politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Russia really has compromising material against Trump and p
Comments
-
Hopefully they will tell the court and the EU to get stuffed.TGOHF said:
And then overruled by a tinpot courtCasino_Royale said:
Scrutiny that is largely cosmetic.SouthamObserver said:RobD said:
It's all well and good when applying the EU diktats!CarlottaVance said:
Great minds.....RobD said:
It is amusing that the powers are fine when wielded by the EU, but as soon as the democratically-elected UK government has them it is an utter disaster.SouthamObserver said:
You don't do it by handing over huge, unchecked power to the executive for a vaguely defined period of time:RobD said:
That'sSouthamObserver said:
TheRobD said:
Itrottenborough said:
Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!Monksfield said:
This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.NickPalmer said:Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np
Very good news imho.
The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/905181490019000320
https://twitter.com/NickJTimothy/status/905113562514948097
(is that a compliment or an insult, btw?
)
If you mean "read it", and "debate it", then, yes. If you mean the ability to substantively amend, change or reject it, then no.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41172638
"The EU's top court has rejected a challenge by eastern European countries to a migrant relocation deal drawn up at the peak of the crisis in 2015.
The European Court of Justice overruled Hungary and Slovakia's objections to the compulsory fixed-quota scheme"0 -
In religion, "sin" seems to be enjoying yourself for the sake of its own pleasure.HYUFD said:
Yes most of us sin to some degreeSean_F said:
And Onanism.HYUFD said:
Yes but there are lots of sins beside that from sloth to greed to murderSlackbladder said:
So, basically yes.HYUFD said:
According to Catholics and Muslims the act is as distinguished from the person, as is any heterosexual extra marital sex619 said:
He is opening himself up now to questions as to what he thinks about homosexuals generally now though and their equal rights.Charles said:
I believe he said that they were free votes issues (not quite the same as any implication he would bring forward a proposal) and therefore the law wouldn't change.619 said:
He said he would allow a free vote on those issues. That's different to the law not changing.Charles said:
So you are not allowed personal religious views anymore?rottenborough said:
He's said the law wouldn't change under him.
Fundamentally he's saying it's s personal moral choice. He's got his view but won't impose on others.
Does he think homosexuality is a sin?
I don't think that's a sin. I think narcissism and selfishness are, and there's plenty of that in today's secular world.0 -
In what way is tinpot?SouthamObserver said:
Indeed - it's able to overrule the democratically elected sovereign governments of Hungary and Slovakia - I was too harsh.
0 -
As I understad it JRM is faithful to social teaching of Church but does not seek to impose it on wider society. I imagine that is because he does not seek a theocratic state. It is a moderate and defensible position which is shared by many Catholics in public life.0
-
Looking at Oren's own output, if he passed a Turing test I would be accusing the exam board of grade inflation. Never mind gay marriage, his twitter dictum was Cameron's most enduring legacy.TheScreamingEagles said:
https://twitter.com/milo1234/status/905010422054617088Casino_Royale said:
JRM has nothing to do with Russia.SouthamObserver said:
Jacob Rees Mogg seems to be the latest project.foxinsoxuk said:
Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.OldKingCole said:If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.
Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.
If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.
They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.
Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.0 -
I agree with you. He's a dinosaur and far more of a threat to us than JRM would ever be.Sean_F said:
I beg to differ. He was happy to cheerlead for Sinn Fein, and he forced Sarah Champion to resign for her views on child abuse.619 said:
Corbyn isn't a bigot.Sean_F said:
But if, say, it was JRM vs. Jeremy Corbyn?Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wroteMonksfield said:
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.Sandpit said:
) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him.
Sadly, I think Corbyn would only be found out by his naïve middle-class admirers (very reluctantly) in office. Probably when he hit them substantively in the pocket, which he would, but they'd blame their loss of faith on something else.0 -
Trigger warning for fans of George Osborne.
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/9053611709656801280 -
No, I am worried about ministers being given untrammelled powers to change laws without parliamentary scrutiny. This is not returning power to the people.TGOHF said:"But EU officials insisted from the start that the scheme was binding on all member states regardless of whether they had voted for it or not. "
"The court's ruling is final and cannot be appealed."
And Southam is worried about Westminster having too much power...
Yesterday David Davis told a blatant lie to the House of Commons about never having said Brexit would be simple, yet he thinks he should be trusted with the ability to exercise unprecedented powers without being answerable to MPs.
0 -
By good job does he mean "joined me in moaning about Brexit" ?TheScreamingEagles said:Trigger warning for fans of George Osborne.
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/905361170965680128
0 -
I suppose having someone like Sadiq Khan as mayor is part and parcel of living in a bit city.TheScreamingEagles said:Trigger warning for fans of George Osborne.
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/9053611709656801280 -
The EU and this court appear to have untrammelled powers to deposit refugees into a nation state - you seem unconcerned about this.SouthamObserver said:
No, I am worried about ministers being given untrammelled powers to change laws without parliamentary scrutiny. This is not returning power to the people.TGOHF said:"But EU officials insisted from the start that the scheme was binding on all member states regardless of whether they had voted for it or not. "
"The court's ruling is final and cannot be appealed."
And Southam is worried about Westminster having too much power...
0 -
Indeed - it's able to overrule the democratically elected sovereign governments of Hungary and Slovakia - I was too harsh.TGOHF said:
Yep - Hungary and Slovakia both agreed to this when they joined the European Union.
0 -
Yep - Hungary and Slovakia both agreed to this when they joined the European Union.SouthamObserver said:
Indeed - it's able to overrule the democratically elected sovereign governments of Hungary and Slovakia - I was too harsh.TGOHF said:
In a similar way that the people of the Uk agreed to repatriation of powers when they voted for Brexit.
0 -
Another pre-referendum comment from Dan Hannan that has not aged well.
0 -
In a similar way that the people of the Uk agreed to repatriation of powers when they voted for Brexit.TGOHF said:
Yep - Hungary and Slovakia both agreed to this when they joined the European Union.SouthamObserver said:
Indeed - it's able to overrule the democratically elected sovereign governments of Hungary and Slovakia - I was too harsh.TGOHF said:
Of course. But that does not make the CJEU a tinpot court.0 -
I dont think NAFTA has benefitted Mexico as much as the Trumpists think. Drugs cartels and declining oil are further problems. It is a pity as it is a lovely country to visit.Pong said:The IPPR report is sobering.
p15 https://www.ippr.org/files/2017-09/cej-interim-report.pdf
"Between 2007 and 2016, annual real wages grew 10.8 per cent in Germany, 9.5 per cent in France and 6.4 per cent on average across the countries of the OECD. In the UK, however, they fell by 2.6 per cent. Of 35 OECD countries, only in Greece, Mexico and Portugal were 2016 earnings even further behind 2007 than in the UK"0 -
Silly bollocks.TheScreamingEagles said:
https://twitter.com/milo1234/status/905010422054617088Casino_Royale said:
JRM has nothing to do with Russia.SouthamObserver said:
Jacob Rees Mogg seems to be the latest project.foxinsoxuk said:
Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.OldKingCole said:If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.
Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.
If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.
They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.
Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.0 -
You need to get over your obsession with me.williamglenn said:
Ken Clarke vs. Jeremy Corbyn?Casino_Royale said:
I'd wade through blood for JRM.Sean_F said:
But if, say, it was JRM vs. Jeremy Corbyn?Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. I was extremely critical of Farron (not Fallon as you wroteMonksfield said:
The same people who hounded and eviscerated Tim Fallon on this question will no doubt defend Rees-Mogg to the hilt.Sandpit said: ) and feel the same way about JRM. I understand from many comments over the last few years from political friends and foes that he is one of the nicest men in Parliament but I think he is singularly unsuited for leading the country. His views on abortion and homosexuality along with his general religious beliefs would make it impossible for me to vote for him. 0 -
Is there any pre-referendum comment for Dan Hannan that has aged well?TheScreamingEagles said:Another pre-referendum comment from Dan Hannan that has not aged well.
0 -
ConHome have published part 2 of their election review.
https://www.conservativehome.com/majority_conservatism/2017/09/our-cchq-election-audit-the-rusty-machine-part-two-how-and-why-the-ground-campaign-failed.html0 -
They do not have those powers.TGOHF said:
The EU and this court appear to have untrammelled powers to deposit refugees into a nation state - you seem unconcerned about this.SouthamObserver said:
No, I am worried about ministers being given untrammelled powers to change laws without parliamentary scrutiny. This is not returning power to the people.TGOHF said:"But EU officials insisted from the start that the scheme was binding on all member states regardless of whether they had voted for it or not. "
"The court's ruling is final and cannot be appealed."
And Southam is worried about Westminster having too much power...
However, under legislation you support UK ministers will have the power to make major changes to UK law without being answerable to Parliament for their decisions. That is not handing control back to the British people, I am afraid.
0 -
Ahem.rottenborough said:
It really has got beyond a joke now. I am flicking though Wilson's autobiography. When you look at the talent and administrative abilities of his Cabinet compared to today's pols - it is very startling.
George Brown.0 -
They have the power to punish non compliant countries - which is staggering IMHO.SouthamObserver said:
They do not have those powers.TGOHF said:
The EU and this court appear to have untrammelled powers to deposit refugees into a nation state - you seem unconcerned about this.SouthamObserver said:
No, I am worried about ministers being given untrammelled powers to change laws without parliamentary scrutiny. This is not returning power to the people.TGOHF said:"But EU officials insisted from the start that the scheme was binding on all member states regardless of whether they had voted for it or not. "
"The court's ruling is final and cannot be appealed."
And Southam is worried about Westminster having too much power...
0 -
These are excellent articles, but largely miss the point. Well, the route cause. Similar ones would have been written about the GE2015 campaign had Ed Miliband made it to No.10.TheScreamingEagles said:ConHome have published part 2 of their election review.
https://www.conservativehome.com/majority_conservatism/2017/09/our-cchq-election-audit-the-rusty-machine-part-two-how-and-why-the-ground-campaign-failed.html
The real issue was that Theresa May was believed to be Boudicca and the massive opinion poll leads as solid as a rock, so CCHQ and the terrible twosome thought they'd just gently waltz to a landslide whilst Corbyn was ripped to shreds by his past record, and so they could do whatever they wanted, however they wanted.
No-one did any real thinking or planning in case those assumptions were incorrect.0 -
MORGAN STANLEY: Theresa May's government will collapse in 2018, triggering a fresh general election
"Next year, however, we think that the government is likely to fall. We expect the EU to offer a choice between a close relationship in which the UK can participate in the single market and customs union but will be bound by the EU rules of the game, and an arm's length relationship in the UK, in which the UK achieves full sovereignty over borders, courts and laws, but does not participate in the single market and the customs union."
"We think this choice splits the Cabinet and the Conservative party and will lead to a loss of a vote of no confidence in parliament, triggering early elections."
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-may-government-to-collapse-in-2018-2017-9/
0 -
"route cause". - Did you mean "rout cause" by any chance?Casino_Royale said:
These are excellent articles, but largely miss the point. Well, the route cause. Similar ones would have been written about the GE2015 campaign had Ed Miliband made it to No.10.TheScreamingEagles said:ConHome have published part 2 of their election review.
https://www.conservativehome.com/majority_conservatism/2017/09/our-cchq-election-audit-the-rusty-machine-part-two-how-and-why-the-ground-campaign-failed.html
The real issue was that Theresa May was believed to be Boudicca and the massive opinion poll leads as solid as a rock, so CCHQ and the terrible twosome thought they'd just gently waltz to a landslide whilst Corbyn was ripped to shreds by his past record, and so they could do whatever they wanted, however they wanted.
No-one did any real thinking or planning in case those assumptions were incorrect.
0 -
They are about 6 months out of date with that level of analysis.logical_song said:MORGAN STANLEY: Theresa May's government will collapse in 2018, triggering a fresh general election
"Next year, however, we think that the government is likely to fall. We expect the EU to offer a choice between a close relationship in which the UK can participate in the single market and customs union but will be bound by the EU rules of the game, and an arm's length relationship in the UK, in which the UK achieves full sovereignty over borders, courts and laws, but does not participate in the single market and the customs union."
"We think this choice splits the Cabinet and the Conservative party and will lead to a loss of a vote of no confidence in parliament, triggering early elections."
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-may-government-to-collapse-in-2018-2017-9/
Its about access to the single market - not membership of it. Same with the customs union.
A Brexit where the government can't control free movement or sign external trade deals isn't happening.
0 -
That is a Monetarist view of the economy to which the Thatcher Government adhered strongly during its first term . However, it repeatedly failed to meet the monetary targets it had set itself and was pretty unclear as to whether its focus should be on the 'Broad' money supply or the 'Narrow' money supply aggregates. When Lawson became Chancellor he adopted a much more pragmatic approach to monitoring money supply data. As for changes in fiscal policy having no relevance here , if VAT is almost doubled as a result of a policy change the headline prices of all the goods & services subject to the tax automatically increase. Thus, when Howe raised VAT from 8% to 15% in June 1979 the RPI shot up - and everybody noticed it. That was inflation caused directly by a discretionary policy change - not by what was happening to monetary aggregates .archer101au said:
Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, not by changes in fiscal policy. If anyone (eg all current Governments) tell you that you can have massive increases in the money supply and low inflation, they are lying to you.justin124 said:
In May 1979 inflation was 9.9%. It rose sharply in Thatcher's early months in office partly - albeit not entirely -due to Geoffrey Howe increasing VAT from 8% to 15% in his first Budget in June that year. This had a knock on effect on Trade Union wage claims. At the same time, nationalised industries were forced by the incoming Government to sharply increase their prices. Thus, much of the surge in inflation in the second half of 1979 was self -inflicted by the Thatcher Government. By Spring 1980 RPI inflation was at 22%.0 -
So when do you think the government will announce that it isn't happening?TGOHF said:A Brexit where the government can't control free movement or sign external trade deals isn't happening.
0 -
It is probably too late now to carry out a new Boundary Review to be implemented in time for an election in 2020. Primary legislation will be needed, and whilst Labour is likely to be supportive the review process normally takes three years.Sandpit said:
As someone who’s been in favour of the reduction to 600 MPs since 2010, I’d say that those two comments are probably the best arguments against it.RobD said:
It also makes some sense, given that MPs are going to be increasing their workload by not handing loads of stuff to Brussels.rottenborough said:
Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!Monksfield said:
This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.NickPalmer said:Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np
Very good news imho.
The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
Maybe a minor boundary change done in anticipation of a 2020 election is now the right way to go.0 -
It already has.williamglenn said:
So when do you think the government will announce that it isn't happening?TGOHF said:A Brexit where the government can't control free movement or sign external trade deals isn't happening.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/14/brexit-david-davis-to-set-out-hoped-for-eu-customs-deal
"The chancellor, Philip Hammond, regarded by Conservative backbenchers as the champion of a “soft Brexit”, has signed up to a joint statement with Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, confirming that Britain would be “outside the customs union” during the post-Brexit transition phase and that at that point it would be “a ‘third country’, not party to the EU treaties”.
