Mr. B, don't know if it's happened yet or coming soon, but Formula E is going to enable gamers to 'drive' against the actual drivers in real time, combining gaming with sports coverage.
It's a brilliant idea.
Collisions that are risk-free for one party but dangerous for the other? Sounds like a recipe for slaughter.
Indeed. Are the constructors really going to want to have their flounce-prone drivers beaten by a spotty 12 year old in Croydon playing in his bedroom?
I'm presuming that the gamers will be driving virtually around the course, and can be knocked out by collision with real drivers, but won't have a physical presence on the track.
I can’t imagine he will go any later than Dec 5th. I’m certainly not in festive relaxing mode at that stage and if it is that date we have a work conference that day and I would need to request a postal vote.
A 'Peoples Parliament' that would finally honour the referendum result.
A fantastic Christmas present for the 17m+ who voted to leave.
“I don't know what to do!" cried Scrooge, laughing and crying in the same breath; and making a perfect Laocoön of himself with his stockings. "I am as light as a feather, I am as happy as an angel, I am as merry as a school-boy. I am as giddy as a drunken man. A merry Christmas to every-body! A happy New Year to all the world! Hallo here! Whoop! Hallo!”
Scrooge voted Brexit, until “die hard Remainer” Jacob Marley scared the shit out of him.
28th October EU grant extension to 31 Jan (shortenable). Gov introduces bill saying: 'Notwithstanding FTPA the next election shall be on Nov 28 with parliament rising on October 31.'
Can't see why this can't happen. Easier than getting 2/3 majority. Would labour risk voting against and look afraid of election? Leaves Dec and Jan to scrutinise WAB. But perhaps Boris would prefer only Jan to be available to pass WAB in case only a small majority so Dec 5 or 12 more likely?
Agreeing new program motion and then shortening extension seems more logical but if Boris is confident of getting a majority then above route seems plausibly available? Or am I misunderstanding/missing something?
Can things be voted on that just basically say "ignoring law x"? That sounds hilarious. "Notwithstanding the [whatever act that makes it illegal to murder people] we say we can kill Bob because he is funny looking". Fun times
I can’t imagine he will go any later than Dec 5th. I’m certainly not in festive relaxing mode at that stage and if it is that date we have a work conference that day and I would need to request a postal vote.
A 'Peoples Parliament' that would finally honour the referendum result.
A fantastic Christmas present for the 17m+ who voted to leave.
If the Brexit party aren’t silly buggers, yes.
I guess Farage will want to put up candidates against any Tory saying they will back Boris's Deal.
Silly buggery is in BXP DNA.
Whether 2017 Tory voters will fall for it? Not many, is my aseesment, based on talking to some of them.
I've been up to my eyeballs in stuff. Why has Elizabeth Warren dramatically lengthened for the Democratic nomination and Joe Biden significantly shortened?
28th October EU grant extension to 31 Jan (shortenable). Gov introduces bill saying: 'Notwithstanding FTPA the next election shall be on Nov 28 with parliament rising on October 31.'
Can't see why this can't happen. Easier than getting 2/3 majority. Would labour risk voting against and look afraid of election? Leaves Dec and Jan to scrutinise WAB. But perhaps Boris would prefer only Jan to be available to pass WAB in case only a small majority so Dec 5 or 12 more likely?
Agreeing new program motion and then shortening extension seems more logical but if Boris is confident of getting a majority then above route seems plausibly available? Or am I misunderstanding/missing something?
How could the opposition amend it would be the question.
They could change the date (Wouldn't worry the Gov't I expect)
I don't think they can change the system to some form of PR - Labour wouldn't want to anyway given its appalling polling.
Try and change franchise to 16/17 - would that get the votes ? Not sure
EU Citizens looks to be the one but I'm not sure it has the votes.
If it were amended to give the vote to 16 & 17 year olds, how many of them would be registered to vote within a month?
