If I credited Corbyn with any guile I would say that his ludicrous statement that he will go on and on was designed to spark a mid campaign rebellion from the PLP so the absurd Milne can then blame the inevitable election smashing on them. But that would be too clever by half. As it is, Corbyn will be challenged and if he wins the challenge the party will split. So be it. Five years is long enough to build a party. Just look at Macron!
That is a very fair point-if you were a Labour MP who was not a Corbynista, Macron's victory would be very encouraging.
I know the electoral system is different but it is still encouraging.
Thanks. I now think that a split may not be that bad an outcome. Given that the splitting party will (I assume) have 100+ MPs and five years, that's not too bad a starting point.
With the likely support of the MSM and lots of bright young things on FB-it will take at least 2 electoral turns but it probably will do in any case.
@jonwalker121: #newsnight explaining why single market access is crucial to manufacturing- not just to avoid tariffs, but to get parts quickly and reliably
It appears the media companies who are worried by Fox / Sky deal are setting their stall out for the fight again...the new angle is Fox can't buy Sky because of wrong doing at Fox News.
It's not my period but I tend to take the view that trade links were more extensive than previously known. There have been interesting artefacts uncovered in Cornwall that came from Phoenica, for example. It's not proof of movement, but with ships it's possible.
I suspect that Abbott was simply wrong - as you say. But she could have been right by luck..,
That there were trade links between the British Isles and the Med hundreds of years before Christ is undisputable. That there were Roman Centurions, of whatever skin colour, here hundreds of years before Christ is complete garbage. The wretched woman could not have been right by luck, she is simply as thick as pig-shit and talks off the top of her head.
@jonwalker121: #newsnight explaining why single market access is crucial to manufacturing- not just to avoid tariffs, but to get parts quickly and reliably
If I credited Corbyn with any guile I would say that his ludicrous statement that he will go on and on was designed to spark a mid campaign rebellion from the PLP so the absurd Milne can then blame the inevitable election smashing on them. But that would be too clever by half. As it is, Corbyn will be challenged and if he wins the challenge the party will split. So be it. Five years is long enough to build a party. Just look at Macron!
That is a very fair point-if you were a Labour MP who was not a Corbynista, Macron's victory would be very encouraging.
I know the electoral system is different but it is still encouraging.
Thanks. I now think that a split may not be that bad an outcome. Given that the splitting party will (I assume) have 100+ MPs and five years, that's not too bad a starting point.
Since Macron's victory appears to prove a point I've often made, I'll make it again :-) Macron started his new party just one year before the presidential election. The momentum that's built in that time hasn't had a chance to peter out. Many new-party failures in the UK have been partly caused by launching too far away from a general election. Starting a party, getting a surge and wasting that surge is madness.
If I credited Corbyn with any guile I would say that his ludicrous statement that he will go on and on was designed to spark a mid campaign rebellion from the PLP so the absurd Milne can then blame the inevitable election smashing on them. But that would be too clever by half. As it is, Corbyn will be challenged and if he wins the challenge the party will split. So be it. Five years is long enough to build a party. Just look at Macron!
That is a very fair point-if you were a Labour MP who was not a Corbynista, Macron's victory would be very encouraging.
I know the electoral system is different but it is still encouraging.
Thanks. I now think that a split may not be that bad an outcome. Given that the splitting party will (I assume) have 100+ MPs and five years, that's not too bad a starting point.
Since Macron's victory appears to prove a point I've often made, I'll make it again :-) Macron started his new party just one year before the presidential election. The momentum that's built in that time hasn't had a chance to peter out. Many new-party failures in the UK have been partly caused by launching too far away from a general election. Starting a party, getting a surge and wasting that surge is madness.
True. They could split later on in the parliament. Fair point.
If I credited Corbyn with any guile I would say that his ludicrous statement that he will go on and on was designed to spark a mid campaign rebellion from the PLP so the absurd Milne can then blame the inevitable election smashing on them. But that would be too clever by half. As it is, Corbyn will be challenged and if he wins the challenge the party will split. So be it. Five years is long enough to build a party. Just look at Macron!
That is a very fair point-if you were a Labour MP who was not a Corbynista, Macron's victory would be very encouraging.
I know the electoral system is different but it is still encouraging.
Thanks. I now think that a split may not be that bad an outcome. Given that the splitting party will (I assume) have 100+ MPs and five years, that's not too bad a starting point.
Since Macron's victory appears to prove a point I've often made, I'll make it again :-) Macron started his new party just one year before the presidential election. The momentum that's built in that time hasn't had a chance to peter out. Many new-party failures in the UK have been partly caused by launching too far away from a general election. Starting a party, getting a surge and wasting that surge is madness.
True. They could split later on in the parliament. Fair point.
The suggestion the SDP went too early is an interesting one.
Isn't the problem that most splits are more "push" than "pull"? So the timing is often decided for you.
Macron's presidential honeymoon period ends before he actually takes office: 24 hours in and already the screw is being turned...
"We have a real problem with France," Juncker said in Berlin one day after Macron's resounding electoral win.
"The French spend too much money and spend it on the wrong things."
He said between 53 and 57 percent of France's gross domestic product went toward public spending.
"That can't go well in the long run with relatively high debt," Juncker warned, indicating that Macron could not rely on the good will of his key European partners for too long.
In truth, our old friend Mr Juncker has a good point here. But I'm not sure that wielding the stick before Macron makes it through the door of the Elysee is terribly helpful.
The AFP report, which is worth reading in its entirety, reports that Juncker also went on to play down Macron's suggestions for Eurozone integration, which - given that the Commission is normally very keen on centralisation, and that frankly the Eurozone actually needs more pooling of sovereignty and of hard cash to work properly - seems very strange. Until you realise that he is speaking from Berlin...
Thinking back to the CPS, it will be far more damaging if the charges come out in dribs and drabs, rather than in one go.
The CPS know that the Tories will win the election -are they really going to make a decision before June the 8th ?
Legally they have no choice; they have already been granted one extension and the deadlines are days away. I have no idea whether a minister could grant a further extension or not, but the political costs of doing so probably rule this out even if it could be done.
People keep talking about deadlines but -where have these dates come from?
But I wont put any money down on this election until i know what the DPS timescale is.
The normal one year period to charge someone, which applied to all crimes AIUI, has been extended to two years. The date of the offence is the date the expenses returns were submitted for each constituency, and the time is almost up.
Some will have submitted very soon, others would have waited until the last moment (June 7th).
I believe the dates in the 15 seats are mostly late May. It's unusual to wait to the last minute, partly because it is a job most candidates and agents are eager to get out of the way, and also because most EROs are friendly enough to cast an eye over submissions and give someone a ring if they have made an obvious cockup like forgetting to sign them or putting the wrong year as the date.
With my conspiracy theory hat on, won't it seem a little planned to release the information a week or two before the election? Or is it just a coincidence - after all, the CPS didn't know the Tories were going to call an early election? It does seem a little suspicious that it's taken exactly the length of time of the extensions allowed, and a timely coincidence with the election campaign.
Thinking back to the CPS, it will be far more damaging if the charges come out in dribs and drabs, rather than in one go.
The CPS know that the Tories will win the election -are they really going to make a decision before June the 8th ?
Legally they have no choice; they have already been granted one extension and the deadlines are days away. I have no idea whether a minister could grant a further extension or not, but the political costs of doing so probably rule this out even if it could be done.
People keep talking about deadlines but -where have these dates come from?
But I wont put any money down on this election until i know what the DPS timescale is.
The normal one year period to charge someone, which applied to all crimes AIUI, has been extended to two years. The date of the offence is the date the expenses returns were submitted for each constituency, and the time is almost up.
Some will have submitted very soon, others would have waited until the last moment (June 7th).