Fox was concerned that he would be unable to strike trade deals with countries outside the EU unless it was made clear that Britain did not expect to remain part of the customs union, whose members cannot strike individual trade agreements, and are expected to apply EU tariffs on imports."0 -
That makes some sense as a possible scenario. However, the crucial bit is the suggestion that the EU will offer two options. I don't really see how that would work in practice, given the logjam in EU27 decision making.logical_song said:MORGAN STANLEY: Theresa May's government will collapse in 2018, triggering a fresh general election
"Next year, however, we think that the government is likely to fall. We expect the EU to offer a choice between a close relationship in which the UK can participate in the single market and customs union but will be bound by the EU rules of the game, and an arm's length relationship in the UK, in which the UK achieves full sovereignty over borders, courts and laws, but does not participate in the single market and the customs union."
"We think this choice splits the Cabinet and the Conservative party and will lead to a loss of a vote of no confidence in parliament, triggering early elections."
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-may-government-to-collapse-in-2018-2017-9/
Also, how does it mesh in with their demand for us to agree to give them shedloads of money before they'll discuss anything substantive?0 -
To defend that line he should have abstained from an awful lot of votes which he did not abstain from.PeterC said:As I understad it JRM is faithful to social teaching of Church but does not seek to impose it on wider society. I imagine that is because he does not seek a theocratic state. It is a moderate and defensible position which is shared by many Catholics in public life.
0 -
I always assumed it was "root cause"?geoffw said:
"route cause". - Did you mean "rout cause" by any chance?Casino_Royale said:
These are excellent articles, but largely miss the point. Well, the route cause. Similar ones would have been written about the GE2015 campaign had Ed Miliband made it to No.10.TheScreamingEagles said:ConHome have published part 2 of their election review.
https://www.conservativehome.com/majority_conservatism/2017/09/our-cchq-election-audit-the-rusty-machine-part-two-how-and-why-the-ground-campaign-failed.html
The real issue was that Theresa May was believed to be Boudicca and the massive opinion poll leads as solid as a rock, so CCHQ and the terrible twosome thought they'd just gently waltz to a landslide whilst Corbyn was ripped to shreds by his past record, and so they could do whatever they wanted, however they wanted.
No-one did any real thinking or planning in case those assumptions were incorrect.0 -
And paid for in most of those except Germany by considerably higher unemployment levels especially among the young.RobD said:
Probably not helped by the influx of labour from the EU.Pong said:The IPPR report is sobering.
p15 https://www.ippr.org/files/2017-09/cej-interim-report.pdf
"Between 2007 and 2016, annual real wages grew 10.8 per cent in Germany, 9.5 per cent in France and 6.4 per cent on average across the countries of the OECD. In the UK, however, they fell by 2.6 per cent. Of 35 OECD countries, only in Greece, Mexico and Portugal were 2016 earnings even further behind 2007 than in the UK"0 -
Is this before or after the great Turkey/Christmas referendum? People who write this sort of nonsense really should spend more time on PB.logical_song said:MORGAN STANLEY: Theresa May's government will collapse in 2018, triggering a fresh general election
"Next year, however, we think that the government is likely to fall. We expect the EU to offer a choice between a close relationship in which the UK can participate in the single market and customs union but will be bound by the EU rules of the game, and an arm's length relationship in the UK, in which the UK achieves full sovereignty over borders, courts and laws, but does not participate in the single market and the customs union."
"We think this choice splits the Cabinet and the Conservative party and will lead to a loss of a vote of no confidence in parliament, triggering early elections."
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-may-government-to-collapse-in-2018-2017-9/0 -
It is amazing that you clearly do not understand how it works. You are completely wrong in your claim. Under the 1972 Act it is not necessary, except in very rare cases, for EU directives or decisions to be laid before the House either for debate or scrutiny. Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.SouthamObserver said:
Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.
It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.
For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment.0 -
I was talking to somebody the other day, and they think a 2018 general election is very likely.DavidL said:
Is this before or after the great Turkey/Christmas referendum? People who write this sort of nonsense really should spend more time on PB.logical_song said:MORGAN STANLEY: Theresa May's government will collapse in 2018, triggering a fresh general election
"Next year, however, we think that the government is likely to fall. We expect the EU to offer a choice between a close relationship in which the UK can participate in the single market and customs union but will be bound by the EU rules of the game, and an arm's length relationship in the UK, in which the UK achieves full sovereignty over borders, courts and laws, but does not participate in the single market and the customs union."
"We think this choice splits the Cabinet and the Conservative party and will lead to a loss of a vote of no confidence in parliament, triggering early elections."
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-may-government-to-collapse-in-2018-2017-9/
Mrs May is currently reliant on the DUP for a majority and there's a high chance the solution to the Irish border question will enrage the DUP.
Then you've got to factor in the leadbangers.
0 -
Well, doh!Philip_Thompson said:
I always assumed it was "root cause"?geoffw said:
"route cause". - Did you mean "rout cause" by any chance?Casino_Royale said:
These are excellent articles, but largely miss the point. Well, the route cause. Similar ones would have been written about the GE2015 campaign had Ed Miliband made it to No.10.TheScreamingEagles said:ConHome have published part 2 of their election review.
https://www.conservativehome.com/majority_conservatism/2017/09/our-cchq-election-audit-the-rusty-machine-part-two-how-and-why-the-ground-campaign-failed.html
The real issue was that Theresa May was believed to be Boudicca and the massive opinion poll leads as solid as a rock, so CCHQ and the terrible twosome thought they'd just gently waltz to a landslide whilst Corbyn was ripped to shreds by his past record, and so they could do whatever they wanted, however they wanted.
No-one did any real thinking or planning in case those assumptions were incorrect.
0 -
Unlike Farron, he voted against gay and abortion rights thoughPeterC said:As I understad it JRM is faithful to social teaching of Church but does not seek to impose it on wider society. I imagine that is because he does not seek a theocratic state. It is a moderate and defensible position which is shared by many Catholics in public life.
0 -
So what odds would you offer?TheScreamingEagles said:
I was talking to somebody the other day, and they think a 2018 general election is very likely.DavidL said:
Is this before or after the great Turkey/Christmas referendum? People who write this sort of nonsense really should spend more time on PB.logical_song said:MORGAN STANLEY: Theresa May's government will collapse in 2018, triggering a fresh general election
"Next year, however, we think that the government is likely to fall. We expect the EU to offer a choice between a close relationship in which the UK can participate in the single market and customs union but will be bound by the EU rules of the game, and an arm's length relationship in the UK, in which the UK achieves full sovereignty over borders, courts and laws, but does not participate in the single market and the customs union."
"We think this choice splits the Cabinet and the Conservative party and will lead to a loss of a vote of no confidence in parliament, triggering early elections."
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-may-government-to-collapse-in-2018-2017-9/
Mrs May is currently reliant on the DUP for a majority and there's a high chance the solution to the Irish border question will enrage the DUP.
