politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s Ipsos MORI satisfaction ratings drop to lowest point
Options
Comments
-
He must have had a REALLY strange stance in that photo for them to have to crop it so aggressively.....Scott_P said:0 -
Do they live in Cockermouth ?ydoethur said:
Oh dear oh dear.Big_G_NorthWales said:
His partner is Isabel Hardman who is very outspoken about her own depressionCyclefree said:
Well, my husband who lives in the adjoining constituency just said this about Mr W: "A wiffly sort of character. Neither now't nor summat."AlastairMeeks said:Here's a story.
https://twitter.com/HuffPostUK/status/991014797419347968
Apparently he left his wife for a girlfriend. A period of illness may also have been involved.
OTOH my husband can be a bit vague about gossip. He once came back from a drink with a friend saying that nothing much had happened in his family. It turned out that said friend, who came from a large Irish Catholic family, had a sister who had come out as gay, set up home with a teacher at her school (she was also a teacher) and they had adopted a child, the family's first grandchild, which had made the grandparents overwhelmed with delight since all the boys in the family had failed to reproduce.
What an unfortunate combination of names...0 -
When I was a student around 1960 at one of the old Techs we had an engineering department which offered degrees and HND's in Civil, Mechanical, Electrical and Marine Engineering.There were about 500-600 students in all, and in my last year ...... big shock......one of them was female.JosiasJessop said:
But the problem is that historically many jobs have been considered in the same class and gender, and even race or creed. There were jobs suitable for women, and jobs suitable for men - a distinction that is harmful to both. Likewise, it would have been unlikely for an Edwardian ruffian to go into banking.Jonathan said:
Diversity in politics and connecting across barriers is a good thing, but I would be sad if role models had to be the same nationality, class, gender, race or creed as the person inspired by them. Personally it's what people do that matters most.JosiasJessop said:
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.Jonathan said:
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.JosiasJessop said:That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is to give young girls looking at careers role models, to see that it is possible to be female and an engineer. That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might well be some young Asian boys and girls out there who feel disconnected with politics and feel that the colour of their skin might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Too many companies and organisation play lip service to such considerations, even nowadays. It's important for young kids in particular to see such barriers being broken. You can be a successful female engineer. You can be a male child-carer. You can be an Asian home secretary, etc, etc.
Now I gather a student body like that would have 75-90 girls.0 -
Originally treaty ratification was purely by the executive under Royal Prerogative but from the 1920s the "Ponsonby Rule" was adopted whereby treaties would be laid before Parliament 21 days before ratification which gives Parliament the opportunity to object to ratification, and in 2010 this rule was given statutory effect.PeterC said:
Is it not the case that treaties are made by the Executive but require legislation to ratify them before coming into force? But such legislation cannot be amended because a treaty involves an independent third party - in this case the EU. What the HoL is trying to do is in violation of this.ydoethur said:The other point to consider is that the Lords have proposed quite a radical constitutional departure here. Traditionally international treaties have always been Royal Prerogative, I.e. powers reserved to the executive. There are a number of good reasons for that starting with the fact that until less than a hundred years ago it was difficult for plenipotentiaries to check back before signing a treaty, so they had to make up their own minds.
Now, the Lords (following the Law Lords' views and indeed the views of some ministers) are offering Parliament veto on these treaties. That's quite a change.
It may be a needed change, even a desirable one from many points of view. But I wonder if this ad hoc way of doing it is the best one. (Admittedly it's the way we've made up most of our constitution.)
Sometimes a treaty requires the UK to adopt specified legislation, e.g. to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty the UK had to legislate to make causing nuclear explosions a crime. Sometimes legislation is practically required for things like authorizing expenditure to comply with a treaty. Parliament could amend or reject any such legislation, and if the government could not come up with any workarounds, I imagine it would have to notify the other parties that it is unable to comply with the treaty or seek a revision to it.
In the US, as a 2/3 supermajority of the Senate is required to ratify treaties, it's not unheard of for the US government to sign a treaty but not seek Senatorial ratification if they think that's unachievable, instead they inform the other parties that they will abide by the treaty's principles as closely as they legally can. I think the aforementioned Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is an example.0 -
Only a cover...MarqueeMark said:
Oh, let them have their moment - there's not been many occasions in recent years for the LibDems to get excited. 2010 in the rose garden with Cameron? Anything more recent?HYUFD said:Before the LDs get too excited remember they got 13% in the local elections in 2014 when the wards up on Thursday were last contested
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vXPMm-qLarw0 -
It is for the purposes of breaking down walls. After all, most HS's are seen as 'failures' by their political rivals ...Jonathan said:
They are not mutually exclusive.JosiasJessop said:
That's a very different and subjective question. But the point a young kid with ambition will see is that he or she could make it into such a position, and it will then be up to them to do well or poorly. But at least they know they *could* make it.Jonathan said:
But can you be a good, successful home secretary?JosiasJessop said:
But the problem is that historically many jobs have been considered in the same class and gender, and even race or creed. There were jobs suitable for women, and jobs suitable for men - a distinction that is harmful to both. Likewise, it would have been unlikely for an Edwardian ruffian to go into banking.Jonathan said:
Diversity in politics and connecting across barriers is a good thing, but I would be sad if role models had to be the same nationality, class, gender, race or creed as the person inspired by them. Personally it's what people do that matters most.JosiasJessop said:
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.Jonathan said:
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.JosiasJessop said:That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Too many companies and organisation play lip service to such considerations, even nowadays. It's important for young kids in particular to see such barriers being broken. You can be a successful female engineer. You can be a male child-carer. You can be an Asian home secretary, etc, etc.
This really matters, and is something I care a fair bit about. We cannot be the best country we can be if we put artificial barriers up to stop people fulfilling their potential. It's bad for them and it;s bad for all of us.0 -
-
Re Labour sexual misconduct allegations
Has plod got round to investigating the Bex Bailey allegations of six months ago yet ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
0 -
When I started my Geo eng degree (which I did not complete) in 1991, there were two girls in about thirty or forty. That's wrong. Although the ratio of female lecturers was probably much higher.OldKingCole said:
When I was a student around 1960 at one of the old Techs we had an engineering department which offered degrees and HND's in Civil, Mechanical, Electrical and Marine Engineering.There were about 500-600 students in all, and in my last year ...... big shock......one of them was female.JosiasJessop said:
But the problem is that historically many jobs have been considered in the same class and gender, and even race or creed. There were jobs suitable for women, and jobs suitable for men - a distinction that is harmful to both. Likewise, it would have been unlikely for an Edwardian ruffian to go into banking.Jonathan said:
Diversity in politics and connecting across barriers is a good thing, but I would be sad if role models had to be the same nationality, class, gender, race or creed as the person inspired by them. Personally it's what people do that matters most.JosiasJessop said:
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.Jonathan said:
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.JosiasJessop said:That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is to give young girls looking at careers role models, to see that it is possible to be female and an engineer. That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might well be some young Asian boys and girls out there who feel disconnected with politics and feel that the colour of their skin might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Too many companies and organisation play lip service to such considerations, even nowadays. It's important for young kids in particular to see such barriers being broken. You can be a successful female engineer. You can be a male child-carer. You can be an Asian home secretary, etc, etc.