I believe the dates in the 15 seats are mostly late May. It's unusual to wait to the last minute, partly because it is a job most candidates and agents are eager to get out of the way, and also because most EROs are friendly enough to cast an eye over submissions and give someone a ring if they have made an obvious cockup like forgetting to sign them or putting the wrong year as the date.
With my conspiracy theory hat on, won't it seem a little planned to release the information a week or two before the election? Or is it just a coincidence - after all, the CPS didn't know the Tories were going to call an early election? It does seem a little suspicious that it's taken exactly the length of time of the extensions allowed, and a timely coincidence with the election campaign.
By the way, I feel we haven't talked about Andy Burnham's performance in the Gtr Manchester Mayoral election enough.
In some seats, he outperformed 1997 Tony Blair, including winning Altrincham & Sale West. (Hat-tip Stephen Bush)
If only....
He's clearly wasted in that tinpot role. I wouldn't overplay his performance though - if you're famous it's relatively easy to do well in an election that most people can't be bothered to vote in. And his fame is regional - it wouldn't convert into a Labour general election victory, though it's hard to believe that Labour would be in quite the mess it's in if he'd won the leadership election.
If I credited Corbyn with any guile I would say that his ludicrous statement that he will go on and on was designed to spark a mid campaign rebellion from the PLP so the absurd Milne can then blame the inevitable election smashing on them. But that would be too clever by half. As it is, Corbyn will be challenged and if he wins the challenge the party will split. So be it. Five years is long enough to build a party. Just look at Macron!
That is a very fair point-if you were a Labour MP who was not a Corbynista, Macron's victory would be very encouraging.
I know the electoral system is different but it is still encouraging.
Thanks. I now think that a split may not be that bad an outcome. Given that the splitting party will (I assume) have 100+ MPs and five years, that's not too bad a starting point.
Since Macron's victory appears to prove a point I've often made, I'll make it again :-) Macron started his new party just one year before the presidential election. The momentum that's built in that time hasn't had a chance to peter out. Many new-party failures in the UK have been partly caused by launching too far away from a general election. Starting a party, getting a surge and wasting that surge is madness.
True. They could split later on in the parliament. Fair point.
The suggestion the SDP went too early is an interesting one.
Isn't the problem that most splits are more "push" than "pull"? So the timing is often decided for you.
True enough but I guess in the Labour moderates' case they could split at the time of their own choosing.
But as your definition of bullying means asking people to make election predictions rather than trolling; and smearing, quoting polls; you might have a problem with crying wolf.
Repeatedly demanding a particular person appears so you can have a go at them is bullying.
Misleadingly partially quoting polls to make a group you disagree with look bad is smearing.
Hope this helps.
I asked Moniker several times to predict the French election result after he - several times - ramped and dog whistled a Le Pen victory. That is a perfectly reasonable response. It is not bullying.
By the way, I feel we haven't talked about Andy Burnham's performance in the Gtr Manchester Mayoral election enough.
In some seats, he outperformed 1997 Tony Blair, including winning Altrincham & Sale West. (Hat-tip Stephen Bush)
If only....
He's clearly wasted in that tinpot role. I wouldn't overplay his performance though - if you're famous it's relatively easy to do well in an election that most people can't be bothered to vote in. And his fame is regional - it wouldn't convert into a Labour general election victory, though it's hard to believe that Labour would be in quite the mess it's in if he'd won the leadership election.
Turnout not much over 20%? And people do prefer a mayor they have heard of.
If I credited Corbyn with any guile I would say that his ludicrous statement that he will go on and on was designed to spark a mid campaign rebellion from the PLP so the absurd Milne can then blame the inevitable election smashing on them. But that would be too clever by half. As it is, Corbyn will be challenged and if he wins the challenge the party will split. So be it. Five years is long enough to build a party. Just look at Macron!
That is a very fair point-if you were a Labour MP who was not a Corbynista, Macron's victory would be very encouraging.
I know the electoral system is different but it is still encouraging.
Thanks. I now think that a split may not be that bad an outcome. Given that the splitting party will (I assume) have 100+ MPs and five years, that's not too bad a starting point.
Since Macron's victory appears to prove a point I've often made, I'll make it again :-) Macron started his new party just one year before the presidential election. The momentum that's built in that time hasn't had a chance to peter out. Many new-party failures in the UK have been partly caused by launching too far away from a general election. Starting a party, getting a surge and wasting that surge is madness.
True. They could split later on in the parliament. Fair point.
The suggestion the SDP went too early is an interesting one.
Isn't the problem that most splits are more "push" than "pull"? So the timing is often decided for you.
True enough but I guess in the Labour moderates' case they could split at the time of their own choosing.
Very hard to do all that planning and plotting and then keep it secret for a couple of years. Especially for politicians. And if there's a clear push - say McDonnell being elected leader in the autumn - they would surely have to decide whether to stay or go right then?
If I credited Corbyn with any guile I would say that his ludicrous statement that he will go on and on was designed to spark a mid campaign rebellion from the PLP so the absurd Milne can then blame the inevitable election smashing on them. But that would be too clever by half. As it is, Corbyn will be challenged and if he wins the challenge the party will split. So be it. Five years is long enough to build a party. Just look at Macron!
That is a very fair point-if you were a Labour MP who was not a Corbynista, Macron's victory would be very encouraging.
I know the electoral system is different but it is still encouraging.
Thanks. I now think that a split may not be that bad an outcome. Given that the splitting party will (I assume) have 100+ MPs and five years, that's not too bad a starting point.
Since Macron's victory appears to prove a point I've often made, I'll make it again :-) Macron started his new party just one year before the presidential election. The momentum that's built in that time hasn't had a chance to peter out. Many new-party failures in the UK have been partly caused by launching too far away from a general election. Starting a party, getting a surge and wasting that surge is madness.
True. They could split later on in the parliament. Fair point.
Could they really? Think through that idea, for a moment. A bunch of MPs are so disgusted with Corbyn that they want to break off and form a new party but, for their own perceived benefit, decide to wait three or four years. You don't see any problems with that scenario?
But as your definition of bullying means asking people to make election predictions rather than trolling; and smearing, quoting polls; you might have a problem with crying wolf.
Repeatedly demanding a particular person appears so you can have a go at them is bullying.
Misleadingly partially quoting polls to make a group you disagree with look bad is smearing.
Hope this helps.
I asked Moniker several times to predict the French election result after he - several times - ramped and dog whistled a Le Pen victory. That is a perfectly reasonable response. It is not bullying.
I'm talking about last night after polls closed.
As am I - repeatedly I asked for a prediction despite his endless trolling. I got none. I asked where he was last night, to no avail.
If I credited Corbyn with any guile I would say that his ludicrous statement that he will go on and on was designed to spark a mid campaign rebellion from the PLP so the absurd Milne can then blame the inevitable election smashing on them. But that would be too clever by half. As it is, Corbyn will be challenged and if he wins the challenge the party will split. So be it. Five years is long enough to build a party. Just look at Macron!
That is a very fair point-if you were a Labour MP who was not a Corbynista, Macron's victory would be very encouraging.
I know the electoral system is different but it is still encouraging.
Thanks. I now think that a split may not be that bad an outcome. Given that the splitting party will (I assume) have 100+ MPs and five years, that's not too bad a starting point.
Since Macron's victory appears to prove a point I've often made, I'll make it again :-) Macron started his new party just one year before the presidential election. The momentum that's built in that time hasn't had a chance to peter out. Many new-party failures in the UK have been partly caused by launching too far away from a general election. Starting a party, getting a surge and wasting that surge is madness.
True. They could split later on in the parliament. Fair point.
Could they really? Think through that idea, for a moment. A bunch of MPs are so disgusted with Corbyn that they want to break off and form a new party but, for their own perceived benefit, decide to wait three or four years. You don't see any problems with that scenario?
It has a lot of potential. One of the most productive countries in Europe I understand, per hour worked. Much more productive than the meeting-obsessed UK.
yeah, if we cut our meetings in half it would probably double productivity.