Then you've got to factor in the leadbangers.0 -
F1: old news but a headline reminded me, Porsche might join F1 as an engine supplier. It'd be a few years down the track, when new regulations come in around 2021.0
-
Do you know how long it takes for search results to get delivered by carrier pigeon?TheScreamingEagles said:twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/905370537580531712
twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/905371147499433984
0 -
Still missing the key point, in 2017 they were peddling a duff product. So much so that for many not bought into the Tory brand, Corbyn's Labour was the safer bet. Tories really need to get their head round that.TheScreamingEagles said:ConHome have published part 2 of their election review.
https://www.conservativehome.com/majority_conservatism/2017/09/our-cchq-election-audit-the-rusty-machine-part-two-how-and-why-the-ground-campaign-failed.html
May an her policy are brilliant recruiting sergeants for her opponents. They thought that sort of thing only worked one way.0 -
That is a fair point but he does not now seek to reverse the status quo. On a concience vote I do not see how an MP can do anything other than follow his conscience. The should be no adverse judgement for this.619 said:
Unlike Farron, he voted against gay and abortion rights thoughPeterC said:As I understad it JRM is faithful to social teaching of Church but does not seek to impose it on wider society. I imagine that is because he does not seek a theocratic state. It is a moderate and defensible position which is shared by many Catholics in public life.
0 -
This thread takes the piss.0
-
The best odds are 11/4 and the worst odds are 9/4, I reckon the worst odds are about right.DavidL said:
So what odds would you offer?TheScreamingEagles said:
I was talking to somebody the other day, and they think a 2018 general election is very likely.DavidL said:
Is this before or after the great Turkey/Christmas referendum? People who write this sort of nonsense really should spend more time on PB.logical_song said:MORGAN STANLEY: Theresa May's government will collapse in 2018, triggering a fresh general election
"Next year, however, we think that the government is likely to fall. We expect the EU to offer a choice between a close relationship in which the UK can participate in the single market and customs union but will be bound by the EU rules of the game, and an arm's length relationship in the UK, in which the UK achieves full sovereignty over borders, courts and laws, but does not participate in the single market and the customs union."
"We think this choice splits the Cabinet and the Conservative party and will lead to a loss of a vote of no confidence in parliament, triggering early elections."
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-may-government-to-collapse-in-2018-2017-9/
Mrs May is currently reliant on the DUP for a majority and there's a high chance the solution to the Irish border question will enrage the DUP.
Then you've got to factor in the leadbangers.
The other factor that might contribute to an early election.
Say Mrs May loses a major Commons vote or two on The 'Great' Repeal Bill, what can she do?
She might decide an early election is an option.
The decision to abandon the pay freeze might be an indicator she's decides to get rid off the barnacles of the boat before an election.0 -
That's not quite right Richard but in some ways it is even worse. Most directives are what are called "framework directives" which Member States are obliged to implement within certain periods, failing which they get taken to the European Court. These framework directives contain minimum standards but allow countries to add to the requirements, protections etc if they are so minded. Legislation based upon the framework is then taken through Parliament in the usual way.Richard_Tyndall said:
It is amazing that you clearly do not understand how it works. You are completely wrong in your claim. Under the 1972 Act it is not necessary, except in very rare cases, for EU directives or decisions to be laid before the House either for debate or scrutiny. Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.SouthamObserver said:
Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.
It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.
For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment.
Once passed the Courts are required to look at the framework directive to "interpret" the UK legislation and ensure Parliament got it right. They are required to construe the legislation in a way that is compatible with the principles and objectives of the directive. This shows vividly how little the views of Parliament on the matters counts. Amendments not compatible with the directive will be interpreted out of existence. It is hardly surprising that Parliament does not waste much time debating them when their views count for so little.0 -
David Davis let slip an interesting comment in the House of Commons yesterday. He said they went along with the EU's sequencing just to get the citizens' rights issue out of the way but now they need to look again.TheScreamingEagles said:Mrs May is currently reliant on the DUP for a majority and there's a high chance the solution to the Irish border question will enrage the DUP.
If the rumours of a walk out are true, perhaps May is planning to avoid enraging the DUP by not resolving the problem and instead trying to whip up a patriotic fervour while playing chicken with the EU.0 -
So very likely is less than 2/1 then? If there is an election in 2018 the Tories will lose. Since they are in a position to prevent it, it will not happen.TheScreamingEagles said:
The best odds are 11/4 and the worst odds are 9/4, I reckon the worst odds are about right.DavidL said:
So what odds would you offer?TheScreamingEagles said:
I was talking to somebody the other day, and they think a 2018 general election is very likely.DavidL said:
Is this before or after the great Turkey/Christmas referendum? People who write this sort of nonsense really should spend more time on PB.logical_song said:MORGAN STANLEY: Theresa May's government will collapse in 2018, triggering a fresh general election
"Next year, however, we think that the government is likely to fall. We expect the EU to offer a choice between a close relationship in which the UK can participate in the single market and customs union but will be bound by the EU rules of the game, and an arm's length relationship in the UK, in which the UK achieves full sovereignty over borders, courts and laws, but does not participate in the single market and the customs union."
"We think this choice splits the Cabinet and the Conservative party and will lead to a loss of a vote of no confidence in parliament, triggering early elections."
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-may-government-to-collapse-in-2018-2017-9/
Mrs May is currently reliant on the DUP for a majority and there's a high chance the solution to the Irish border question will enrage the DUP.
Then you've got to factor in the leadbangers.
The other factor that might contribute to an early election.
Say Mrs May loses a major Commons vote or two on The 'Great' Repeal Bill, what can she do?
She might decide an early election is an option.
The decision to abandon the pay freeze might be an indicator she's decides to get rid off the barnacles of the boat before an election.0 -
I don't have an issue with him following his conscience.PeterC said:
That is a fair point but he does not now seek to reverse the status quo. On a concience vote I do not see how an MP can do anything other than follow his conscience. The should be no adverse judgement for this.619 said:
Unlike Farron, he voted against gay and abortion rights thoughPeterC said:As I understad it JRM is faithful to social teaching of Church but does not seek to impose it on wider society. I imagine that is because he does not seek a theocratic state. It is a moderate and defensible position which is shared by many Catholics in public life.
I have an issue with his conscience.0 -
Ken Clarke the British John McCain.0
-
Likewise. I want a leader whose world view is compatible with mine. It is the best way of ensuring that he or she will move in the direction I want them to. JRM's world view is not.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't have an issue with him following his conscience.PeterC said:
That is a fair point but he does not now seek to reverse the status quo. On a concience vote I do not see how an MP can do anything other than follow his conscience. The should be no adverse judgement for this.619 said:
Unlike Farron, he voted against gay and abortion rights thoughPeterC said:As I understad it JRM is faithful to social teaching of Church but does not seek to impose it on wider society. I imagine that is because he does not seek a theocratic state. It is a moderate and defensible position which is shared by many Catholics in public life.
I have an issue with his conscience.0 -
His world view is in the ascendance though.DavidL said:
Likewise. I want a leader whose world view is compatible with mine. It is the best way of ensuring that he or she will move in the direction I want them to. JRM's world view is not.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't have an issue with him following his conscience.PeterC said:
That is a fair point but he does not now seek to reverse the status quo. On a concience vote I do not see how an MP can do anything other than follow his conscience. The should be no adverse judgement for this.619 said:
Unlike Farron, he voted against gay and abortion rights thoughPeterC said:As I understad it JRM is faithful to social teaching of Church but does not seek to impose it on wider society. I imagine that is because he does not seek a theocratic state. It is a moderate and defensible position which is shared by many Catholics in public life.
I have an issue with his conscience.
Brexit has empowered him and his like.0 -
If you're paid to offer predictions..DavidL said:
Is this before or after the great Turkey/Christmas referendum? People who write this sort of nonsense really should spend more time on PB.logical_song said:MORGAN STANLEY: Theresa May's government will collapse in 2018, triggering a fresh general election
"Next year, however, we think that the government is likely to fall. We expect the EU to offer a choice between a close relationship in which the UK can participate in the single market and customs union but will be bound by the EU rules of the game, and an arm's length relationship in the UK, in which the UK achieves full sovereignty over borders, courts and laws, but does not participate in the single market and the customs union."