"On 18 April 2017, the Prime Minister Theresa May announced she would seek an election on 8 June,[21] despite previously ruling out an early election.[22][23] A House of Commons motion to allow this was passed on 19 April, with 522 votes for and 13 against, a majority of 509.[24] The motion was supported by the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, while the SNP abstained.[21] Nine Labour MPs, one SDLP MP and three independents (Sylvia Hermon and two former SNP MPs, Natalie McGarry and Michelle Thomson) voted against the motion.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn supported the early election,[26] as did Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron and the Green Party.[27][28] The SNP stated that it was in favour of fixed-term parliaments, and would abstain in the House of Commons vote.[29] UKIP leader Paul Nuttall and First Minister of Wales Carwyn Jones criticised May for being opportunistic in the timing of the election, motivated by the then strong position of the Conservative Party in the opinion polls.
On 25 April, the election date was confirmed as 8 June,[32] with dissolution on 3 May. The government announced that it intended for the next parliament to assemble on 13 June, with the state opening on 19 June.
If the election date is set for 5th December it's set for 5th December and the PM wouldn't be able to change it without a recall of Parliament and Parliaments agreement.
That was the same with a 14th or 15th October election of well of course.
Of course things would get messy if something happened mid-campaign that meant the election had to be postponed but again it couldn't happen without a recall of Parliament and Parliaments agreement.
The date of the election is set by proclamation, and it was set a week after parliament had voted for it. I think that’s their worry.
The date is set by the PM so the only way to ensure you get the date you want is to kick the PM out and take his place.
28th October EU grant extension to 31 Jan (shortenable). Gov introduces bill saying: 'Notwithstanding FTPA the next election shall be on Nov 28 with parliament rising on October 31.'
Can't see why this can't happen. Easier than getting 2/3 majority. Would labour risk voting against and look afraid of election? Leaves Dec and Jan to scrutinise WAB. But perhaps Boris would prefer only Jan to be available to pass WAB in case only a small majority so Dec 5 or 12 more likely?
Agreeing new program motion and then shortening extension seems more logical but if Boris is confident of getting a majority then above route seems plausibly available? Or am I misunderstanding/missing something?
How could the opposition amend it would be the question.
They could change the date (Wouldn't worry the Gov't I expect)
I don't think they can change the system to some form of PR - Labour wouldn't want to anyway given its appalling polling.
Try and change franchise to 16/17 - would that get the votes ? Not sure
EU Citizens looks to be the one but I'm not sure it has the votes.
Anything that changes the franchise would have to extend the date of the election to allow people to register. I suspect that the EC would be expected to give guidance on how long might be appropriate to ensure this would happen.
Of course this will mean more delay, so don't rule it out!
I can’t imagine he will go any later than Dec 5th. I’m certainly not in festive relaxing mode at that stage and if it is that date we have a work conference that day and I would need to request a postal vote.
A 'Peoples Parliament' that would finally honour the referendum result.
A fantastic Christmas present for the 17m+ who voted to leave.
“I don't know what to do!" cried Scrooge, laughing and crying in the same breath; and making a perfect Laocoön of himself with his stockings. "I am as light as a feather, I am as happy as an angel, I am as merry as a school-boy. I am as giddy as a drunken man. A merry Christmas to every-body! A happy New Year to all the world! Hallo here! Whoop! Hallo!”
Scrooge voted Brexit, until “die hard Remainer” Jacob Marley scared the shit out of him.
Can things be voted on that just basically say "ignoring law x"? That sounds hilarious. "Notwithstanding the [whatever act that makes it illegal to murder people] we say we can kill Bob because he is funny looking". Fun times
17.4 million voted for Brexit not a Clean-Break Brexit.
I did not vote for a Clean-Break Brexit. I voted hoping for the deal the Vote Leave team said they should get and now have got.
This is not the 'deal' in that sense. It is the exit treaty. Whether we end up with 'clean' or 'filthy' or (insert adjective of choice) Brexit is undecided. It will depend on who is negotiating the Future Relationship on our behalf and on the composition of parliament at that time.
Mr. B, don't know if it's happened yet or coming soon, but Formula E is going to enable gamers to 'drive' against the actual drivers in real time, combining gaming with sports coverage.
It's a brilliant idea.
Collisions that are risk-free for one party but dangerous for the other? Sounds like a recipe for slaughter.
Indeed. Are the constructors really going to want to have their flounce-prone drivers beaten by a spotty 12 year old in Croydon playing in his bedroom?