It has a lot of potential. One of the most productive countries in Europe I understand, per hour worked. Much more productive than the meeting-obsessed UK.
Doesn't that reflect a near 10% unemployment rate?
We spread the work around; they leave people unemployed.
If I credited Corbyn with any guile I would say that his ludicrous statement that he will go on and on was designed to spark a mid campaign rebellion from the PLP so the absurd Milne can then blame the inevitable election smashing on them. But that would be too clever by half. As it is, Corbyn will be challenged and if he wins the challenge the party will split. So be it. Five years is long enough to build a party. Just look at Macron!
That is a very fair point-if you were a Labour MP who was not a Corbynista, Macron's victory would be very encouraging.
I know the electoral system is different but it is still encouraging.
Thanks. I now think that a split may not be that bad an outcome. Given that the splitting party will (I assume) have 100+ MPs and five years, that's not too bad a starting point.
Since Macron's victory appears to prove a point I've often made, I'll make it again :-) Macron started his new party just one year before the presidential election. The momentum that's built in that time hasn't had a chance to peter out. Many new-party failures in the UK have been partly caused by launching too far away from a general election. Starting a party, getting a surge and wasting that surge is madness.
True. They could split later on in the parliament. Fair point.
Could they really? Think through that idea, for a moment. A bunch of MPs are so disgusted with Corbyn that they want to break off and form a new party but, for their own perceived benefit, decide to wait three or four years. You don't see any problems with that scenario?
Doing things for your own benefit has to be one of the best reasons for doing them. And I say that even though I'm not a Tory.
By the way, I feel we haven't talked about Andy Burnham's performance in the Gtr Manchester Mayoral election enough.
In some seats, he outperformed 1997 Tony Blair, including winning Altrincham & Sale West. (Hat-tip Stephen Bush)
If only....
He's clearly wasted in that tinpot role. I wouldn't overplay his performance though - if you're famous it's relatively easy to do well in an election that most people can't be bothered to vote in. And his fame is regional - it wouldn't convert into a Labour general election victory, though it's hard to believe that Labour would be in quite the mess it's in if he'd won the leadership election.
Turnout not much over 20%? And people do prefer a mayor they have heard of.
I have a bet with Pulpstar (I think it's you anyway) that Andy Burnham will never be leader of the Labour party. I reckon my money's safe.
Especially as Corbyn looks like he is going to hang on like limpet maclimpet face.. Almost reached the point at which one might ask whether Labour will survive long enough to have another leader.
But as your definition of bullying means asking people to make election predictions rather than trolling; and smearing, quoting polls; you might have a problem with crying wolf.
Repeatedly demanding a particular person appears so you can have a go at them is bullying.
Misleadingly partially quoting polls to make a group you disagree with look bad is smearing.
Hope this helps.
I asked Moniker several times to predict the French election result after he - several times - ramped and dog whistled a Le Pen victory. That is a perfectly reasonable response. It is not bullying.
I'm talking about last night after polls closed.
As am I - repeatedly I asked for a prediction despite his endless trolling. I got none. I asked where he was last night, to no avail.
He kept quiet because you were bullying him to appear. I don't blame him.
No, Mr. Job It didn't. The circumstances are very different - one man running for the presidency and forming a new party as opposed to a conspiracy of MPs deciding to defect from their existing party and start a new one. If you think about it I am sure you will appreciate the problems in Labour MPs deciding to split but not for a few years.
It has a lot of potential. One of the most productive countries in Europe I understand, per hour worked. Much more productive than the meeting-obsessed UK.
yeah, if we cut our meetings in half it would probably double productivity.
Most meetings are a 50-60% waste of time, at great cost to the company. For example, decision-makers are very often not in the meetings which are there to decide on strategy. Therefore, many strategy meetings have no outcome. It can take literally weeks to execute a policy that was 'decided upon' weeks before. And it can often ultimately be rejected by the absent decision-maker, thus rendering the original meeting pointless, wasting several thousands of pounds of company time.
"Norway, the early 1980s. Deep-sea diver Petter is part of the Norwegian North Sea dive project, pushing new boundaries in human endurance as, with the help of the United States, Norway tries to reach its new oilfields. But when tragedy strikes Petter is absolutely determined to get to the cause and soon finds himself alienated from the ground-breaking project and mistrustful of his colleagues. "
@jonwalker121: #newsnight explaining why single market access is crucial to manufacturing- not just to avoid tariffs, but to get parts quickly and reliably
But as your definition of bullying means asking people to make election predictions rather than trolling; and smearing, quoting polls; you might have a problem with crying wolf.
Repeatedly demanding a particular person appears so you can have a go at them is bullying.
Misleadingly partially quoting polls to make a group you disagree with look bad is smearing.
Hope this helps.
I asked Moniker several times to predict the French election result after he - several times - ramped and dog whistled a Le Pen victory. That is a perfectly reasonable response. It is not bullying.
I'm talking about last night after polls closed.
As am I - repeatedly I asked for a prediction despite his endless trolling. I got none. I asked where he was last night, to no avail.
He kept quiet because you were bullying him to appear. I don't blame him.
Stop picking on bojaboj, he'll just flounce, forget his password and have to change his name
Thinking back to the CPS, it will be far more damaging if the charges come out in dribs and drabs, rather than in one go.
The CPS know that the Tories will win the election -are they really going to make a decision before June the 8th ?
Legally they have no choice; they have already been granted one extension and the deadlines are days away. I have no idea whether a minister could grant a further extension or not, but the political costs of doing so probably rule this out even if it could be done.
People keep talking about deadlines but -where have these dates come from?
But I wont put any money down on this election until i know what the DPS timescale is.
The normal one year period to charge someone, which applied to all crimes AIUI, has been extended to two years. The date of the offence is the date the expenses returns were submitted for each constituency, and the time is almost up.
Some will have submitted very soon, others would have waited until the last moment (June 7th).
I believe the dates in the 15 seats are mostly late May. It's unusual to wait to the last minute, partly because it is a job most candidates and agents are eager to get out of the way, and also because most EROs are friendly enough to cast an eye over submissions and give someone a ring if they have made an obvious cockup like forgetting to sign them or putting the wrong year as the date.
With my conspiracy theory hat on, won't it seem a little planned to release the information a week or two before the election? Or is it just a coincidence - after all, the CPS didn't know the Tories were going to call an early election? It does seem a little suspicious that it's taken exactly the length of time of the extensions allowed, and a timely coincidence with the election campaign.
Hhhmmmm.
Suspicious that lawyers take all the time they are given and make the decision at the last minute? Not really. And of course they were as surprised by the GE as were we all.
My guess is that their instinct will be "not in the public interest" to prosecute, but of course the GE makes that massively more difficult and controversial.
By the way, I feel we haven't talked about Andy Burnham's performance in the Gtr Manchester Mayoral election enough.
In some seats, he outperformed 1997 Tony Blair, including winning Altrincham & Sale West. (Hat-tip Stephen Bush)
If only....
He's clearly wasted in that tinpot role. I wouldn't overplay his performance though - if you're famous it's relatively easy to do well in an election that most people can't be bothered to vote in. And his fame is regional - it wouldn't convert into a Labour general election victory, though it's hard to believe that Labour would be in quite the mess it's in if he'd won the leadership election.
Turnout not much over 20%? And people do prefer a mayor they have heard of.
I have a bet with Pulpstar (I think it's you anyway) that Andy Burnham will never be leader of the Labour party. I reckon my money's safe.
Especially as Corbyn looks like he is going to hang on like limpet maclimpet face.. Almost reached the point at which one might ask whether Labour will survive long enough to have another leader.
For the Tories, it's the stuff that dreams are made of. Labour PLP shoots itself in the face by nominating Corbyn. Burnham (and Cooper) lose leadership. Tories create faux mayoralties; Burnham stands for one of them and wins, thereby counting himself out of the next leadership election.