"We think this choice splits the Cabinet and the Conservative party and will lead to a loss of a vote of no confidence in parliament, triggering early elections."
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-may-government-to-collapse-in-2018-2017-9/0 -
Still working through the IPPR report. It is surely going to have to figure in PMQs today?0
-
The challenge is recognising the 20 or so irreconcilable hard Brexiters on the one side, and the 20 or so very pro-EU MPs on the other.TheScreamingEagles said:
I was talking to somebody the other day, and they think a 2018 general election is very likely.DavidL said:
Is this before or after the great Turkey/Christmas referendum? People who write this sort of nonsense really should spend more time on PB.logical_song said:MORGAN STANLEY: Theresa May's government will collapse in 2018, triggering a fresh general election
"Next year, however, we think that the government is likely to fall. We expect the EU to offer a choice between a close relationship in which the UK can participate in the single market and customs union but will be bound by the EU rules of the game, and an arm's length relationship in the UK, in which the UK achieves full sovereignty over borders, courts and laws, but does not participate in the single market and the customs union."
"We think this choice splits the Cabinet and the Conservative party and will lead to a loss of a vote of no confidence in parliament, triggering early elections."
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-may-government-to-collapse-in-2018-2017-9/
Mrs May is currently reliant on the DUP for a majority and there's a high chance the solution to the Irish border question will enrage the DUP.
Then you've got to factor in the leadbangers.
Both sit in a party that has no majority.0 -
Bugger. Yes.Philip_Thompson said:
I always assumed it was "root cause"?geoffw said:
"route cause". - Did you mean "rout cause" by any chance?Casino_Royale said:
These are excellent articles, but largely miss the point. Well, the route cause. Similar ones would have been written about the GE2015 campaign had Ed Miliband made it to No.10.TheScreamingEagles said:ConHome have published part 2 of their election review.
https://www.conservativehome.com/majority_conservatism/2017/09/our-cchq-election-audit-the-rusty-machine-part-two-how-and-why-the-ground-campaign-failed.html
The real issue was that Theresa May was believed to be Boudicca and the massive opinion poll leads as solid as a rock, so CCHQ and the terrible twosome thought they'd just gently waltz to a landslide whilst Corbyn was ripped to shreds by his past record, and so they could do whatever they wanted, however they wanted.
No-one did any real thinking or planning in case those assumptions were incorrect.0 -
Putting yourself in a position to be blackmailed - a la Stonehouse.tlg86 said:How would enjoying water sports be considered a "high crime against America"?
0 -
"No deal" (in and of itself) wouldn't lead the Government to fall.DavidL said:
So very likely is less than 2/1 then? If there is an election in 2018 the Tories will lose. Since they are in a position to prevent it, it will not happen.TheScreamingEagles said:
The best odds are 11/4 and the worst odds are 9/4, I reckon the worst odds are about right.DavidL said:
So what odds would you offer?TheScreamingEagles said:
I was talking to somebody the other day, and they think a 2018 general election is very likely.DavidL said:
Is this before or after the great Turkey/Christmas referendum? People who write this sort of nonsense really should spend more time on PB.logical_song said:MORGAN STANLEY: Theresa May's government will collapse in 2018, triggering a fresh general election
"Next year, however, we think that the government is likely to fall. We expect the EU to offer a choice between a close relationship in which the UK can participate in the single market and customs union but will be bound by the EU rules of the game, and an arm's length relationship in the UK, in which the UK achieves full sovereignty over borders, courts and laws, but does not participate in the single market and the customs union."
"We think this choice splits the Cabinet and the Conservative party and will lead to a loss of a vote of no confidence in parliament, triggering early elections."
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-may-government-to-collapse-in-2018-2017-9/
Mrs May is currently reliant on the DUP for a majority and there's a high chance the solution to the Irish border question will enrage the DUP.
Then you've got to factor in the leadbangers.
The other factor that might contribute to an early election.
Say Mrs May loses a major Commons vote or two on The 'Great' Repeal Bill, what can she do?
She might decide an early election is an option.
The decision to abandon the pay freeze might be an indicator she's decides to get rid off the barnacles of the boat before an election.
The consequences and aftermath might.0 -
Would you prefer it if parliament had debated the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?Richard_Tyndall said:
It is amazing that you clearly do not understand how it works. You are completely wrong in your claim. Under the 1972 Act it is not necessary, except in very rare cases, for EU directives or decisions to be laid before the House either for debate or scrutiny. Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.SouthamObserver said:
Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.
It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.
For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment.
Dolt.0 -
John McCain is the US Ken Clarke.Jonathan said:Ken Clarke the British John McCain.
0 -
Ken Clarke is rather less keen on bombing people.David_Evershed said:
John McCain is the US Ken Clarke.Jonathan said:Ken Clarke the British John McCain.
0 -
He's only in a position to be blackmailed if it remains a secret though.David_Evershed said:
Putting yourself in a position to be blackmailed - a la Stonehouse.tlg86 said:How would enjoying water sports be considered a "high crime against America"?
If someone attempts to blackmail him, he rejects them, so they release it out of revenge then he is in the clear. He can't be blackmailed since it's public now and did no wrong.0 -
Buckingham Palace used to have a pre-recorded voicemail which said: "you have called Buckingham Palace; if you have been given this number thinking it is any other institution please hang up."TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
The Church would probably benefit individually from disestablishment but society would be damaged.Philip_Thompson said:
Then their sacred space should not be established as part of the state. Problem solved.Charles said:
Absolutely disagree.david_herdson said:
Not when it's the state religion. But then that's just another (and good) argument for disestablishment.Charles said:
We were having dinner at the much lamented Sambucco so this must have been around 2000. All part of a transition - although I think theChurch should have the right to choose who they marry in their own buildings619 said:
C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!Charles said:
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.Sandpit said:
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
The state part of a church wedding is when you sign the register. If people want to go into a back room rather than a registry office, hire a registrar and sign the book there they can, I suppose, but they shouldnt be able to require a religion to conduct a service in their sacred space
I don't see the great harm that is being done that requires overthrowing a centuries old arrangement that, broadly speaking, works for everyone0 -
-
Her Majesty has a personal mobile phone I believe, I wonder if she ever gets cold-called?TOPPING said:
Buckingham Palace used to have a pre-recorded voicemail which said: "you have called Buckingham Palace; if you have been given this number thinking it is any other institution please hang up."TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Good old George. She really shouldn't have needlessly humiliated him.0
-
Leadbangers - so much more hardcore than headbangers.TheScreamingEagles said:
I was talking to somebody the other day, and they think a 2018 general election is very likely.DavidL said:
Is this before or after the great Turkey/Christmas referendum? People who write this sort of nonsense really should spend more time on PB.logical_song said:MORGAN STANLEY: Theresa May's government will collapse in 2018, triggering a fresh general election
"Next year, however, we think that the government is likely to fall. We expect the EU to offer a choice between a close relationship in which the UK can participate in the single market and customs union but will be bound by the EU rules of the game, and an arm's length relationship in the UK, in which the UK achieves full sovereignty over borders, courts and laws, but does not participate in the single market and the customs union."
"We think this choice splits the Cabinet and the Conservative party and will lead to a loss of a vote of no confidence in parliament, triggering early elections."
