work (and that's a huge if), what will happen after a decade of Conservative rule?
IndyRef2, STV without a referendum, a renegotiation of the A50 Treaty ?
What would the Conservatives offer to stay in power?
https://twitter.com/ChristainWright/status/851437022161944576
If they hadn't been doing anything wrong, there wouldn't have been anything to 'hack'.
a) everyone saw what happened to the LibDems last time
b) a significant minority of Tory MPs would rather be in opposition than have anything other than the hardest possible Brexit / relationship with Europe.
It annoys me even more that this fluke of fate has labelled me a "loyal" Conservative voter.
After all those years living in constituencies where I could happily vote Pro-Life or MRLP or anything at all, really, because it was Dead Donkey in a blue rosette territory.
Grrrr.
And good afternoon, everybody.
But you are making progress so well done you.
No, the Republicans weren't hacked because Trump promised Russia that he wouldn't bomb Syria if....
Oh wait, never mind.
Maybe fake news will turn out to be real.
Just catching up on yesterday, I was right about the first lap but all my other bets lost!
I don't think Red Bull will win in Bahrain, but I do think if they can develop well that their excellent driver pairing could stand a chance against the number one/second driver situation at Mercedes and Ferrari.
It's a shame there wasn't more rain in China. I doubt the Hulkenberg top 6 bet would've come off, but the not to be classified bets might have.
It would need BOTH Le Pen and Macron to fade, with Fillon somehow turning the corner & Melenchon's rise continuing.
It is 70/100 if you really need to cover the scenario for your book though.
You've tried to be clever and made a ricket, unlucky you!
https://twitter.com/danielrosarioeu/status/851399802067746816
Admittedly a second slower than the Audi SQ7 at 6 secs 0-60 and 5mph slower at 150 mph but built in the Midlands.
Tried a Cayenne which is slightly bigger but does not drive as well as the Jaguar - and built in Volkswagen's Slovakia factory like the Audi SQ7.
Note there is an extra £300 pa Vehicle Excise duty on new cars over £40,000 registered after 1st April just gone.
A50 is a part of the Lisbon Treaty, it is an EU treaty matter. We could negotiate specific areas or termsin both perties desired that action or we could negotiate terms for re joining the EU, but not A50.
Sorry, pedant mode overtook me.
The DNC emails were obtained through social engineering rather than hacking.
Phone 'hacking' was just taking advantage of default voicemail access codes - not difficult and not particularly secret either - a certain Mr Morgan from the Mirror wrote about it in a book!
The House of Lords EU Financial Affairs Committee seems to have reached a similar conclusion.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/government-not-obliged-to-pay-52-billion-brexit-divorce-bill-2017-3
An ideal of a 1950s society in 2020 is just as dangerous as Jez's socialist paradise imho.
The Democrat IT team are never going to work again for anyone outside the Democrat party - they should retrain as mobile phone salesmen. Rule #1 in IT is to know what you don't know, they were so far out of their depth it was unreal. They deserved to be hacked.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1648
It sounds glacial.