It has a lot of potential. One of the most productive countries in Europe I understand, per hour worked. Much more productive than the meeting-obsessed UK.
Doesn't that reflect a near 10% unemployment rate?
We spread the work around; they leave people unemployed.
A combination of issues I'd say. Ultra-low interest rates help zombie companies to keep going on credit. High net immigration from lower and middle income countries means it can be easier and cheaper to find minimum wage employees to fill certain roles, rather than to automate. And flexible labour markets make it easier both to hire and fire than in a jurisdiction like France, where businesses can be reluctant to take on extra staff that they may not be able to get rid of easily later if trade takes a turn for the worse. Also, many small businesses are reluctant to expand because the burden of the French employment code becomes exponentially greater when the workforce exceeds a certain size.
Macron's presidential honeymoon period ends before he actually takes office: 24 hours in and already the screw is being turned...
"We have a real problem with France," Juncker said in Berlin one day after Macron's resounding electoral win.
"The French spend too much money and spend it on the wrong things."
He said between 53 and 57 percent of France's gross domestic product went toward public spending.
"That can't go well in the long run with relatively high debt," Juncker warned, indicating that Macron could not rely on the good will of his key European partners for too long.
In truth, our old friend Mr Juncker has a good point here. But I'm not sure that wielding the stick before Macron makes it through the door of the Elysee is terribly helpful.
The AFP report, which is worth reading in its entirety, reports that Juncker also went on to play down Macron's suggestions for Eurozone integration, which - given that the Commission is normally very keen on centralisation, and that frankly the Eurozone actually needs more pooling of sovereignty and of hard cash to work properly - seems very strange. Until you realise that he is speaking from Berlin...
Whilst I agree with the proposition that France is frankly bonkers, I loath the EU telling countries what to do.
What happens if I write Corbyn is a Massive Twat in the Labour box?
If it is entirely within the box, a good agent will argue that it is expression of a clear preference and that the vote should stand.
I've argued that a quickly drawn phallus is a valid vote...
I doubt a written comment obviously negative about a candidate would qualify as a valid vote (leaving aside any considerations about identifying the voter). I believe there is case precedent about "not him" written in the box not counting.
At least with a drawing there is a degree of ambiguity.
But in this case I'd argue that it was not referencing the candidate but a third party, and thus all we can know is they have made marks entirely within my candidate's box and it should stand as a valid vote. If the opposition agent is asleep and the RO reasonable, then it could count.
Nonsense. Void for uncertainty. All you know is what the voter thinks of Corbyn, not whether or not they were voting Labour.
No, Mr. Job It didn't. The circumstances are very different - one man running for the presidency and forming a new party as opposed to a conspiracy of MPs deciding to defect from their existing party and start a new one. If you think about it I am sure you will appreciate the problems in Labour MPs deciding to split but not for a few years.
And remembering back to the early 1980s, all the negotiations between the Liberals and SDP, sharing out of seats, and the number of people to be brought on board, was immensely complex; even in small parties there are egos and self interest everywhere. In many cases the process was completed only a few weeks before the 1983 GE and in three seats wasn't completed and they ended up with both Liberal and SDP candidates. I was young and only on the fringes of it all, but I can still remember it being a total nightmare.
Of course any breakaway might follow a different path - but even with one new party there will still be a lot to sort out, and it is hard to believe they won't at least want to consider some sort of accommodation with the LibDems and/or Greens. Another competitor for the centre-left vote is the last thing British politics needs.
Macron's presidential honeymoon period ends before he actually takes office: 24 hours in and already the screw is being turned...
"We have a real problem with France," Juncker said in Berlin one day after Macron's resounding electoral win.
"The French spend too much money and spend it on the wrong things."
He said between 53 and 57 percent of France's gross domestic product went toward public spending.
"That can't go well in the long run with relatively high debt," Juncker warned, indicating that Macron could not rely on the good will of his key European partners for too long.
In truth, our old friend Mr Juncker has a good point here. But I'm not sure that wielding the stick before Macron makes it through the door of the Elysee is terribly helpful.
The AFP report, which is worth reading in its entirety, reports that Juncker also went on to play down Macron's suggestions for Eurozone integration, which - given that the Commission is normally very keen on centralisation, and that frankly the Eurozone actually needs more pooling of sovereignty and of hard cash to work properly - seems very strange. Until you realise that he is speaking from Berlin...
Whilst I agree with the proposition that France is frankly bonkers, I loath the EU telling countries what to do.
It has a lot of potential. One of the most productive countries in Europe I understand, per hour worked. Much more productive than the meeting-obsessed UK.
yeah, if we cut our meetings in half it would probably double productivity.
Most meetings are a 50-60% waste of time, at great cost to the company. For example, decision-makers are very often not in the meetings which are there to decide on strategy. Therefore, many strategy meetings have no outcome. It can take literally weeks to execute a policy that was 'decided upon' weeks before. And it can often ultimately be rejected by the absent decision-maker, thus rendering the original meeting pointless, wasting several thousands of pounds of company time.
Crikey! I think the situation is much worse than that. In my experience most meetings involve middle-managers meeting on a regular schedule, without a proper agenda, without papers necessary to reach any sensible decision being circulated in advance and with people present who need not be. They go on for too long and their main objective, aside from giving some under-employed people something to do, is so that any decision that is made cannot be blamed on one person.
The old Home Office for all its faults was quite good at doing meetings. It had a rule that, save for emergency committees, all papers had to be circulated at least 48 hours in advance (any agenda item where that had not happened was passed over) and any meeting that lasted more than two hours was a party not a meeting and you were entitled to get a bottle out.
Macron's presidential honeymoon period ends before he actually takes office: 24 hours in and already the screw is being turned...
"We have a real problem with France," Juncker said in Berlin one day after Macron's resounding electoral win.
"The French spend too much money and spend it on the wrong things."
He said between 53 and 57 percent of France's gross domestic product went toward public spending.
"That can't go well in the long run with relatively high debt," Juncker warned, indicating that Macron could not rely on the good will of his key European partners for too long.
In truth, our old friend Mr Juncker has a good point here. But I'm not sure that wielding the stick before Macron makes it through the door of the Elysee is terribly helpful.
The AFP report, which is worth reading in its entirety, reports that Juncker also went on to play down Macron's suggestions for Eurozone integration, which - given that the Commission is normally very keen on centralisation, and that frankly the Eurozone actually needs more pooling of sovereignty and of hard cash to work properly - seems very strange. Until you realise that he is speaking from Berlin...
Whilst I agree with the proposition that France is frankly bonkers, I loath the EU telling countries what to do.
Macron's presidential honeymoon period ends before he actually takes office: 24 hours in and already the screw is being turned...
"We have a real problem with France," Juncker said in Berlin one day after Macron's resounding electoral win.
"The French spend too much money and spend it on the wrong things."
He said between 53 and 57 percent of France's gross domestic product went toward public spending.
"That can't go well in the long run with relatively high debt," Juncker warned, indicating that Macron could not rely on the good will of his key European partners for too long.
In truth, our old friend Mr Juncker has a good point here. But I'm not sure that wielding the stick before Macron makes it through the door of the Elysee is terribly helpful.
The AFP report, which is worth reading in its entirety, reports that Juncker also went on to play down Macron's suggestions for Eurozone integration, which - given that the Commission is normally very keen on centralisation, and that frankly the Eurozone actually needs more pooling of sovereignty and of hard cash to work properly - seems very strange. Until you realise that he is speaking from Berlin...
Whilst I agree with the proposition that France is frankly bonkers, I loath the EU telling countries what to do.
I'm guessing you need to be a bit anti-Islam, and pro-Israel, to be a real fascist these days too?
Still waiting for some clarity from the fascism experts..