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-may-government-to-collapse-in-2018-2017-9/
Mrs May is currently reliant on the DUP for a majority and there's a high chance the solution to the Irish border question will enrage the DUP.
Then you've got to factor in the leadbangers.
0 -
He backed bombing Afghanistan, Libya and Syriawilliamglenn said:
Ken Clarke is rather less keen on bombing people.David_Evershed said:
John McCain is the US Ken Clarke.Jonathan said:Ken Clarke the British John McCain.
0 -
If I may be so bold, that was the grand planfoxinsoxuk said:
I see that now. My opinions have changed.DavidL said:
I disagree. Gay marriage was recognition that gays are equal in our society and don't need some special status. That was and is important.Ishmael_Z said:
That is wonderful, but unless you had control samples of non-wedded civil partners, and not even civil partners couples, it tells us nothing.foxinsoxuk said:
A few years ago, I said the same here. Why have gay marriage when there is already civil partnership? I have never had objection on religious grounds as an active Christian. I was wrong though.Sandpit said:
I have since seen the pleasure and joy of several friends who are now in same sex marriages, and the sense of equality that it brings. I am now a convert to the cause, and indeed Mrs Fox and I will shortly be acting as parents of the bride in a same sex marriage, in loco parentis. They make a lovely couple.
the heavy lifting was done by three Acts; 1957, 2001 (age of consent) 2005 (civil partnerships): all life-changing laws. The marriage thing adds nothing to the mix other than general heartwarming loveliness; it is whiskers on kittens gesture legislation. It was inevitable sooner or later to prevent the UK from being a standout from other countries, but Cameron could have safely left it for the next non-tory government which would as a matter of certainty have enacted it, and we would now be in the EU. It is impossible to see it as a price worth paying.
People forget how controversial and divisive a subject gay marriage was in the late 90s. Civil partnership gave them the full practical benefits, if not the emotional satisfaction, but with the progression of time full gay marriage became almost a formality to introduce.
Progressive conservatism in the best Whig tradition
0 -
There will be no general election until Brexit talks are complete in 2019 and the DUP knew the position when they committed to confidence and supply and will want to stay powerbrokers and avoid an electionTheScreamingEagles said:
I was talking to somebody the other day, and they think a 2018 general election is very likely.DavidL said:
Is this before or after the great Turkey/Christmas referendum? People who write this sort of nonsense really should spend more time on PB.logical_song said:MORGAN STANLEY: Theresa May's government will collapse in 2018, triggering a fresh general election
"Next year, however, we think that the government is likely to fall. We expect the EU to offer a choice between a close relationship in which the UK can participate in the single market and customs union but will be bound by the EU rules of the game, and an arm's length relationship in the UK, in which the UK achieves full sovereignty over borders, courts and laws, but does not participate in the single market and the customs union."
"We think this choice splits the Cabinet and the Conservative party and will lead to a loss of a vote of no confidence in parliament, triggering early elections."
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-may-government-to-collapse-in-2018-2017-9/
Mrs May is currently reliant on the DUP for a majority and there's a high chance the solution to the Irish border question will enrage the DUP.
Then you've got to factor in the leadbangers.0 -
Woops.0
-
TBF the contrast between a provincial solicitor and a DJ might lead to some amusement even today!DavidL said:
I think nearly all our views have changed on this over the last 40 years if we are honest with ourselves. When I started work one of the partners in the firm was in a gay relationship with a local DJ. For reasons that completely escape me now that was a source of almost unending hilarity amongst us junior staff.foxinsoxuk said:
I see that now. My opinions have changed.DavidL said:
I disagree. Gay marriage was recognition that gays are equal in our society and don't need some special status. That was and is important.Ishmael_Z said:
That is wonderful, but unless you had control samples of non-wedded civil partners, and not even civil partners couples, it tells us nothing.foxinsoxuk said:
A few years ago, I said the same here. Why have gay marriage when there is already civil partnership? I have never had objection on religious grounds as an active Christian. I was wrong though.Sandpit said:
I have since seen the pleasure and joy of several friends who are now in same sex marriages, and the sense of equality that it brings. I am now a convert to the cause, and indeed Mrs Fox and I will shortly be acting as parents of the bride in a same sex marriage, in loco parentis. They make a lovely couple.
the heavy lifting was done by three Acts; 1957, 2001 (age of consent) 2005 (civil partnerships): all life-changing laws. The marriage thing adds nothing to the mix other than general heartwarming loveliness; it is whiskers on kittens gesture legislation. It was inevitable sooner or later to prevent the UK from being a standout from other countries, but Cameron could have safely left it for the next non-tory government which would as a matter of certainty have enacted it, and we would now be in the EU. It is impossible to see it as a price worth paying.0 -
I don't think Rees-Mogg has appeared quite as often on Russia Today as Nigel Farage, who holds the record among party leaders and former party leaders in that field. And In 2015 he called for "forcing" a stop to Putin's "advance".TheScreamingEagles said:
https://twitter.com/milo1234/status/905010422054617088Casino_Royale said:
JRM has nothing to do with Russia.SouthamObserver said:Jacob Rees Mogg seems to be the latest project.
That said, Somerset Asset Management's emerging markets fund does keep a small presence in Russia.
Mogg got blocked from the Treasury select committee job. Perhaps his future isn't as bright as I thought.
0 -
Two can play that game, I don't see the great harm that would be done to society.Charles said:
The Church would probably benefit individually from disestablishment but society would be damaged.Philip_Thompson said:
Then their sacred space should not be established as part of the state. Problem solved.Charles said:
Absolutely disagree.david_herdson said:
Not when it's the state religion. But then that's just another (and good) argument for disestablishment.Charles said:
We were having dinner at the much lamented Sambucco so this must have been around 2000. All part of a transition - although I think theChurch should have the right to choose who they marry in their own buildings619 said:
C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!Charles said:
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.Sandpit said:
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
The state part of a church wedding is when you sign the register. If people want to go into a back room rather than a registry office, hire a registrar and sign the book there they can, I suppose, but they shouldnt be able to require a religion to conduct a service in their sacred space
I don't see the great harm that is being done that requires overthrowing a centuries old arrangement that, broadly speaking, works for everyone0 -
Listen twat I was just correcting Southam on his claim that all Directives are scrutinised and debated by the House. They are not.TOPPING said:
Would you prefer it if parliament had debated the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?Richard_Tyndall said:
It is amazing that you clearly do not understand how it works. You are completely wrong in your claim. Under the 1972 Act it is not necessary, except in very rare cases, for EU directives or decisions to be laid before the House either for debate or scrutiny. Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.SouthamObserver said:
Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.
It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.
For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment.
Dolt.
And yes, I want all our laws to be scrutinised by our MPs. That is the whole point. Of course since you don't like democracy you would rather have rule by technocrats and elites. That is why you like the EU so much. To my mind that makes you a f*ckwit of the first order.0 -
The biggest problems with the current boundary review arejustin124 said:
It is probably too late now to carry out a new Boundary Review to be implemented in time for an election in 2020. Primary legislation will be needed, and whilst Labour is likely to be supportive the review process normally takes three years.Sandpit said:
As someone who’s been in favour of the reduction to 600 MPs since 2010, I’d say that those two comments are probably the best arguments against it.RobD said:
It also makes some sense, given that MPs are going to be increasing their workload by not handing loads of stuff to Brussels.rottenborough said:
Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!Monksfield said:
This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.NickPalmer said:Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np
Very good news imho.
The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
Maybe a minor boundary change done in anticipation of a 2020 election is now the right way to go.