Now I gather a student body like that would have 75-90 girls.0 -
I think we know where it started. It is the Blackadder Actors stance:MarqueeMark said:
He must have had a REALLY strange stance in that photo for them to have to crop it so aggressively.....Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Barkercartoons/status/990913900039299072?s=190 -
Constitutional vandalism? Calling for the abolition of the unelected HoL and replacing it with an elected (or at least partly elected) second chamber?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible. I see the Leavers are now resorting to constitutional vandalism to protect their Brexit hobbyhorse. Is there anything they won't throw to the flames to keep this thing limping along?
I'm sure you'd find people from all sides of the political debate including passionate Remainers, who thin it's time we had an elected (or part elected) second chamber.
That's why if it went to a referendum I suspect you'd be talking a majority of 70%+ in favour of abolition and an elected HoL.0 -
Abolition and Unicameralism for me.GIN1138 said:
Constitutional vandalism? Calling for the abolition of the unelected HoL and replacing it with an elected (or at least partly elected) second chamber?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible. I see the Leavers are now resorting to constitutional vandalism to protect their Brexit hobbyhorse. Is there anything they won't throw to the flames to keep this thing limping along?
I'm sure you'd find people from all sides of the political debate including passionate Remainers, who thin it's time we had an elected (or part elected) second chamber.
That's why if it went to a referendum I suspect you'd be talking a majority of 70%+ in favour of abolition and an elected HoL.
After leaving the EU, and abolishing the Lords the Tory government will be progressing well on Labours 1983 manifesto pledges!0 -
HS2 is likely to be a failure...JosiasJessop said:
It is for the purposes of breaking down walls. After all, most HS's are seen as 'failures' by their political rivals ...Jonathan said:
They are not mutually exclusive.JosiasJessop said:
That's a very different and subjective question. But the point a young kid with ambition will see is that he or she could make it into such a position, and it will then be up to them to do well or poorly. But at least they know they *could* make it.Jonathan said:
But can you be a good, successful home secretary?JosiasJessop said:
But the problem is that historically many jokely for an Edwardian ruffian to go into banking.Jonathan said:
Diversity in politics and connecting across barriers is a good thing, but I would be sad if role models had to be the same nationality, class, gender, race or creed as the person inspired by them. Personally it's what people do that matters most.JosiasJessop said:
Anything can be patronising if you want to view it as such.Jonathan said:
It's a bit patronising though isn't it? Working class kids from wherever don't need to wait to be offered anything, they make what they want of themselves.JosiasJessop said:That Conservative poster is rather good, and is squared precisely at a key Conservative value: aspiration. It also plays into equality a little as well.
But I'm rather keen on role models. To get on a topic I care about: if we want more female engineers, then the answer is not to have positive discrimination. It is That's why a couple of female engineers of my acquaintance do exactly that - 'selling' the industry to both boys and girls.
The same with other topics as well. There might might prevent them from getting anywhere. Then suddenly they have an Asian-heritage HS and Mayor of London. I can see that only as a positive, as they way more girls might think they have a future in politics because there have been two female PMs.
Too many companies and organisation play lip service to such considerations, even nowadays. It's important for young kids in particular to see such barriers being broken. You can be a successful female engineer. You can be a male child-carer. You can be an Asian home secretary, etc, etc.
This really matters, and is something I care a fair bit about. We cannot be the best country we can be if we put artificial barriers up to stop people fulfilling their potential. It's bad for them and it;s bad for all of us.0 -
Nah, it should be fine as long as they can sort Euston out. Although that's a massive conditional ...SandyRentool said:HS2 is likely to be a failure...
0 -
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hatePClipp said:
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail BrexitPClipp said:
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.Tykejohnno said:Time to flood the Lord's with brexit peers.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed0 -
Once again a propagandist fails to understand what “parliamentary sovereignty” meansScott_P said:
The UK Sovereign Parliament will decide the next steps.kjohnw said:they were instructed by the people to take back control from EU rule not give back control to brussels which is what the are trying to implement by the back door
That's what you wanted.
You won!
Suck it up...0 -
Narrow product lines, low overhead and less deadweight propertyrural_voter said:
I'm puzzled ... if Sainsbury's and Asda can't offer low prices with 15% market share each, how can Lidl and Aldi both do it with market shares of nearer 5% and a lot of stores in places near where people live?rpjs said:
The lack of consumer choice in the UK compared to the US is one of the things my American wife, who hates having to chose things, liked about living in the UK.Gardenwalker said:
What I will say is that this country generally seems to love a bit of oligopoly. I think it’s one of the three or four factors that explains our low productivity.OldKingCole said:
I would have thought that some divestment was a given. Either as a result of the CMA or as a result of local demand.Gardenwalker said:
I’m not convinced. I guess your point is that between them Tesco’s and “Assbury” would have 60%+ of the market. But perhaps Assbury could be forced to divest some stores.Alanbrooke said:
It should be blocked in the public interestGardenwalker said:
The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.Alanbrooke said:
they're being economic with the actualite ?Gardenwalker said:
So what’s the point?Sandpit said:
The figure quoted today was £500m annual savings, against a turnover of £40bn for the two companies. That’s not much more than 1%, but it’s obviously coming from the suppliers who already have tiny margins on huge contracts.AlastairMeeks said:
Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.OldKingCole said:
Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!Big_G_NorthWales said:Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distries and no job loses.
Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.
I’m struggling to get this one.
It should be allowed to go ahead, of course.
The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
oligopolies help no-one
Maybe they and the rather different Waitrose have a business model which works but the big four don't.0 -
RIP The Bree Louise ;(JosiasJessop said:
Nah, it should be fine as long as they can sort Euston out. Although that's a massive conditional ...SandyRentool said:HS2 is likely to be a failure...
0 -
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.0 -
Very low inventory of brand leaders.Charles said:
Narrow product lines, low overhead and less deadweight propertyrural_voter said:
I'm puzzled ... if Sainsbury's and Asda can't offer low prices with 15% market share each, how can Lidl and Aldi both do it with market shares of nearer 5% and a lot of stores in places near where people live?rpjs said:
The lack of consumer choice in the UK compared to the US is one of the things my American wife, who hates having to chose things, liked about living in the UK.Gardenwalker said:
What I will say is that this country generally seems to love a bit of oligopoly. I think it’s one of the three or four factors that explains our low productivity.OldKingCole said:
I would have thought that some divestment was a given. Either as a result of the CMA or as a result of local demand.Gardenwalker said:Alanbrooke said:
It should be blocked in the public interestGardenwalker said:
The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.Alanbrooke said:
they're being economic with the actualite ?Gardenwalker said:
So what’s the point?Sandpit said:
The figure quoted today was £500m annual savings, against a turnover of £40bn for the two companies. That’s not much more than 1%, but it’s obviously coming from the suppliers who already have tiny margins on huge contracts.AlastairMeeks said:
Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.OldKingCole said:
Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!Big_G_NorthWales said:Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distries and no job loses.
Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.