Google it and you will find
"(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices"
You are looking for a technical definition about exact characteristics of governments and whoever it is you are having a go at is using the word more loosely. That's allowed. Not great use of a word that has a lot of associations, but not actually wrong or worth you purusing in this vaguely aggressive manner.
Come on, tell us precisely what you mean by fascist. Surely you know?
You're wasting your time mate, I asked the same the other day.
Fascist has replaced racist as the throw away insult, its meaning is irrelevant, its all about how you say it, with a snarl and a curled up lip.
I'm sure it is a waste of time. But Meeks ought to be able to do it. He shouldn't throw around terms like that without being able to precisely define them. Which he and the rest have completely failed to do. It's a clearly defined term, and quite offensive to suggest that 'Leavers' are supportive of it, without clarifying what he means by fascist ('supporting Le Pen' just really won't do).
It has a lot of potential. One of the most productive countries in Europe I understand, per hour worked. Much more productive than the meeting-obsessed UK.
If they work a few more hours it would certainly help
No, Mr. Job It didn't. The circumstances are very different - one man running for the presidency and forming a new party as opposed to a conspiracy of MPs deciding to defect from their existing party and start a new one. If you think about it I am sure you will appreciate the problems in Labour MPs deciding to split but not for a few years.
The circumstances aren't as different as you make out. The biggest difference is that EM! is one man's idea (more or less), but it was started as a new centre-left party, and, although he may have had it in mind, he didn't launch a bid for the presidency until Christmas.
If there is to be a split in the Labour Party it needs to be properly thought through and organised, so leaving it a few years is eminently justified. One big problem the moderates would have to deal with is that they might be labelled as unfashionable, given that a lot of new, younger members are Corbynists and they don't have an equivalent of Momentum or The Canary. A stepping stone towards a new party would be to start a moderate version of Momentum.
A split this summer would produce a lot of negative publicity for Labour over the next five years as the PLP rowed amongst itself, and the membership fought turf wars. A split and launch after 2020 would concentrate people's minds on the GE rather than internal squabbling.
Macron's presidential honeymoon period ends before he actually takes office: 24 hours in and already the screw is being turned...
"We have a real problem with France," Juncker said in Berlin one day after Macron's resounding electoral win.
"The French spend too much money and spend it on the wrong things."
He said between 53 and 57 percent of France's gross domestic product went toward public spending.
"That can't go well in the long run with relatively high debt," Juncker warned, indicating that Macron could not rely on the good will of his key European partners for too long.
In truth, our old friend Mr Juncker has a good point here. But I'm not sure that wielding the stick before Macron makes it through the door of the Elysee is terribly helpful.
The AFP report, which is worth reading in its entirety, reports that Juncker also went on to play down Macron's suggestions for Eurozone integration, which - given that the Commission is normally very keen on centralisation, and that frankly the Eurozone actually needs more pooling of sovereignty and of hard cash to work properly - seems very strange. Until you realise that he is speaking from Berlin...
Whilst I agree with the proposition that France is frankly bonkers, I loath the EU telling countries what to do.
By the way, I feel we haven't talked about Andy Burnham's performance in the Gtr Manchester Mayoral election enough.
In some seats, he outperformed 1997 Tony Blair, including winning Altrincham & Sale West. (Hat-tip Stephen Bush)
If only....
He's clearly wasted in that tinpot role. I wouldn't overplay his performance though - if you're famous it's relatively easy to do well in an election that most people can't be bothered to vote in. And his fame is regional - it wouldn't convert into a Labour general election victory, though it's hard to believe that Labour would be in quite the mess it's in if he'd won the leadership election.
Turnout not much over 20%? And people do prefer a mayor they have heard of.
I have a bet with Pulpstar (I think it's you anyway) that Andy Burnham will never be leader of the Labour party. I reckon my money's safe.
Especially as Corbyn looks like he is going to hang on like limpet maclimpet face.. Almost reached the point at which one might ask whether Labour will survive long enough to have another leader.
Burnham has far more power as Mayor of Manchester than he would as Labour leader so why would he bother? Labour are probably still a decade from power and that assumes that moderates are not eventually forced to do a Macron and start their own party
Whilst I agree with the proposition that France is frankly bonkers, I loath the EU telling countries what to do.
What this really all boils down to is, as ever, the lack of consensus amongst Eurozone members about how to resolve the flawed structure of their currency. Macron has effectively proposed taking steps towards federalism, which is what is ultimately needed to make it sustainable: common government, common treasury, common debt, fiscal transfers.
Merkel, on the other hand, thinks she's already done more than enough by leading the bailout of the debtors, doesn't want to turn Germany into a gigantic ATM for the rest of the Eurozone, and is therefore pushing an alternative approach: the imbalances within the Eurozone are to be solved by every member state becoming just like Germany. Fiscal discipline must be enforced within the straight jacket of the common currency, regardless of how much that requires in the way of "reform" - code for spending cuts and tax rises, and quite possibly wage deflation as well.
In the case of Greece, which was bailed out, it was loaned so much money and forced to undertake such a huge reform programme that its debts have grown too massive ever to be paid back, and it is being made to run such a large budget surplus that the austerity needed to get there is suppressing economic activity, and may be regarded as ultimately self-defeating. France, of course, isn't in that kind of a hole, but I would nonetheless imagine that the amount of hacking away at regulation, workers' rights and France's enormous state sector which Macron will be obliged to do (either by his own inclination, or after a bit of arm twisting by the Commission) will result in a very considerable amount of civil disobedience. Along with rather a lot of parliamentary disobedience too, if En Marche can't muster a majority in the National Assembly.
I suspect we shan't have very long to wait to find out whether President Macron has both the will and the resources to become a successful reformer, or if he turns into Hollande Mk2.
I'm guessing you need to be a bit anti-Islam, and pro-Israel, to be a real fascist these days too?
Still waiting for some clarity from the fascism experts..
Google it and you will find
"(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices"
You are looking for a technical definition about exact characteristics of governments and whoever it is you are having a go at is using the word more loosely. That's allowed. Not great use of a word that has a lot of associations, but not actually wrong or worth you purusing in this vaguely aggressive manner.
The problem with "extreme right wing" is that all actual fascists (and Le Pen) are varying shades of socialist.
Thinking back to the CPS, it will be far more damaging if the charges come out in dribs and drabs, rather than in one go.
As a non legal expert, is the CPS expected to bring charges in cases that it thinks they will win, or where they think the potential defendant is guilty?
Guilt can be exceedingly difficult to prove and the two are very different.
Where they think it's in the public interest and the chance of conviction is at least 51%. They do not have to have an opinion on guilt themselves - the test is whether they think the evidence would probably lead to conviction.
Come on, tell us precisely what you mean by fascist. Surely you know?
You're wasting your time mate, I asked the same the other day.
Fascist has replaced racist as the throw away insult, its meaning is irrelevant, its all about how you say it, with a snarl and a curled up lip.
I'm sure it is a waste of time. But Meeks ought to be able to do it. He shouldn't throw around terms like that without being able to precisely define them. Which he and the rest have completely failed to do. It's a clearly defined term, and quite offensive to suggest that 'Leavers' are supportive of it, without clarifying what he means by fascist ('supporting Le Pen' just really won't do).
Meeks is a parody, his thread headers are very well written and informative, his posts are hilarious. He's like the real slim shady who won't stand up.
Macron's presidential honeymoon period ends before he actually takes office: 24 hours in and already the screw is being turned...
"We have a real problem with France," Juncker said in Berlin one day after Macron's resounding electoral win.
"The French spend too much money and spend it on the wrong things."
He said between 53 and 57 percent of France's gross domestic product went toward public spending.
"That can't go well in the long run with relatively high debt," Juncker warned, indicating that Macron could not rely on the good will of his key European partners for too long.
In truth, our old friend Mr Juncker has a good point here. But I'm not sure that wielding the stick before Macron makes it through the door of the Elysee is terribly helpful.