I'm presuming that the gamers will be driving virtually around the course, and can be knocked out by collision with real drivers, but won't have a physical presence on the track.
Until some savant consistently knocks 3 seconds a lap off the times the real drivers can do. How is that good for the sport?
17.4 million voted for Brexit not a Clean-Break Brexit.
I did not vote for a Clean-Break Brexit. I voted hoping for the deal the Vote Leave team said they should get and now have got.
This is not the 'deal' in that sense. It is the exit treaty. Whether we end up with 'clean' or 'filthy' or (insert adjective of choice) Brexit is undecided. It will depend on who is negotiating the Future Relationship on our behalf and on the composition of parliament at that time.
Nicky Butt: Ex-Manchester United player denies wife attack https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-50152306 "As well as pleading not guilty to assault by beating, he further denies causing £800 of damage to an iPhone 7, Manchester Magistrates' Court heard."
Mr. B, don't know if it's happened yet or coming soon, but Formula E is going to enable gamers to 'drive' against the actual drivers in real time, combining gaming with sports coverage.
It's a brilliant idea.
Collisions that are risk-free for one party but dangerous for the other? Sounds like a recipe for slaughter.
Indeed. Are the constructors really going to want to have their flounce-prone drivers beaten by a spotty 12 year old in Croydon playing in his bedroom?
I'm presuming that the gamers will be driving virtually around the course, and can be knocked out by collision with real drivers, but won't have a physical presence on the track.
Until some savant consistently knocks 3 seconds a lap off the times the real drivers can do. How is that good for the sport?
With zero G forces and no mechanical issues on the virtual drivers I expect the gamers to lead.
28th October EU grant extension to 31 Jan (shortenable). Gov introduces bill saying: 'Notwithstanding FTPA the next election shall be on Nov 28 with parliament rising on October 31.'
Can't see why this can't happen. Easier than getting 2/3 majority. Would labour risk voting against and look afraid of election? Leaves Dec and Jan to scrutinise WAB. But perhaps Boris would prefer only Jan to be available to pass WAB in case only a small majority so Dec 5 or 12 more likely?
Agreeing new program motion and then shortening extension seems more logical but if Boris is confident of getting a majority then above route seems plausibly available? Or am I misunderstanding/missing something?
Can things be voted on that just basically say "ignoring law x"? That sounds hilarious. "Notwithstanding the [whatever act that makes it illegal to murder people] we say we can kill Bob because he is funny looking". Fun times
Yes, that would be a Bill of Attainder. It's never been removed as a power of Parliament, because Parliament's power to legislate as it sees fit cannot be limited. However, it would put us in violation of many international agreements, not limited to the ECHR and the UDHR.
The last one proposed was in 1820, although technically it was a Bill of Pains and Penalties (against Queen Caroline), which is not quite the same thing. That passed the Lords but was not debated by the Commons. Churchill advocated using Bills of Attainder to summary execute the captured Nazi leaders after WW2, but was vetoed by the US and USSR who wanted a formal trial process.
28th October EU grant extension to 31 Jan (shortenable). Gov introduces bill saying: 'Notwithstanding FTPA the next election shall be on Nov 28 with parliament rising on October 31.'
Can't see why this can't happen. Easier than getting 2/3 majority. Would labour risk voting against and look afraid of election? Leaves Dec and Jan to scrutinise WAB. But perhaps Boris would prefer only Jan to be available to pass WAB in case only a small majority so Dec 5 or 12 more likely?
Agreeing new program motion and then shortening extension seems more logical but if Boris is confident of getting a majority then above route seems plausibly available? Or am I misunderstanding/missing something?
Can things be voted on that just basically say "ignoring law x"? That sounds hilarious. "Notwithstanding the [whatever act that makes it illegal to murder people] we say we can kill Bob because he is funny looking". Fun times
Yes
"Notwithstanding the [whatever act makes it illegal] we say we can throw Jeremy Corbyn out as an MP because he is a useless anti-semitic arse."
Nailed on majority in the House. Makes you wonder why nobody has tabled it?
I've been up to my eyeballs in stuff. Why has Elizabeth Warren dramatically lengthened for the Democratic nomination and Joe Biden significantly shortened?