I’m struggling to get this one.
It should be allowed to go ahead, of course.
The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
oligopolies help no-one
Maybe they and the rather different Waitrose have a business model which works but the big four don't.0 -
Smaller stores, fewer product lines, fewer staff, nearly entirely own brands, no shareholders.Charles said:
Narrow product lines, low overhead and less deadweight propertyrural_voter said:
I'm puzzled ... if Sainsbury's and Asda can't offer low prices with 15% market share each, how can Lidl and Aldi both do it with market shares of nearer 5% and a lot of stores in places near where people live?rpjs said:
The lack of consumer choice in the UK compared to the US is one of the things my American wife, who hates having to chose things, liked about living in the UK.Gardenwalker said:
What I will say is that this countryOldKingCole said:
I would have thought that some divestment was a given. Either as a result of the CMA or as a result of local demand.Gardenwalker said:
I’m not convinced. I guess your point is that between them Tesco’s and “Assbury” would have 60%+ of the market. But perhaps Assbury could be forced to divest some stores.Alanbrooke said:
It should be blocked in the public interestGardenwalker said:
The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.Alanbrooke said:
they're being economic with the actualite ?Gardenwalker said:
So what’s the point?Sandpit said:
The figure quoted today wasAlastairMeeks said:
Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.OldKingCole said:
Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!Big_G_NorthWales said:Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distries and no job loses.
Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.
I’m struggling to get this one.
It should be allowed to go ahead, of course.
The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
oligopolies help no-one
Maybe they and the rather different Waitrose have a business model which works but the big four don't.0 -
Charles said:
Narrow product lines, low overhead and less deadweight property
Long queues at checkout = avoid.
0 -
What is so wonderful about the House of Lords, these days? It has long been stripped of any dignity, and is simply a chamber of people whose political careers are over.Stark_Dawning said:Terrible. I see the Leavers are now resorting to constitutional vandalism to protect their Brexit hobbyhorse. Is there anything they won't throw to the flames to keep this thing limping along?
0 -
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.0 -
Golly.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
To continue the T of the W theme, Götterdämmerung?0 -
On PB?Cyclefree said:
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
Post of the month
0 -
As a Lib/Lab & Remainer I'm very confused about the way things are working out. I believe in Burkes doctrine; I don't expect my MP to be a delegate; I expect them to use their best judgement. I don't expect to have to rely for sensible government on an unelected chamber. of placepersons and the descendants of robber barons.Big_G_NorthWales said:
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hatePClipp said:
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail BrexitPClipp said:
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.Tykejohnno said:Time to flood the Lord's with brexit peers.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed0 -
The father of gun violence victim Tanesha Melbourne appeared in court today charged with involvement in a multi-million pound drug ring.
Conrad Kingdom, 45, spoke only to confirm his name and address at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court for a preliminary hearing following police raids on his home and other properties in Tottenham, north London.
Following the raid, he was arrested and charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.
https://tinyurl.com/yc3nv76h
The media - in particular the BBC - made a big deal about the shooting of this girl, I hope they go back and revisit the story as more comes to light.0 -
Democracy is worth a great deal.Cyclefree said:
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
I quite like your attempt to channel Andrea Leadsom. It goes well with the antirational hysteria from earlier today about prostitution.0 -
I really think the HOL are inflamimg tensions and hastening their demise.OldKingCole said:
As a Lib/Lab & Remainer I'm very confused about the way things are working out. I believe in Burkes doctrine; I don't expect my MP to be a delegate; I expect them to use their best judgement. I don't expect to have to rely for sensible government on an unelected chamber. of placepersons and th descendants of robber barons.Big_G_NorthWales said:
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hatePClipp said:
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail BrexitPClipp said:
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.Tykejohnno said:Time to flood the Lord's with brexit peers.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
The HOC are the elected chamber and must have the final say , either way0 -
When does Amber Rudd join?Sean_F said:
What is so wonderful about the House of Lords, these days? It has long been stripped of any dignity, and is simply a chamber of people whose political careers are over.Stark_Dawning said:Terrible. I see the Leavers are now resorting to constitutional vandalism to protect their Brexit hobbyhorse. Is there anything they won't throw to the flames to keep this thing limping along?
0 -
I think we are in genuinely new territory if 17m+ fellow citizens voted for an outcome and then that was not delivered because elements of the State believe they know better. I do not think our current political system will survive that outcome.Theuniondivvie said:
Golly.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
To continue the T of the W theme, Götterdämmerung?0 -
I'e always thought the HoL as presently constituted makes no sense in the 21st Century. It didn't make any sense in the 20th either.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I really think the HOL are inflamimg tensions and hastening their demise.OldKingCole said:
As a Lib/Lab & Remainer I'm very confused about the way things are working out. I believe in Burkes doctrine; I don't expect my MP to be a delegate; I expect them to use their best judgement. I don't expect to have to rely for sensible government on an unelected chamber. of placepersons and th descendants of robber barons.Big_G_NorthWales said:
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hatePClipp said:
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail BrexitPClipp said:
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.Tykejohnno said:Time to flood the Lord's with brexit peers.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
The HOC are the elected chamber and must have the final say , either way0 -
Of course their 'best judgement' is always about what is good for the nation and never based upon their own prejudices and self-interests.OldKingCole said:
As a Lib/Lab & Remainer I'm very confused about the way things are working out. I believe in Burkes doctrine; I don't expect my MP to be a delegate; I expect them to use their best judgement. I don't expect to have to rely for sensible government on an unelected chamber. of placepersons and the descendants of robber barons.Big_G_NorthWales said:
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hatePClipp said:
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail BrexitPClipp said:
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.Tykejohnno said:Time to flood the Lord's with brexit peers.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
0 -
That's not true for all of them, but even "a chamber of people whose political careers are over" is better than " a chamber of people whose political careers are still ongoing and will do anything to further their careers"Sean_F said:
What is so wonderful about the House of Lords, these days? It has long been stripped of any dignity, and is simply a chamber of people whose political careers are over.Stark_Dawning said:Terrible. I see the Leavers are now resorting to constitutional vandalism to protect their Brexit hobbyhorse. Is there anything they won't throw to the flames to keep this thing limping along?
0 -
What did that have to do with the girl?tlg86 said:The father of gun violence victim Tanesha Melbourne appeared in court today charged with involvement in a multi-million pound drug ring.
Conrad Kingdom, 45, spoke only to confirm his name and address at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court for a preliminary hearing following police raids on his home and other properties in Tottenham, north London.
Following the raid, he was arrested and charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.
https://tinyurl.com/yc3nv76h
The media - in particular the BBC - made a big deal about the shooting of this girl, I hope they go back and revisit the story as more comes to light.