The AFP report, which is worth reading in its entirety, reports that Juncker also went on to play down Macron's suggestions for Eurozone integration, which - given that the Commission is normally very keen on centralisation, and that frankly the Eurozone actually needs more pooling of sovereignty and of hard cash to work properly - seems very strange. Until you realise that he is speaking from Berlin...
Whilst I agree with the proposition that France is frankly bonkers, I loath the EU telling countries what to do.
I'm guessing you need to be a bit anti-Islam, and pro-Israel, to be a real fascist these days too?
Still waiting for some clarity from the fascism experts..
Google it and you will find
"(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices"
You are looking for a technical definition about exact characteristics of governments and whoever it is you are having a go at is using the word more loosely. That's allowed. Not great use of a word that has a lot of associations, but not actually wrong or worth you purusing in this vaguely aggressive manner.
The general use is wrong and needs to be challenged. It trivialises how bad real fascism is. It also associates anyone tarred with it with the same brush that's used for Nazis. And to actually imply that the majority, or even one percent, of Leavers are supporters of fascism is way beyond the pale.
Come on, tell us precisely what you mean by fascist. Surely you know?
You're wasting your time mate, I asked the same the other day.
Fascist has replaced racist as the throw away insult, its meaning is irrelevant, its all about how you say it, with a snarl and a curled up lip.
I'm sure it is a waste of time. But Meeks ought to be able to do it. He shouldn't throw around terms like that without being able to precisely define them. Which he and the rest have completely failed to do. It's a clearly defined term, and quite offensive to suggest that 'Leavers' are supportive of it, without clarifying what he means by fascist ('supporting Le Pen' just really won't do).
I agree. But I do think it's appropriate to point out when certain opinions are fascistic, or when fascistic techniques are being used. e.g. Although May is far from being a fascist, her "strong and stable" personality-cultish shtick is shockingly fascistic.
Whilst I agree with the proposition that France is frankly bonkers, I loath the EU telling countries what to do.
What this really all boils down to is, as ever, the lack of consensus amongst Eurozone members about how to resolve the flawed structure of their currency. Macron has effectively proposed taking steps towards federalism, which is what is ultimately needed to make it sustainable: common government, common treasury, common debt, fiscal transfers.
Merkel, on the other hand, thinks she's already done more than enough by leading the bailout of the debtors, doesn't want to turn Germany into a gigantic ATM for the rest of the Eurozone, and is therefore pushing an alternative approach: the imbalances within the Eurozone are to be solved by every member state becoming just like Germany. Fiscal discipline must be enforced within the straight jacket of the common currency, regardless of how much that requires in the way of "reform" - code for spending cuts and tax rises, and quite possibly wage deflation as well.
In the case of Greece, which was bailed out, it was loaned so much money and forced to undertake such a huge reform programme that its debts have grown too massive ever to be paid back, and it is being made to run such a large budget surplus that the austerity needed to get there is suppressing economic activity, and may be regarded as ultimately self-defeating. France, of course, isn't in that kind of a hole, but I would nonetheless imagine that the amount of hacking away at regulation, workers' rights and France's enormous state sector which Macron will be obliged to do (either by his own inclination, or after a bit of arm twisting by the Commission) will result in a very considerable amount of civil disobedience. Along with rather a lot of parliamentary disobedience too, if En Marche can't muster a majority in the National Assembly.
I suspect we shan't have very long to wait to find out whether President Macron has both the will and the resources to become a successful reformer, or if he turns into Hollande Mk2.
And that is in a nutshell what is wrong with the EU. They end up trying to make every where like everywhere else and will cause war doing so. Well done the EU.
I can see either approach going down like a bucket of cold sick.
Whilst I agree with the proposition that France is frankly bonkers, I loath the EU telling countries what to do.
What this really all boils down to is, as ever, the lack of consensus amongst Eurozone members about how to resolve the flawed structure of their currency. Macron has effectively proposed taking steps towards federalism, which is what is ultimately needed to make it sustainable: common government, common treasury, common debt, fiscal transfers.
Merkel, on the other hand, thinks she's already done more than enough by leading the bailout of the debtors, doesn't want to turn Germany into a gigantic ATM for the rest of the Eurozone, and is therefore pushing an alternative approach: the imbalances within the Eurozone are to be solved by every member state becoming just like Germany. Fiscal discipline must be enforced within the straight jacket of the common currency, regardless of how much that requires in the way of "reform" - code for spending cuts and tax rises, and quite possibly wage deflation as well.
In the case of Greece, which was bailed out, it was loaned so much money and forced to undertake such a huge reform programme that its debts have grown too massive ever to be paid back, and it is being made to run such a large budget surplus that the austerity needed to get there is suppressing economic activity, and may be regarded as ultimately self-defeating. France, of course, isn't in that kind of a hole, but I would nonetheless imagine that the amount of hacking away at regulation, workers' rights and France's enormous state sector which Macron will be obliged to do (either by his own inclination, or after a bit of arm twisting by the Commission) will result in a very considerable amount of civil disobedience. Along with rather a lot of parliamentary disobedience too, if En Marche can't muster a majority in the National Assembly.
I suspect we shan't have very long to wait to find out whether President Macron has both the will and the resources to become a successful reformer, or if he turns into Hollande Mk2.
He was Hollande Mk1, why wouldn't he be Hollande Mk2?
Come on, tell us precisely what you mean by fascist. Surely you know?
You're wasting your time mate, I asked the same the other day.
Fascist has replaced racist as the throw away insult, its meaning is irrelevant, its all about how you say it, with a snarl and a curled up lip.
I'm sure it is a waste of time. But Meeks ought to be able to do it. He shouldn't throw around terms like that without being able to precisely define them. Which he and the rest have completely failed to do. It's a clearly defined term, and quite offensive to suggest that 'Leavers' are supportive of it, without clarifying what he means by fascist ('supporting Le Pen' just really won't do).
I agree. But I do think it's appropriate to point out when certain opinions are fascistic, or when fascistic techniques are being used. e.g. Although May is far from being a fascist, her "strong and stable" personality-cultish shtick is shockingly fascistic.
"Strong and stable" is just "Look at them, ha ha ha ha!!", how is it at all fascist?!
"Norway, the early 1980s. Deep-sea diver Petter is part of the Norwegian North Sea dive project, pushing new boundaries in human endurance as, with the help of the United States, Norway tries to reach its new oilfields. But when tragedy strikes Petter is absolutely determined to get to the cause and soon finds himself alienated from the ground-breaking project and mistrustful of his colleagues. "
I haven't seen the film but I believe it is based on the real life accident on the Byford Dolphin, which was my rig for 5 years from 1998 to 2003. It was not a lucky rig and had a total of 13 fatalities, the last one being of a friend of mine who was struck by drill pipe when working in a riding belt over the moonpool.
By the way, I feel we haven't talked about Andy Burnham's performance in the Gtr Manchester Mayoral election enough.
In some seats, he outperformed 1997 Tony Blair, including winning Altrincham & Sale West. (Hat-tip Stephen Bush)
If only....
He's clearly wasted in that tinpot role. I wouldn't overplay his performance though - if you're famous it's relatively easy to do well in an election that most people can't be bothered to vote in. And his fame is regional - it wouldn't convert into a Labour general election victory, though it's hard to believe that Labour would be in quite the mess it's in if he'd won the leadership election.
Turnout not much over 20%? And people do prefer a mayor they have heard of.
I have a bet with Pulpstar (I think it's you anyway) that Andy Burnham will never be leader of the Labour party. I reckon my money's safe.
Especially as Corbyn looks like he is going to hang on like limpet maclimpet face.. Almost reached the point at which one might ask whether Labour will survive long enough to have another leader.