1. Tightening the electorate criteria to plus or minus 5% of target instead of plus or minus 10%
2. Preventing constituency boundaries from crossing EU region election boundaries.
In combination these cause a complete and unnecesary upheaval of Home County constituencies which have growing populations and otherwise would remain largely unchanged.
0 -
it is a bit incredible that anyone could so confidently state that low inflation and massive increase in money supply is impossible.justin124 said:
That is a Monetarist view of the economy to which the Thatcher Government adhered strongly during its first term . However, it repeatedly failed to meet the monetary targets it had set itself and was pretty unclear as to whether its focus should be on the 'Broad' money supply or the 'Narrow' money supply aggregates. When Lawson became Chancellor he adopted a much more pragmatic approach to monitoring money supply data. As for changes in fiscal policy having no relevance here , if VAT is almost doubled as a result of a policy change the headline prices of all the goods & services subject to the tax automatically increase. Thus, when Howe raised VAT from 8% to 15% in June 1979 the RPI shot up - and everybody noticed it. That was inflation caused directly by a discretionary policy change - not by what was happening to monetary aggregates .archer101au said:
Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, not by changes in fiscal policy. If anyone (eg all current Governments) tell you that you can have massive increases in the money supply and low inflation, they are lying to you.justin124 said:
In May 1979 inflation was 9.9%. It rose sharply in Thatcher's early months in office partly - albeit not entirely -due to Geoffrey Howe increasing VAT from 8% to 15% in his first Budget in June that year. This had a knock on effect on Trade Union wage claims. At the same time, nationalised industries were forced by the incoming Government to sharply increase their prices. Thus, much of the surge in inflation in the second half of 1979 was self -inflicted by the Thatcher Government. By Spring 1980 RPI inflation was at 22%.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2013/04/11/monetary-policy-in-a-liquidity-trap/?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/
0 -
So answer the question brain box.Richard_Tyndall said:
Listen twat I was just correcting Southam on his claim that all Directives are scrutinised and debated by the House. They are not.TOPPING said:
Would you prefer it if parliament had debated the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?Richard_Tyndall said:
It is amazing that you clearly do not understand how it works. You are completely wrong in your claim. Under the 1972 Act it is not necessary, except in very rare cases, for EU directives or decisions to be laid before the House either for debate or scrutiny. Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.SouthamObserver said:
Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.
It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.
For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment.
Dolt.
And yes, I want all our laws to be scrutinised by our MPs. That is the whole point. Of course since you don't like democracy you would rather have rule by technocrats and elites. That is why you like the EU so much. To my mind that makes you a f*ckwit of the first order.0 -
PMQs is dire all around.0
-
Most Directives - in fact almost all of them - go into law via what is known as a Negative Statutory Instrument (as opposed to an Affirmative SI). That means that Parliament does not debate it unless they specifically ask to and even then can do nothing to change it.DavidL said:
That's not quite right Richard but in some ways it is even worse. Most directives are what are called "framework directives" which Member States are obliged to implement within certain periods, failing which they get taken to the European Court. These framework directives contain minimum standards but allow countries to add to the requirements, protections etc if they are so minded. Legislation based upon the framework is then taken through Parliament in the usual way.Richard_Tyndall said:
It is amazing that you clearly do not understand how it works. You are completely wrong in your claim. Under the 1972 Act it is not necessary, except in very rare cases, for EU directives or decisions to be laid before the House either for debate or scrutiny. Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.SouthamObserver said:
Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.
It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.
For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment.
Once passed the Courts are required to look at the framework directive to "interpret" the UK legislation and ensure Parliament got it right. They are required to construe the legislation in a way that is compatible with the principles and objectives of the directive. This shows vividly how little the views of Parliament on the matters counts. Amendments not compatible with the directive will be interpreted out of existence. It is hardly surprising that Parliament does not waste much time debating them when their views count for so little.0 -
AgreedSlackbladder said:PMQs is dire all around.
0 -
I did. But as usual you are just too dumb to understand.TOPPING said:
So answer the question brain box.Richard_Tyndall said:
Listen twat I was just correcting Southam on his claim that all Directives are scrutinised and debated by the House. They are not.TOPPING said:
Would you prefer it if parliament had debated the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?Richard_Tyndall said:
It is amazing that you clearly do not understand how it works. You are completely wrong in your claim. Under the 1972 Act it is not necessary, except in very rare cases, for EU directives or decisions to be laid before the House either for debate or scrutiny. Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.SouthamObserver said:
Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.
It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.
For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment.
Dolt.
And yes, I want all our laws to be scrutinised by our MPs. That is the whole point. Of course since you don't like democracy you would rather have rule by technocrats and elites. That is why you like the EU so much. To my mind that makes you a f*ckwit of the first order.0 -
The fastest growth in the Anglican Church is in Africa even as it declines in strength in the UK, I agree disestablishment would boost the ChurchCharles said:
The Church would probably benefit individually from disestablishment but society would be damaged.Philip_Thompson said:
Then their sacred space should not be established as part of the state. Problem solved.Charles said:
Absolutely disagree.david_herdson said:
Not when it's the state religion. But then that's just another (and good) argument for disestablishment.Charles said:
We were having dinner at the much lamented Sambucco so this must have been around 2000. All part of a transition - although I think theChurch should have the right to choose who they marry in their own buildings619 said:
C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!Charles said:
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.Sandpit said:
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
The state part of a church wedding is when you sign the register. If people want to go into a back room rather than a registry office, hire a registrar and sign the book there they can, I suppose, but they shouldnt be able to require a religion to conduct a service in their sacred space
I don't see the great harm that is being done that requires overthrowing a centuries old arrangement that, broadly speaking, works for everyone0 -
Handbags on standby 0
-
A privatisation opportunity missed. 45 years ago, whilst playing Monopoly in the Summer Holidays we regularly privatised the Bank with the proceeds being shared amongst the other players. Nigel Lawson eat your heart out!TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Oh dear Fox: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/411189270
-
There's a lot of assertions there. In what way does it work for me (I don't accept the privileged position the CofE has in education - there are good church schools and bad church schools and in general, the quality has little to do with the church).Charles said:
The Church would probably benefit individually from disestablishment but society would be damaged.Philip_Thompson said:
Then their sacred space should not be established as part of the state. Problem solved.Charles said:
Absolutely disagree.david_herdson said:
Not when it's the state religion. But then that's just another (and good) argument for disestablishment.Charles said:
We were having dinner at the much lamented Sambucco so this must have been around 2000. All part of a transition - although I think theChurch should have the right to choose who they marry in their own buildings619 said:
C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!Charles said:
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.Sandpit said:
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
The state part of a church wedding is when you sign the register. If people want to go into a back room rather than a registry office, hire a registrar and sign the book there they can, I suppose, but they shouldnt be able to require a religion to conduct a service in their sacred space
I don't see the great harm that is being done that requires overthrowing a centuries old arrangement that, broadly speaking, works for everyone
FWIW, I think a lot of the CofE's temporising stems from this sense of trying to be the nation at prayer and, as such, trying to accommodate all conflicting views. Freeing it from that mission and, hence, enabling to regain a set of core beliefs that it could promote and evangelise about might do it the world of good.
In theory, I'm a lapsed Anglican and I guess when I was young I did believe. I'd rather be a lapsed Catholic. It least then I'd have an idea of what I'd lapsed from.0 -
Spell it out for me.Richard_Tyndall said:
I did. But as usual you are just too dumb to understand.TOPPING said:
So answer the question brain box.Richard_Tyndall said:
Listen twat I was just correcting Southam on his claim that all Directives are scrutinised and debated by the House. They are not.TOPPING said:
Would you prefer it if parliament had debated the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?Richard_Tyndall said:
It is amazing that you clearly do not understand how it works. You are completely wrong in your claim. Under the 1972 Act it is not necessary, except in very rare cases, for EU directives or decisions to be laid before the House either for debate or scrutiny. Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.SouthamObserver said:
Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.