0 -
Well, I knew what the prejudices and much of the self-interest of the current MP were when I voted for her opponent!another_richard said:
Of course their 'best judgement' is always about what is good for the nation and never based upon their own prejudices and self-interests.OldKingCole said:
As a Lib/Lab & Remainer I'm very confused about the way things are working out. I believe in Burkes doctrine; I don't expect my MP to be a delegate; I expect them to use their best judgement. I don't expect to have to rely for sensible government on an unelected chamber. of placepersons and the descendants of robber barons.Big_G_NorthWales said:
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hatePClipp said:
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail BrexitPClipp said:
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.Tykejohnno said:Time to flood the Lord's with brexit peers.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed0 -
+1Cyclefree said:
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.0 -
Labour's 1983 manifesto: Take action to abolish the undemocratic House of Lords as quickly as possible and, as an interim measure, introduce a Bill in the first session of parliament to remove its legislative powers - with the exception of those which relate to the life of a parliament.0
-
I thought that that was precisely the worry that the Brexiteers were expressing? That the HoL has enabled the EU loving HoC to scupper Brexit? That is how it was reported on the R4 newsBig_G_NorthWales said:
I really think the HOL are inflamimg tensions and hastening their demise.
The HOC are the elected chamber and must have the final say , either way0 -
If it's not delivered that will not be the reason but because it was undeliverable. That of course raises equally difficult questions for the political class. How on earth did leaving the EU ever become an normal position for a mainstream politician?ExiledInScotland said:
I think we are in genuinely new territory if 17m+ fellow citizens voted for an outcome and then that was not delivered because elements of the State believe they know better. I do not think our current political system will survive that outcome.Theuniondivvie said:
Golly.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
To continue the T of the W theme, Götterdämmerung?0 -
THAT IS WHAT THE LORDS VOTED FOR TODAYBig_G_NorthWales said:
The HOC are the elected chamber and must have the final say , either way
Why are all the Brexiteers pissing their pants?0 -
Projected national shares at 2014 local elections:
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, Ukip 17%, Lib Dems 13%
Rallings & Thrasher: Labour: 33%, Conservatives: 30%, Ukip: 16%, Lib Dems: 14%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live0 -
I’d like to say I was one of the very first to make that joke on the Blackadder channel, early this morning.Foxy said:
I think we know where it started. It is the Blackadder Actors stance:MarqueeMark said:
He must have had a REALLY strange stance in that photo for them to have to crop it so aggressively.....Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/Barkercartoons/status/990913900039299072?s=190 -
Labour's 1910 campaign poster...DecrepitJohnL said:Labour's 1983 manifesto: Take action to abolish the undemocratic House of Lords as quickly as possible and, as an interim measure, introduce a Bill in the first session of parliament to remove its legislative powers - with the exception of those which relate to the life of a parliament.
http://www.phm.org.uk/keemu/display.php?irn=5965
"Labour clears the way"
Only taken them 108 years so far...0 -
I hope the next iteration of Unicode has "toy" and "pram" emojis, it'll save you having to do that CAPS thing.Scott_P said:
THAT IS WHAT THE LORDS VOTED FOR TODAYBig_G_NorthWales said:
The HOC are the elected chamber and must have the final say , either way
Why are all the Brexiteers pissing their pants?0 -
Triumph of the Will is a distrubingly good film, great for understanding the dark appeal of Nazism, but Ken Loach, for all his hardline politics, is a very good filmmaker.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
I understand your urge to destroy, which is why I too support a WTO Brexit. We can only face up to the error of our decision iwe experience the full strength of the grapes.0 -
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/991009901496422400
Can somebody please convince me this is a spoof?0 -
Wow. Just wow.williamglenn said:
If it's not delivered that will not be the reason but because it was undeliverable. That of course raises equally difficult questions for the political class. How on earth did leaving the EU ever become an normal position for a mainstream politician?ExiledInScotland said:
I think we are in genuinely new territory if 17m+ fellow citizens voted for an outcome and then that was not delivered because elements of the State believe they know better. I do not think our current political system will survive that outcome.Theuniondivvie said:
Golly.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
To continue the T of the W theme, Götterdämmerung?
So the British people cannot vote themselves out of the EU in your world? Just reflect on that a tad.0 -
The one thing we can confident about is that there will be bonuses and pay rises for the executive oligarchy.Casino_Royale said:https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/991009901496422400
Can somebody please convince me this is a spoof?
0 -
AndyAndyJS said:Projected national shares at 2014 local elections:
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, Ukip 17%, Lib Dems 13%
Rallings & Thrasher: Labour: 33%, Conservatives: 30%, Ukip: 16%, Lib Dems: 14%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?0 -
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?Casino_Royale said:https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/991009901496422400
Can somebody please convince me this is a spoof?0 -
Get in there MySon....Cyclefree said:
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
I watched the Channel 4 Doc on Norwich which became wealthy through trade with Europe...then I looked at data showing how our economic prospects fared positively after we entered the EC in 1974...and now we are becoming poorer comparatively with the EU solely because of Brexit....
You couldn't make up the vile, ideological numpty, bumpties who poisoned the debate on Brexit with a load of made up shyte.....
I never thought I'd say this, but thank fuck for the House of Lords....
0 -
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.TheWhiteRabbit said:
AndyAndyJS said:Projected national shares at 2014 local elections:
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, Ukip 17%, Lib Dems 13%
Rallings & Thrasher: Labour: 33%, Conservatives: 30%, Ukip: 16%, Lib Dems: 14%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?0 -
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insistAlastairMeeks said:
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.Mortimer said:
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.AlastairMeeks said:
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?Mortimer said:
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.AlastairMeeks said:I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?0 -
We had a vote about it, dear, and that was what the people decided. Now you have a nice rest, and nurse will bring you a cup of tea.williamglenn said:
If it's not delivered that will not be the reason but because it was undeliverable. That of course raises equally difficult questions for the political class. How on earth did leaving the EU ever become an normal position for a mainstream politician?ExiledInScotland said:
I think we are in genuinely new territory if 17m+ fellow citizens voted for an outcome and then that was not delivered because elements of the State believe they know better. I do not think our current political system will survive that outcome.Theuniondivvie said:
Golly.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
To continue the T of the W theme, Götterdämmerung?0 -
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.AndyJS said:
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.TheWhiteRabbit said:
AndyAndyJS said:Projected national shares at 2014 local elections:
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, Ukip 17%, Lib Dems 13%
Rallings & Thrasher: Labour: 33%, Conservatives: 30%, Ukip: 16%, Lib Dems: 14%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?0 -
Well quite. It’s not yet clear whether the Commons will decide to overturn them.Charles said:
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insistAlastairMeeks said:
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.Mortimer said:
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.AlastairMeeks said:
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?Mortimer said:
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.AlastairMeeks said:I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
In all this talk about flooding the Lords with new peers, has anyone actually looked at the mechanics of this?0 -
Well the stockmarket seemed to like the news so I wouldn't be too displeased as a shareholder. But traditionally it is the owners/execs of the company being... bought that ought to fare better financially though. And isn't Sainsburys doing the buying I thought on this one ?JosiasJessop said:
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?Casino_Royale said:https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/991009901496422400
Can somebody please convince me this is a spoof?0 -
As I posted earlier, the opinion poll averages at the time of the 2014 local elections were as follows:AndyJS said:Projected national shares at 2014 local elections:
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, Ukip 17%, Lib Dems 13%
Rallings & Thrasher: Labour: 33%, Conservatives: 30%, Ukip: 16%, Lib Dems: 14%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live
Lab 35.3%
Con 32.3%
UKIP 14.0%
LD 9.0%
Greens 4.1%
Others 5.2%
So the projected national share figures were pretty much in line with the opinion polls although the LDs were a bit higher in the local elections as they usually are.0 -
Stop it Foxy with your defeatist WTO talk.....I kind of thought of that nihilistic defeatism, but now I much rather call out Brexit ideologues as a bunch of rabid, rightwing, nitwit morons who are not going to bring this country down.....Foxy said:
Triumph of the Will is a distrubingly good film, great for understanding the dark appeal of Nazism, but Ken Loach, for all his hardline politics, is a very good filmmaker.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
I understand your urge to destroy, which is why I too support a WTO Brexit. We can only face up to the error of our decision iwe experience the full strength of the grapes.