Burnham has far more power as Mayor of Manchester than he would as Labour leader so why would he bother? Labour are probably still a decade from power and that assumes that moderates are not eventually forced to do a Macron and start their own party
The GM mayor job doesn't convey much power - you can hardly compare it with London - and how much power it does have is strictly under the control of the government. Still, Burnham's position will help Labour to hold seats, wards and councils in Greater Manchester.
I'm guessing you need to be a bit anti-Islam, and pro-Israel, to be a real fascist these days too?
Still waiting for some clarity from the fascism experts..
Google it and you will find
"(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices"
So I ask again, how extreme, authoritarian, and/or intolerant do you need to be to qualify? Does wanting controls on immigration meet the bar? Or is a bit more overt racism necessary? Or is even cutting benefits enough these days? That's extremely right wing, isn't it?
Whilst I agree with the proposition that France is frankly bonkers, I loath the EU telling countries what to do.
What this really all boils down to is, as ever, the lack of consensus amongst Eurozone members about how to resolve the flawed structure of their currency. Macron has effectively proposed taking steps towards federalism, which is what is ultimately needed to make it sustainable: common government, common treasury, common debt, fiscal transfers.
Merkel, on the other hand, thinks she's already done more than enough by leading the bailout of the debtors, doesn't want to turn Germany into a gigantic ATM for the rest of the Eurozone, and is therefore pushing an alternative approach: the imbalances within the Eurozone are to be solved by every member state becoming just like Germany. Fiscal discipline must be enforced within the straight jacket of the common currency, regardless of how much that requires in the way of "reform" - code for spending cuts and tax rises, and quite possibly wage deflation as well.
In the case of Greece, which was bailed out, it was loaned so much money and forced to undertake such a huge reform programme that its debts have grown too massive ever to be paid back, and it is being made to run such a large budget surplus that the austerity needed to get there is suppressing economic activity, and may be regarded as ultimately self-defeating. France, of course, isn't in that kind of a hole, but I would nonetheless imagine that the amount of hacking away at regulation, workers' rights and France's enormous state sector which Macron will be obliged to do (either by his own inclination, or after a bit of arm twisting by the Commission) will result in a very considerable amount of civil disobedience. Along with rather a lot of parliamentary disobedience too, if En Marche can't muster a majority in the National Assembly.
I suspect we shan't have very long to wait to find out whether President Macron has both the will and the resources to become a successful reformer, or if he turns into Hollande Mk2.
He was Hollande Mk1, why wouldn't he be Hollande Mk2?
Macron stood as a liberal not a socialist and will likely have a majority for reform in the Assembly when you add En Marche and Les Republicains
By the way, I feel we haven't talked about Andy Burnham's performance in the Gtr Manchester Mayoral election enough.
In some seats, he outperformed 1997 Tony Blair, including winning Altrincham & Sale West. (Hat-tip Stephen Bush)
If only....
He's clearly wasted in that tinpot role. I wouldn't overplay his performance though - if you're famous it's relatively easy to do well in an election that most people can't be bothered to vote in. And his fame is regional - it wouldn't convert into a Labour general election victory, though it's hard to believe that Labour would be in quite the mess it's in if he'd won the leadership election.
Turnout not much over 20%? And people do prefer a mayor they have heard of.
I have a bet with Pulpstar (I think it's you anyway) that Andy Burnham will never be leader of the Labour party. I reckon my money's safe.
Especially as Corbyn looks like he is going to hang on like limpet maclimpet face.. Almost reached the point at which one might ask whether Labour will survive long enough to have another leader.
Burnham has far more power as Mayor of Manchester than he would as Labour leader so why would he bother? Labour are probably still a decade from power and that assumes that moderates are not eventually forced to do a Macron and start their own party
The GM mayor job doesn't convey much power - you can hardly compare it with London - and how much power it does have is strictly under the control of the government. Still, Burnham's position will help Labour to hold seats, wards and councils in Greater Manchester.
Greater Manchester is really the second most powerful urban area after Greater London and he will have a powerbase there and his policies will actually make a difference on the ground unlike Corbyn's
Whilst I agree with the proposition that France is frankly bonkers, I loath the EU telling countries what to do.
What this really all boils down to is, as ever, the lack of consensus amongst Eurozone members about how to resolve the flawed structure of their currency. Macron has effectively proposed taking steps towards federalism, which is what is ultimately needed to make it sustainable: common government, common treasury, common debt, fiscal transfers.
Merkel, on the other hand, thinks she's already done more than enough by leading the bailout of the debtors, doesn't want to turn Germany into a gigantic ATM for the rest of the Eurozone, and is therefore pushing an alternative approach: the imbalances within the Eurozone are to be solved by every member state becoming just like Germany. Fiscal discipline must be enforced within the straight jacket of the common currency, regardless of how much that requires in the way of "reform" - code for spending cuts and tax rises, and quite possibly wage deflation as well.
In the case of Greece, which was bailed out, it was loaned so much money and forced to undertake such a huge reform programme that its debts have grown too massive ever to be paid back, and it is being made to run such a large budget surplus that the austerity needed to get there is suppressing economic activity, and may be regarded as ultimately self-defeating. France, of course, isn't in that kind of a hole, but I would nonetheless imagine that the amount of hacking away at regulation, workers' rights and France's enormous state sector which Macron will be obliged to do (either by his own inclination, or after a bit of arm twisting by the Commission) will result in a very considerable amount of civil disobedience. Along with rather a lot of parliamentary disobedience too, if En Marche can't muster a majority in the National Assembly.
I suspect we shan't have very long to wait to find out whether President Macron has both the will and the resources to become a successful reformer, or if he turns into Hollande Mk2.
He was Hollande Mk1, why wouldn't he be Hollande Mk2?
Macron stood as a liberal not a socialist and will likely have a majority for reform in the Assembly when you add En Marche and Les Republicains
The Republicans intend on winning (or at least that's what they say) and out right majority and will then field there own cabinet. I get the impression from BBC4's PM that they are miffed with Macron.
Whilst I agree with the proposition that France is frankly bonkers, I loath the EU telling countries what to do.
What this really all boils down to is, as ever, the lack of consensus amongst Eurozone members about how to resolve the flawed structure of their currency. Macron has effectively proposed taking steps towards federalism, which is what is ultimately needed to make it sustainable: common government, common treasury, common debt, fiscal transfers.
Merkel, on the other hand, thinks she's already done more than enough by leading the bailout of the debtors, doesn't want to turn Germany into a gigantic ATM for the rest of the Eurozone, and is therefore pushing an alternative approach: the imbalances within the Eurozone are to be solved by every member state becoming just like Germany. Fiscal discipline must be enforced within the straight jacket of the common currency, regardless of how much that requires in the way of "reform" - code for spending cuts and tax rises, and quite possibly wage deflation as well.
In the case of Greece, which was bailed out, it was loaned so much money and forced to undertake such a huge reform programme that its debts have grown too massive ever to be paid back, and it is being made to run such a large budget surplus that the austerity needed to get there is suppressing economic activity, and may be regarded as ultimately self-defeating. France, of course, isn't in that kind of a hole, but I would nonetheless imagine that the amount of hacking away at regulation, workers' rights and France's enormous state sector which Macron will be obliged to do (either by his own inclination, or after a bit of arm twisting by the Commission) will result in a very considerable amount of civil disobedience. Along with rather a lot of parliamentary disobedience too, if En Marche can't muster a majority in the National Assembly.
I suspect we shan't have very long to wait to find out whether President Macron has both the will and the resources to become a successful reformer, or if he turns into Hollande Mk2.
He was Hollande Mk1, why wouldn't he be Hollande Mk2?
Macron stood as a liberal not a socialist and will likely have a majority for reform in the Assembly when you add En Marche and Les Republicains
The Republicans intend on winning (or at least that's what they say) and out right majority and will then field there own cabinet. I get the impression from BBC4's PM that they are miffed with Macron.