It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.
For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment.
Dolt.
And yes, I want all our laws to be scrutinised by our MPs. That is the whole point. Of course since you don't like democracy you would rather have rule by technocrats and elites. That is why you like the EU so much. To my mind that makes you a f*ckwit of the first order.
Would you have liked Parliamentary time to have been allocated to debating the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?
Edit while you're googling: you utter, utter tosser0 -
If you are proposing radical change it's for you to make the casePhilip_Thompson said:
Two can play that game, I don't see the great harm that would be done to society.Charles said:
The Church would probably benefit individually from disestablishment but society would be damaged.Philip_Thompson said:
Then their sacred space should not be established as part of the state. Problem solved.Charles said:
Absolutely disagree.david_herdson said:
Not when it's the state religion. But then that's just another (and good) argument for disestablishment.Charles said:
We were having dinner at the much lamented Sambucco so this must have been around 2000. All part of a transition - although I think theChurch should have the right to choose who they marry in their own buildings619 said:
C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!Charles said:
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.Sandpit said:
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
The state part of a church wedding is when you sign the register. If people want to go into a back room rather than a registry office, hire a registrar and sign the book there they can, I suppose, but they shouldnt be able to require a religion to conduct a service in their sacred space
I don't see the great harm that is being done that requires overthrowing a centuries old arrangement that, broadly speaking, works for everyone0 -
If you are proposing radical change it's up to you to make the casePhilip_Thompson said:
Two can play that game, I don't see the great harm that would be done to society.Charles said:
The Church would probably benefit individually from disestablishment but society would be damaged.Philip_Thompson said:
Then their sacred space should not be established as part of the state. Problem solved.Charles said:
Absolutely disagree.david_herdson said:
Not when it's the state religion. But then that's just another (and good) argument for disestablishment.Charles said:
We were having dinner at the much lamented Sambucco so this must have been around 2000. All part of a transition - although I think theChurch should have the right to choose who they marry in their own buildings619 said:
C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!Charles said:
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.Sandpit said:
Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
The state part of a church wedding is when you sign the register. If people want to go into a back room rather than a registry office, hire a registrar and sign the book there they can, I suppose, but they shouldnt be able to require a religion to conduct a service in their sacred space
I don't see the great harm that is being done that requires overthrowing a centuries old arrangement that, broadly speaking, works for everyone0 -
You're shifting the goal posts. You claimed that society would be damaged if the Church was disestablished and in the next sentence spoke about "great harm". I didn't say there was a great case one way or another but I'd be curious what "great harm" or "damage" society would suffer in your eyes.Charles said:
If you are proposing radical change it's for you to make the casePhilip_Thompson said:
Two can play that game, I don't see the great harm that would be done to society.Charles said:
The Church would probably benefit individually from disestablishment but society would be damaged.Philip_Thompson said:
Then their sacred space should not be established as part of the state. Problem solved.Charles said:
Absolutely disagree.david_herdson said:
Not when it's the state religion. But then that's just another (and good) argument for disestablishment.Charles said:
We were having dinner at the much lamented Sambucco so this must have been around 2000. All part of a transition - although I think theChurch should have the right to choose who they marry in their own buildings619 said:
C of E are ok with gay marriage now though as well!Charles said:
That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.Sandpit said:
I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
The state part of a church wedding is when you sign the register. If people want to go into a back room rather than a registry office, hire a registrar and sign the book there they can, I suppose, but they shouldnt be able to require a religion to conduct a service in their sacred space
I don't see the great harm that is being done that requires overthrowing a centuries old arrangement that, broadly speaking, works for everyone0 -
What is the badge some MP's are wearing0
-
I think they're wrong and misunderstand (1) the depth of conviction about staying in the SM among cabinet ministers. I'd expect nearly, if not all, to be able to sign up to an arms-length relationship, not least because it's the current policy. But more importantly, (2) the end-date to the negotiations. The EU would like it all done and dusted by October 2018. In reality, it's likely to push on beyond that, because that is the nature of these sort of talks, particularly when there's scope to do so. Even if talks did collapse in Oct 2018, it'd still be unlikely to lead to an election because you'd still need some Tory MPs or the DUP to bring that about, and the probability is that neither will have an interest in doing so.logical_song said:MORGAN STANLEY: Theresa May's government will collapse in 2018, triggering a fresh general election
"Next year, however, we think that the government is likely to fall. We expect the EU to offer a choice between a close relationship in which the UK can participate in the single market and customs union but will be bound by the EU rules of the game, and an arm's length relationship in the UK, in which the UK achieves full sovereignty over borders, courts and laws, but does not participate in the single market and the customs union."
"We think this choice splits the Cabinet and the Conservative party and will lead to a loss of a vote of no confidence in parliament, triggering early elections."
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-may-government-to-collapse-in-2018-2017-9/0 -
Oh calm down the pair of you. For goodness sake.TOPPING said:
Spell it out for me.Richard_Tyndall said:
I did. But as usual you are just too dumb to understand.TOPPING said:
So answer the question brain box.Richard_Tyndall said:
Listen twat I was just correcting Southam on his claim that all Directives are scrutinised and debated by the House. They are not.TOPPING said:
Would you prefer it if parliament had debated the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?Richard_Tyndall said:
It is amazing that you clearly do not understand how it works. You are completely wrong in your claim. Under the 1972 Act it is not necessary, except in very rare cases, for EU directives or decisions to be laid before the House either for debate or scrutiny. Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.SouthamObserver said:
Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.
It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.
For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment.
Dolt.
And yes, I want all our laws to be scrutinised by our MPs. That is the whole point. Of course since you don't like democracy you would rather have rule by technocrats and elites. That is why you like the EU so much. To my mind that makes you a f*ckwit of the first order.
Would you have liked Parliamentary time to have been allocated to debating the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?
Edit while you're googling: you utter, utter tosser0 -
Thanks Dad we're fine.DavidL said:
Oh calm down the pair of you. For goodness sake.TOPPING said:
Spell it out for me.Richard_Tyndall said:
I did. But as usual you are just too dumb to understand.TOPPING said:
So answer the question brain box.Richard_Tyndall said:
Listen twat I was just correcting Southam on his claim that all Directives are scrutinised and debated by the House. They are not.TOPPING said:
Would you prefer it if parliament had debated the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?Richard_Tyndall said:
It is amazing that you clearly do not understand how it works. You are completely wrong in your claim. Under the 1972 Act it is not necessary, except in very rare cases, for EU directives or decisions to be laid before the House either for debate or scrutiny. Almost all Directives pass into UK law by Statutory Instrument or by Order. Neither of these are debated and as has already been pointed out no Directive can be either amended nor refused.SouthamObserver said:
Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.
It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.
For Regulations it is even worse with EU Regulations having legal effect in the UK without any enactment.
Dolt.
And yes, I want all our laws to be scrutinised by our MPs. That is the whole point. Of course since you don't like democracy you would rather have rule by technocrats and elites. That is why you like the EU so much. To my mind that makes you a f*ckwit of the first order.
Would you have liked Parliamentary time to have been allocated to debating the double volume cap for non-displayed liquidity?
Edit while you're googling: you utter, utter tosser0