0 -
Indeed. They'd be fools to do so.Charles said:
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insistAlastairMeeks said:
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.Mortimer said:
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.AlastairMeeks said:
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?Mortimer said:
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.AlastairMeeks said:I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
But fear not, Mr O and I stand ready to abandon our ambitions and don the ermine to help out...0 -
I am certainly very concerned about a HoC, which is over-represented by Conservatives and Labour - especially when both of them seem to have had their totals boosted by dodgy practices.Big_G_NorthWales said:
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hatePClipp said:
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail BrexitPClipp said:
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.Tykejohnno said:Time to flood the Lord's with brexit peers.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
And the problem with your stating that Mrs May is just "carrying out the vote to leave"· is precisely that the referendum did not specify which kind of Leave was meant. And Mrs May didn`t then come back to Parliament to ask our MPs as a whole - she just caved in to her own backwoodsmen. And tried to grab dictatorial powers on the back of it - for herself in the first place, and then possibly for Mr Corbyn as well in due course.0 -
The Peer for a Year answer can count me in.....Mortimer said:
Indeed. They'd be fools to do so.Charles said:
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insistAlastairMeeks said:
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.Mortimer said:
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.AlastairMeeks said:
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?Mortimer said:
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.AlastairMeeks said:I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
But fear not, Mr O and I stand ready to abandon our ambitions and don the ermine to help out...0 -
Good man!MarqueeMark said:
The Peer for a Year answer can count me in.....Mortimer said:
Indeed. They'd be fools to do so.Charles said:
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insistAlastairMeeks said:
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.Mortimer said:
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.AlastairMeeks said:
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?Mortimer said:
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.AlastairMeeks said:I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
But fear not, Mr O and I stand ready to abandon our ambitions and don the ermine to help out...0 -
So we inform the EU that we will abide by the Brexit treaty as closely as we legally can? I wonder whether the EU would find that acceptable?rpjs said:
Originally treaty ratification was purely by the executive under Royal Prerogative but from the 1920s the "Ponsonby Rule" was adopted whereby treaties would be laid before Parliament 21 days before ratification which gives Parliament the opportunity to object to ratification, and in 2010 this rule was given statutory effect.PeterC said:
Is it not the case that treaties are made by the Executive but require legislation to ratify them before coming into force? But such legislation cannot be amended because a treaty involves an independent third party - in this case the EU. What the HoL is trying to do is in violation of this.ydoethur said:The other point to consider is that the Lords have proposed quite a radical constitutional departure here. Traditionally international treaties have always been Royal Prerogative, I.e. powers reserved to the executive. There are a number of good reasons for that starting with the fact that until less than a hundred years ago it was difficult for plenipotentiaries to check back before signing a treaty, so they had to make up their own minds.
Now, the Lords (following the Law Lords' views and indeed the views of some ministers) are offering Parliament veto on these treaties. That's quite a change.
It may be a needed change, even a desirable one from many points of view. But I wonder if this ad hoc way of doing it is the best one. (Admittedly it's the way we've made up most of our constitution.)
Sometimes a treaty requires the UK to adopt specified legislation, e.g. to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty the UK had to legislate to make causing nuclear explosions a crime. Sometimes legislation is practically required for things like authorizing expenditure to comply with a treaty. Parliament could amend or reject any such legislation, and if the government could not come up with any workarounds, I imagine it would have to notify the other parties that it is unable to comply with the treaty or seek a revision to it.
In the US, as a 2/3 supermajority of the Senate is required to ratify treaties, it's not unheard of for the US government to sign a treaty but not seek Senatorial ratification if they think that's unachievable, instead they inform the other parties that they will abide by the treaty's principles as closely as they legally can. I think the aforementioned Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is an example.
Good evening, everybody.0 -
I was predicting a 2% lead for the Tories, but since then the Home Sec has resigned.chloe said:
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.AndyJS said:
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.TheWhiteRabbit said:
AndyAndyJS said:Projected national shares at 2014 local elections:
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, Ukip 17%, Lib Dems 13%
Rallings & Thrasher: Labour: 33%, Conservatives: 30%, Ukip: 16%, Lib Dems: 14%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
No, I'll stick to my guns: 2% Tory lead.0 -
If they can use the Parliament Act for hunting they can use it for anything.Charles said:
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insistAlastairMeeks said:
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.Mortimer said:
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.AlastairMeeks said:
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?Mortimer said:
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.AlastairMeeks said:I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?0 -
If they need any Labour Leavers to give a seat to, I am open to persuasion...AlastairMeeks said:
Well quite. It’s not yet clear whether the Commons will decide to overturn them.Charles said:
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insistAlastairMeeks said:
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.Mortimer said:
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.AlastairMeeks said:
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?Mortimer said:
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.AlastairMeeks said:I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
In all this talk about flooding the Lords with new peers, has anyone actually looked at the mechanics of this?0 -
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/07/lib-dems-fined-20000-for-undeclared-election-spendingPClipp said:
I am certainly very concerned about a HoC, which is over-represented by Conservatives and Labour - especially when both of them seem to have had their totals boosted by dodgy practices.Big_G_NorthWales said:
But you are a lib dem are you not no doubt happy with a HOL over represented by Lib Dems and of course May is carrying out the vote to leave, which you hatePClipp said:
I think it is mostly Conservative voters who will feel betrayed, Mr G. I think most people will feel relieved. For my part, I see the House of Lords as being on my side, and Mrs May`s Government as being against me.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The few in the conservative party against Brexit would have had no leverage if the likes of Blair, Clegg, Adonis and the HOL had not conspired with the non elected bureaucrats in Brussels and the Irish to derail BrexitPClipp said:
When you say "rich and powerful elite", who can you be referring to but the members of this government? Who are busy wrecking the economy and destroying the social cohesion of the country, so that they are their friends can pick over the bones of what is left.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I do really believe the EU in collusion with powerful UK politicians are going to succeed in producing BINO.Tykejohnno said:Time to flood the Lord's with brexit peers.
I am quite content with that but still think it is a betrayal of the vote by the rich and powerful elite and will leave a legacy of distrust against those responsible.