I'm guessing you need to be a bit anti-Islam, and pro-Israel, to be a real fascist these days too?
Still waiting for some clarity from the fascism experts..
Google it and you will find
"(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices"
You are looking for a technical definition about exact characteristics of governments and whoever it is you are having a go at is using the word more loosely. That's allowed. Not great use of a word that has a lot of associations, but not actually wrong or worth you purusing in this vaguely aggressive manner.
lSo corbynistas are what exact;y, the only box they don't tick is right wing?
For all the sound and fury, the polls are very consistent and not much is changing (as usual in relection campaigns): Con swing of about 5-6%, mostly due to gains from UKIP, with Labour marginally less than last time and a gradual polarisation to the big two at the expense of the others.
He was Hollande Mk1, why wouldn't he be Hollande Mk2?
Macron stood as a liberal not a socialist and will likely have a majority for reform in the Assembly when you add En Marche and Les Republicains
The Republicans intend on winning (or at least that's what they say) and out right majority and will then field there own cabinet. I get the impression from BBC4's PM that they are miffed with Macron.
Quite. It's going to get messy. There are already protests about Macron because, whisper it quietly "He is a liberal!" (as in economically liberal rather than the usual French fair, an idiot)
This from a graduate of Cambridge "University", ffs.
In fairness there is evidence of extensive trade links, certainly from the mid 50s BC onwards so plausible before then. In this context it's likely that there were blacks (or at least African born) Romans in Britain in the time frame she suggests
Probably not Centurions though!
It's not my period, but I believe retired NCOs like Centurions retained their rank. But that does make it less likely, yes, although not laughably stupid. . (At least it wouldn't be laughably stupid if it had been someone other than Abbott making the comment. She's just a blithering idiot)
It is laughably stupid because she seems to believe there were Romans in Britain 'hundreds of years before Christ'. Whatever your view on there being blacks amongst the Romans who landed here - and I think it very likely to the point of certainty, she has managed to push back the arrival of the Romans by several centuries.
She is basically dumber than a bag of rocks.
I think it is very probable there were Romans in Britain hundreds of years before Christ.
Each extra criterion (centurions, black) reduces the probability somewhat.
But I agree with your conclusion! What I don't understand is how did she get into Fenland Poly?
I've heard they even let people with red shoes into Fen Poly.
Wouldn't happen at good old Cowley Tech.
Cowley Tech let in David Miliband with 3 Bs and a D, and also Jeffrey Archer.
Just saying.
Jeffrey Archer only did a teaching diploma - not a degree course!
Comments
https://twitter.com/bbcnewsnight/status/861704791789096960
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08qfvr5/party-election-broadcasts-conservative-party-general-election
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39852404
CON gain Glasgow East!
Isn't the problem that most splits are more "push" than "pull"? So the timing is often decided for you.
"We have a real problem with France," Juncker said in Berlin one day after Macron's resounding electoral win.
"The French spend too much money and spend it on the wrong things."
He said between 53 and 57 percent of France's gross domestic product went toward public spending.
"That can't go well in the long run with relatively high debt," Juncker warned, indicating that Macron could not rely on the good will of his key European partners for too long.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/35363771/juncker-warns-macron-french-spend-too-much-money/#page1
In truth, our old friend Mr Juncker has a good point here. But I'm not sure that wielding the stick before Macron makes it through the door of the Elysee is terribly helpful.
The AFP report, which is worth reading in its entirety, reports that Juncker also went on to play down Macron's suggestions for Eurozone integration, which - given that the Commission is normally very keen on centralisation, and that frankly the Eurozone actually needs more pooling of sovereignty and of hard cash to work properly - seems very strange. Until you realise that he is speaking from Berlin...
Hhhmmmm.
https://twitter.com/daraobriain/status/861529081564852225
Strong, stable, stable, strong, May, May, strong, stable, May strong and stable.
We spread the work around; they leave people unemployed.
Especially as Corbyn looks like he is going to hang on like limpet maclimpet face.. Almost reached the point at which one might ask whether Labour will survive long enough to have another leader.
Fascist has replaced racist as the throw away insult, its meaning is irrelevant, its all about how you say it, with a snarl and a curled up lip.
"Norway, the early 1980s. Deep-sea diver Petter is part of the Norwegian North Sea dive project, pushing new boundaries in human endurance as, with the help of the United States, Norway tries to reach its new oilfields. But when tragedy strikes Petter is absolutely determined to get to the cause and soon finds himself alienated from the ground-breaking project and mistrustful of his colleagues. "
I was quote impressed with the foundry though.
My guess is that their instinct will be "not in the public interest" to prosecute, but of course the GE makes that massively more difficult and controversial.
Of course any breakaway might follow a different path - but even with one new party there will still be a lot to sort out, and it is hard to believe they won't at least want to consider some sort of accommodation with the LibDems and/or Greens. Another competitor for the centre-left vote is the last thing British politics needs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08nq5x5
Still waiting for some clarity from the fascism experts..
The old Home Office for all its faults was quite good at doing meetings. It had a rule that, save for emergency committees, all papers had to be circulated at least 48 hours in advance (any agenda item where that had not happened was passed over) and any meeting that lasted more than two hours was a party not a meeting and you were entitled to get a bottle out.
"(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices"
You are looking for a technical definition about exact characteristics of governments and whoever it is you are having a go at is using the word more loosely. That's allowed. Not great use of a word that has a lot of associations, but not actually wrong or worth you purusing in this vaguely aggressive manner.
If there is to be a split in the Labour Party it needs to be properly thought through and organised, so leaving it a few years is eminently justified. One big problem the moderates would have to deal with is that they might be labelled as unfashionable, given that a lot of new, younger members are Corbynists and they don't have an equivalent of Momentum or The Canary. A stepping stone towards a new party would be to start a moderate version of Momentum.
A split this summer would produce a lot of negative publicity for Labour over the next five years as the PLP rowed amongst itself, and the membership fought turf wars. A split and launch after 2020 would concentrate people's minds on the GE rather than internal squabbling.
Merkel, on the other hand, thinks she's already done more than enough by leading the bailout of the debtors, doesn't want to turn Germany into a gigantic ATM for the rest of the Eurozone, and is therefore pushing an alternative approach: the imbalances within the Eurozone are to be solved by every member state becoming just like Germany. Fiscal discipline must be enforced within the straight jacket of the common currency, regardless of how much that requires in the way of "reform" - code for spending cuts and tax rises, and quite possibly wage deflation as well.
In the case of Greece, which was bailed out, it was loaned so much money and forced to undertake such a huge reform programme that its debts have grown too massive ever to be paid back, and it is being made to run such a large budget surplus that the austerity needed to get there is suppressing economic activity, and may be regarded as ultimately self-defeating. France, of course, isn't in that kind of a hole, but I would nonetheless imagine that the amount of hacking away at regulation, workers' rights and France's enormous state sector which Macron will be obliged to do (either by his own inclination, or after a bit of arm twisting by the Commission) will result in a very considerable amount of civil disobedience. Along with rather a lot of parliamentary disobedience too, if En Marche can't muster a majority in the National Assembly.
I suspect we shan't have very long to wait to find out whether President Macron has both the will and the resources to become a successful reformer, or if he turns into Hollande Mk2.
I can see either approach going down like a bucket of cold sick.
http://fr.kantar.com/elections/legislatives/2017/les-francais-et-les-elections-legislatives-2017/
Give him chance to show what he's made of.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/08/front-national-plans-overhaul-after-defeat-but-faces-internal-resistance
Is there a better way to discourage Conservative voters switching to Lib Dem than the Lib Dems aligning with a party to the left of Corbyn?
Who is responsible for this failing strategy at HQ?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/may/08/general-election-2017-poll-tracker-who-is-in-the-lead
Feels right to me, so far.
http://survation.com/con-lead-lab-17-points-amid-ukip-decline-new-polling-series-good-morning-britain/