It will of course shackle Corbyn so not all bad, but very much majority bad for democracy
If this happens the wounds will fester and many ordinary voters will feel betrayed
And the problem with your stating that Mrs May is just "carrying out the vote to leave"· is precisely that the referendum did not specify which kind of Leave was meant. And Mrs May didn`t then come back to Parliament to ask our MPs as a whole - she just caved in to her own backwoodsmen. And tried to grab dictatorial powers on the back of it - for herself in the first place, and then possibly for Mr Corbyn as well in due course.
Presumably you don't consider this sort of thing 'dodgy practices'?
Otherwise you'd be open to accusations of hypocrisy, right?0 -
We’re forgetting the Lords Spiritual.MarqueeMark said:
The Peer for a Year answer can count me in.....Mortimer said:
Indeed. They'd be fools to do so.Charles said:
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insistAlastairMeeks said:
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.Mortimer said:
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.AlastairMeeks said:
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?Mortimer said:
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.AlastairMeeks said:I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
But fear not, Mr O and I stand ready to abandon our ambitions and don the ermine to help out...
If my country called, the Diocese of Winchester wouldn’t be too bad...0 -
We’ll see, I’m sure it will be close. In my borough, Barnet, I am projecting a Labour majority of 2.SandyRentool said:
I was predicting a 2% lead for the Tories, but since then the Home Sec has resigned.chloe said:
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.AndyJS said:
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.TheWhiteRabbit said:
AndyAndyJS said:Projected national shares at 2014 local elections:
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, Ukip 17%, Lib Dems 13%
Rallings & Thrasher: Labour: 33%, Conservatives: 30%, Ukip: 16%, Lib Dems: 14%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
No, I'll stick to my guns: 2% Tory lead.0 -
So we can afford to wait for the anti-Brexit Lords & Ladies to die off?Sean_F said:
What is so wonderful about the House of Lords, these days? It has long been stripped of any dignity, and is simply a chamber of people whose political careers are over.Stark_Dawning said:Terrible. I see the Leavers are now resorting to constitutional vandalism to protect their Brexit hobbyhorse. Is there anything they won't throw to the flames to keep this thing limping along?
0 -
Leavers say that Labour are using the peers to "frustrate" and "overturn the will of the democratically elected House of Commons". 2018.
Blair stated that the Conservatives were using the hereditary peers to "frustrate" and "overturn the will of the democratically elected House of Commons". 1998.
And what followed in 1999?
0 -
Perhaps we need a PB NoJam...SandyRentool said:
I was predicting a 2% lead for the Tories, but since then the Home Sec has resigned.chloe said:
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.AndyJS said:
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.TheWhiteRabbit said:
AndyAndyJS said:Projected national shares at 2014 local elections:
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, Ukip 17%, Lib Dems 13%
Rallings & Thrasher: Labour: 33%, Conservatives: 30%, Ukip: 16%, Lib Dems: 14%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
No, I'll stick to my guns: 2% Tory lead.0 -
And if it wasn't for Brexit the UK wouldn't have had 241 consecutive months of trade deficit, 15 years of falling home ownership, a decade of productivity stagnation and trillions in debt.tyson said:
Get in there MySon....Cyclefree said:
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
I watched the Channel 4 Doc on Norwich which became wealthy through trade with Europe...then I looked at data showing how our economic prospects fared positively after we entered the EC in 1974...and now we are becoming poorer comparatively with the EU solely because of Brexit....
You couldn't make up the vile, ideological numpty, bumpties who poisoned the debate on Brexit with a load of made up shyte.....
I never thought I'd say this, but thank fuck for the House of Lords....
I'm sure we could manage to blame Brexit for our Middle Eastern warmongering and the student tuition fees shambles if we really tried. 0 -
You can do a lot with a three figure majority when you’re in no particular hurry.MarkHopkins said:
Leavers say that Labour are using the peers to "frustrate" and "overturn the will of the democratically elected House of Commons". 2018.
Blair stated that the Conservatives were using the hereditary peers to "frustrate" and "overturn the will of the democratically elected House of Commons". 1998.
And what followed in 1999?
When you have no majority and you’re in a fearful hurry, the calculation changes.0 -
Brexit has revived ancient arguments that the job of the Lords is to protect the voters from themselves.tyson said:
Get in there MySon....Cyclefree said:
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
I watched the Channel 4 Doc on Norwich which became wealthy through trade with Europe...then I looked at data showing how our economic prospects fared positively after we entered the EC in 1974...and now we are becoming poorer comparatively with the EU solely because of Brexit....
You couldn't make up the vile, ideological numpty, bumpties who poisoned the debate on Brexit with a load of made up shyte.....
I never thought I'd say this, but thank fuck for the House of Lords....0 -
As Wallmart will have 42% of the shares it looks like they'll have effective control.Pulpstar said:
Well the stockmarket seemed to like the news so I wouldn't be too displeased as a shareholder. But traditionally it is the owners/execs of the company being... bought that ought to fare better financially though. And isn't Sainsburys doing the buying I thought on this one ?JosiasJessop said:
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?Casino_Royale said:https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/991009901496422400
Can somebody please convince me this is a spoof?
I wonder who gets paid most now - the Asda directors or the Sainsbury directors.0 -
I went through Barnet ward by ward and came to the same conclusion that Labour would have a small majority.chloe said:
We’ll see, I’m sure it will be close. In my borough, Barnet, I am projecting a Labour majority of 2.SandyRentool said:
I was predicting a 2% lead for the Tories, but since then the Home Sec has resigned.chloe said:
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.AndyJS said:
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.TheWhiteRabbit said:
AndyAndyJS said:Projected national shares at 2014 local elections:
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, Ukip 17%, Lib Dems 13%
Rallings & Thrasher: Labour: 33%, Conservatives: 30%, Ukip: 16%, Lib Dems: 14%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
No, I'll stick to my guns: 2% Tory lead.0 -
Or the Lords from the voters.Sean_F said:
Brexit has revived ancient arguments that the job of the Lords is to protect the voters from themselves.tyson said:
Get in there MySon....Cyclefree said:
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
I watched the Channel 4 Doc on Norwich which became wealthy through trade with Europe...then I looked at data showing how our economic prospects fared positively after we entered the EC in 1974...and now we are becoming poorer comparatively with the EU solely because of Brexit....
You couldn't make up the vile, ideological numpty, bumpties who poisoned the debate on Brexit with a load of made up shyte.....
I never thought I'd say this, but thank fuck for the House of Lords.... 0 -
No they won't, Wal Mart will only have 29.9% of voting rights in the new merged entity. In essence this Sainsbury's taking over Asda but not being able to afford the buyout in full.another_richard said:
As Wallmart will have 42% of the shares it looks like they'll have effective control.Pulpstar said:
Well the stockmarket seemed to like the news so I wouldn't be too displeased as a shareholder. But traditionally it is the owners/execs of the company being... bought that ought to fare better financially though. And isn't Sainsburys doing the buying I thought on this one ?JosiasJessop said:
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?Casino_Royale said:https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/991009901496422400
Can somebody please convince me this is a spoof?
I wonder who gets paid most now - the Asda directors or the Sainsbury directors.0 -
I think that Theo Albrecht’s family might disagree with you on “no shareholders”Foxy said:
Smaller stores, fewer product lines, fewer staff, nearly entirely own brands, no shareholders.Charles said:
Narrow product lines, low overhead and less deadweight propertyrural_voter said:
I'm puzzled ... if Sainsbury's and Asda can't offer low prices with 15% market share each, how can Lidl and Aldi both do it with market shares of nearer 5% and a lot of stores in places near where people live?rpjs said:
The lack of consumer choice in the UK compared to the US is one of the things my American wife, who hates having to chose things, liked about living in the UK.Gardenwalker said:
What I will say is that this countryOldKingCole said:
I would have thought that some divestment was a given. Either as a result of the CMA or as a result of local demand.Gardenwalker said:
I’m not convinced. I guess your point is that between them Tesco’s and “Assbury” would have 60%+ of the market. But perhaps Assbury could be forced to divest some stores.Alanbrooke said:
It should be blocked in the public interestGardenwalker said:
The only reason to do this is reduce operating costs. Quite why they should deny it is beyond me, since it simply raises questions in the market.Alanbrooke said:
they're being economic with the actualite ?Gardenwalker said:
So what’s the point?Sandpit said:
The figure quoted today wasAlastairMeeks said:
Presumably the projected savings will be at the expense of suppliers, thanks to greater negotiating heft.OldKingCole said:
Why bother to merge if there are going to be no savings? And the hard fact is that savings=job losses, somewhere in the two organisations!Big_G_NorthWales said:Listening to the debate over the Asda Sainsbury merger the demand by mps that there will be no head office closures, or distries and no job loses.
Talk about King Canute - retail and internet trading will force change and the CEO of Sainsbury has said there will be a 10% drop in consumer prices.
I’m struggling to get this one.
It should be allowed to go ahead, of course.
The trade is brutally competitive, before you even add the threat of Amazon.
oligopolies help no-one
Maybe they and the rather different Waitrose have a business model which works but the big four don't.0 -
2 Childs Hill seats and 2 Hale seats I reckon will win it for Labour.Pulpstar said:
I went through Barnet ward by ward and came to the same conclusion that Labour would have a small majority.chloe said:
We’ll see, I’m sure it will be close. In my borough, Barnet, I am projecting a Labour majority of 2.SandyRentool said:
I was predicting a 2% lead for the Tories, but since then the Home Sec has resigned.chloe said:
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.AndyJS said:
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.TheWhiteRabbit said:
AndyAndyJS said:Projected national shares at 2014 local elections:
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, Ukip 17%, Lib Dems 13%
Rallings & Thrasher: Labour: 33%, Conservatives: 30%, Ukip: 16%, Lib Dems: 14%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
No, I'll stick to my guns: 2% Tory lead.0 -
Very good point and very well made....and one that would also make someone like me revaluate my republican beliefs...Sean_F said:
Brexit has revived ancient arguments that the job of the Lords is to protect the voters from themselves.tyson said:
Get in there MySon....Cyclefree said:
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
I watched the Channel 4 Doc on Norwich which became wealthy through trade with Europe...then I looked at data showing how our economic prospects fared positively after we entered the EC in 1974...and now we are becoming poorer comparatively with the EU solely because of Brexit....
You couldn't make up the vile, ideological numpty, bumpties who poisoned the debate on Brexit with a load of made up shyte.....
I never thought I'd say this, but thank fuck for the House of Lords....
I always thought that the collective wisdom of the great British public pretty much made the right decision....and then up came Brexit, and that was the end of that fantasy....
0 -
I wonder if there might be a Conservative gain or two in West Hendon ward.Pulpstar said:
I went through Barnet ward by ward and came to the same conclusion that Labour would have a small majority.chloe said:
We’ll see, I’m sure it will be close. In my borough, Barnet, I am projecting a Labour majority of 2.SandyRentool said:
I was predicting a 2% lead for the Tories, but since then the Home Sec has resigned.chloe said:
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.AndyJS said:
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.TheWhiteRabbit said:
AndyAndyJS said:Projected national shares at 2014 local elections:
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, Ukip 17%, Lib Dems 13%
Rallings & Thrasher: Labour: 33%, Conservatives: 30%, Ukip: 16%, Lib Dems: 14%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
No, I'll stick to my guns: 2% Tory lead.
Its always been Labour but has swung steadily to the Conservatives after 2006.
IIRC Boris was ahead there in 2012 - almost certainly because of a high turnout of Jewish voters against Ken Livingstone.0 -
That has certainly been the Conservatives hope by massively increasing home ownership in West Hendon through the regeneration efforts. I don’t see it playing out that way though. West Hendon regeneration has not gone down well.another_richard said:
I wonder if there might be a Conservative gain or two in West Hendon ward.Pulpstar said:
I went through Barnet ward by ward and came to the same conclusion that Labour would have a small majority.chloe said:
We’ll see, I’m sure it will be close. In my borough, Barnet, I am projecting a Labour majority of 2.SandyRentool said:
I was predicting a 2% lead for the Tories, but since then the Home Sec has resigned.chloe said:
I think both Conservative and Labour will have increased their projected national share since 2014 due to UKIP’s collapse. I also think Labour will be marginally ahead.AndyJS said:
AFAIK the projected national share is an attempt to say how the whole country would have voted if the local elections had been taking place everywhere.TheWhiteRabbit said:
AndyAndyJS said:Projected national shares at 2014 local elections:
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, Ukip 17%, Lib Dems 13%
Rallings & Thrasher: Labour: 33%, Conservatives: 30%, Ukip: 16%, Lib Dems: 14%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live
The national shares ONLY correct for the fact these are Labour-friendly councils right? Nothing else going on?
No, I'll stick to my guns: 2% Tory lead.
Its always been Labour but has swung steadily to the Conservatives after 2006.
IIRC Boris was ahead there in 2012 - almost certainly because of a high turnout of Jewish voters against Ken Livingstone.0 -
Based on today's Mori there has been a swing of 2.5% to the Tories from Labour and a swing of 4% from the LDs to the Tories since May 2014 which could make Thursday night interesting if repeated in the local electionsAndyJS said:
As I posted earlier, the opinion poll averages at the time of the 2014 local elections were as follows:AndyJS said:Projected national shares at 2014 local elections:
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, Ukip 17%, Lib Dems 13%
Rallings & Thrasher: Labour: 33%, Conservatives: 30%, Ukip: 16%, Lib Dems: 14%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/may/23/local-election-results-live
Lab 35.3%
Con 32.3%
UKIP 14.0%
LD 9.0%
Greens 4.1%
Others 5.2%
So the projected national share figures were pretty much in line with the opinion polls although the LDs were a bit higher in the local elections as they usually are.0 -
Why are rich people generally a) very greedy and obsessed about getting richer, and b) tight, mean fisted fuckers?...a bit of generalising, but you get my drift....JosiasJessop said:
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?Casino_Royale said:https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/991009901496422400
Can somebody please convince me this is a spoof?
When I was bob a jobbing around south Manchester as a kid, I always found the council estates much more lucrative than the wealthy suburbs around Hale and Bowden....
0 -
Good evening. Play nice.0
-
Why would Wallmart take a lower share of voting rights than size entitles them to ?MaxPB said:
No they won't, Wal Mart will only have 29.9% of voting rights in the new merged entity. In essence this Sainsbury's taking over Asda but not being able to afford the buyout in full.another_richard said:
As Wallmart will have 42% of the shares it looks like they'll have effective control.Pulpstar said:
Well the stockmarket seemed to like the news so I wouldn't be too displeased as a shareholder. But traditionally it is the owners/execs of the company being... bought that ought to fare better financially though. And isn't Sainsburys doing the buying I thought on this one ?JosiasJessop said:
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?Casino_Royale said:https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/991009901496422400
Can somebody please convince me this is a spoof?
I wonder who gets paid most now - the Asda directors or the Sainsbury directors.
Is there some regulatory reason ?0 -
But outrage is so much more fun!AlastairMeeks said:
Well quite. It’s not yet clear whether the Commons will decide to overturn them.Charles said:
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insistAlastairMeeks said:
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.Mortimer said:
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.AlastairMeeks said:
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?Mortimer said:
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.AlastairMeeks said:I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
In all this talk about flooding the Lords with new peers, has anyone actually looked at the mechanics of this?0 -
One has to take the rough with the smooth. Had I been around at the time, I would have been pissed off by the result of the 1945 election, and I was pissed off by the results in 1997 and 2001, but it's better to live in a country where people can vote to take a decision I disapprove of than one where it's taken out of their hands.tyson said:
Very good point and very well made....and one that would also make someone like me revaluate my republican beliefs...Sean_F said:
Brexit has revived ancient arguments that the job of the Lords is to protect the voters from themselves.tyson said:
Get in there MySon....Cyclefree said:
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.RoyalBlue said:
Please. Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece, not some unwatchable (and largely unwatched) third-rate lefty agitprop.Foxy said:
Was it a remake of Triumph of the Will?Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
I watched the Channel 4 Doc on Norwich which became wealthy through trade with Europe...then I looked at data showing how our economic prospects fared positively after we entered the EC in 1974...and now we are becoming poorer comparatively with the EU solely because of Brexit....
You couldn't make up the vile, ideological numpty, bumpties who poisoned the debate on Brexit with a load of made up shyte.....
I never thought I'd say this, but thank fuck for the House of Lords....
I always thought that the collective wisdom of the great British public pretty much made the right decision....and then up came Brexit, and that was the end of that fantasy....0 -
Nah. Too much like hard work. Only reason i’d do it is so my daughter could get married in St Mary UndercroftMortimer said:
Indeed. They'd be fools to do so.Charles said:
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insistAlastairMeeks said:
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.Mortimer said:
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.AlastairMeeks said:
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?Mortimer said:
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.AlastairMeeks said:I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?
But fear not, Mr O and I stand ready to abandon our ambitions and don the ermine to help out...0 -
I note the likes of ‘Royal Blue’ are saying Pure Brexit should be implemented even if the economic cost is huge. It’s good to see extremism is alive and well on PB.0
-
Timing is an issueTOPPING said:
If they can use the Parliament Act for hunting they can use it for anything.Charles said:
Everyone is getting too excited. Of course the Lords can vote whatever amendments it wants. The constitutional challenge will be if the Commons overturns them and the Lords insistAlastairMeeks said:
Yes, you're saying that the House of Lords is not allowed to express its view. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that it has.Mortimer said:
No, I'm saying that it is the Lords who are ignoring the elected chamber on the Customs union.AlastairMeeks said:
Are you, like @Elliot, suggesting that the House of Lords is not to express its opinion at all? Or is it only allowed to express opinions that you approve of?Mortimer said:
There have been two votes on the Customs union; the Govt have won both of them.AlastairMeeks said:I suspect the vote would not have passed the House of Lords today if the government had not given every indication that it was proposing to ignore Parliament over the customs union, whatever it said. If the government started to show more respect to Parliament, it might not have such headaches.
When will the Lords start showing some respect to those votes?0 -
Sainsbury's are paying them to. Additionally it means that if WM ever decides to sell their stake they won't be able to sell more than 29.9% of voting rights, any more than that and it triggers certain takeover rules.another_richard said:
Why would Wallmart take a lower share of voting rights than size entitles them to ?MaxPB said:
No they won't, Wal Mart will only have 29.9% of voting rights in the new merged entity. In essence this Sainsbury's taking over Asda but not being able to afford the buyout in full.another_richard said:
As Wallmart will have 42% of the shares it looks like they'll have effective control.Pulpstar said:
Well the stockmarket seemed to like the news so I wouldn't be too displeased as a shareholder. But traditionally it is the owners/execs of the company being... bought that ought to fare better financially though. And isn't Sainsburys doing the buying I thought on this one ?JosiasJessop said:
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?Casino_Royale said:https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/991009901496422400
Can somebody please convince me this is a spoof?
I wonder who gets paid most now - the Asda directors or the Sainsbury directors.
Is there some regulatory reason ?0 -
Wasn't there a financial aspect in your move to Norfolk from the delights of Tuscany ?tyson said:
Why are rich people generally a) very greedy and obsessed about getting richer, and b) tight, mean fisted fuckers?...a bit of generalising, but you get my drift....JosiasJessop said:
This morning, some posters were wondering about the reasons for this merger. Perhaps this 'unguarded moment' indicates we should look for those reasons in the finances of the individuals involved, rather than the shareholders or the general public?Casino_Royale said:https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/991009901496422400
Can somebody please convince me this is a spoof?
When I was bob a jobbing around south Manchester as a kid, I always found the council estates much more lucrative than the wealthy suburbs around Hale and Bowden.... 0 -
It is Globalisation that’s chewing this country up for the last half century, so those of us around the last fifty years and older can see and feel the decline. It’s no longer just Telegraph readers who feel the British government just doesn’t have control that matters anymore, the Brexit vote proves that. Globalisation and the ineptitude of successive governments mismanaging this nations decline, particularly Blair and his government pig ignorant to the dangers here of globalisation wasting a crucial decade for this country, fanning flames when they should have been treating the burns.another_richard said:
And if it wasn't for Brexit the UK wouldn't have had 241 consecutive months of trade deficit, 15 years of falling home ownership, a decade of productivity stagnation and trillions in debt.tyson said:
You couldn't make up the vile, ideological numpty, bumpties who poisoned the debate on Brexit with a load of made up shyte.....Cyclefree said:
What a load of twaddle. "Whatever the economic cost". Honestly? Let's destroy everything and make things worse for our children just because your preferred version of Brexit is not forthcoming.RoyalBlue said:
This evening I am more in sympathy with @Tykejohnno . If Brexit is betrayed, let’s bring the status quo crashing down, whatever the economic cost.Foxy said:Roger said:Anyone know if the Labour PPB was directed by Ken Loach?
Some people need to get a grip of themselves.
I'm sure we could manage to blame Brexit for our Middle Eastern warmongering and the student tuition fees shambles if we really tried.
If you fear more globalisation and the next Silk Road, the idea of Global Britain needs explaining you know.0
This discussion has been closed.