"On 18 April 2017, the Prime Minister Theresa May announced she would seek an election on 8 June,[21] despite previously ruling out an early election.[22][23] A House of Commons motion to allow this was passed on 19 April, with 522 votes for and 13 against, a majority of 509.[24] The motion was supported by the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, while the SNP abstained.[21] Nine Labour MPs, one SDLP MP and three independents (Sylvia Hermon and two former SNP MPs, Natalie McGarry and Michelle Thomson) voted against the motion.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn supported the early election,[26] as did Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron and the Green Party.[27][28] The SNP stated that it was in favour of fixed-term parliaments, and would abstain in the House of Commons vote.[29] UKIP leader Paul Nuttall and First Minister of Wales Carwyn Jones criticised May for being opportunistic in the timing of the election, motivated by the then strong position of the Conservative Party in the opinion polls.
On 25 April, the election date was confirmed as 8 June,[32] with dissolution on 3 May. The government announced that it intended for the next parliament to assemble on 13 June, with the state opening on 19 June.
If the election date is set for 5th December it's set for 5th December and the PM wouldn't be able to change it without a recall of Parliament and Parliaments agreement.
That was the same with a 14th or 15th October election of well of course.
Of course things would get messy if something happened mid-campaign that meant the election had to be postponed but again it couldn't happen without a recall of Parliament and Parliaments agreement.
The date of the election is set by proclamation, and it was set a week after parliament had voted for it. I think that’s their worry.
The date is set by the PM so the only way to ensure you get the date you want is to kick the PM out and take his place.
Is there a limit to how far in the future the PM can set the election date? I sense another Supreme Court hearing.
Nicky Butt: Ex-Manchester United player denies wife attack https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-50152306 "As well as pleading not guilty to assault by beating, he further denies causing £800 of damage to an iPhone 7, Manchester Magistrates' Court heard."
How do you do £800 of damage to an iPhone 7?
It's a footballer's wife. It's going to be a gold case with some diamonds set into it. Dur!
Nicky Butt: Ex-Manchester United player denies wife attack https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-50152306 "As well as pleading not guilty to assault by beating, he further denies causing £800 of damage to an iPhone 7, Manchester Magistrates' Court heard."
How do you do £800 of damage to an iPhone 7?
Footballer's wife. Probably coated her phone in Swarovski crystals.
I've been up to my eyeballs in stuff. Why has Elizabeth Warren dramatically lengthened for the Democratic nomination and Joe Biden significantly shortened?
It may be as simple as the fact that Biden seems to have been doing a bit better than previously in the polls in the last few days.
In other US news, disapproval of Trump appears to be ticking up slowly but surely. Now at 54.6 according to the 538 rolling average, compared to lows of 51.3 in 2018 and 52.3 in 2019.
28th October EU grant extension to 31 Jan (shortenable). Gov introduces bill saying: 'Notwithstanding FTPA the next election shall be on Nov 28 with parliament rising on October 31.'
Can't see why this can't happen. Easier than getting 2/3 majority. Would labour risk voting against and look afraid of election? Leaves Dec and Jan to scrutinise WAB. But perhaps Boris would prefer only Jan to be available to pass WAB in case only a small majority so Dec 5 or 12 more likely?
Agreeing new program motion and then shortening extension seems more logical but if Boris is confident of getting a majority then above route seems plausibly available? Or am I misunderstanding/missing something?
A majority of 30 in favour of the deal seems as though it should be enough to get it through.
But if the deal goes through, that leaves the government without a majority, perhaps until the Spring, and perhaps they think their prospects would be better in an early Brexit election.
I've been up to my eyeballs in stuff. Why has Elizabeth Warren dramatically lengthened for the Democratic nomination and Joe Biden significantly shortened?
It seemed pretty crazy of them to agree to one in April 2017. But at 10pm on polling day it seemed rather less crazy.
True enough. But I hate this climate and these circumstances for Labour. I think it is better to take it into next year, block the Deal, block a GE, force Johnson to either No Deal on 31 Jan or (which I think more likely) bottle it and seek his own 'surrender' further extension. That could be transformational as regards election prospects.
I've been up to my eyeballs in stuff. Why has Elizabeth Warren dramatically lengthened for the Democratic nomination and Joe Biden significantly shortened?
What ever it is it is terrible and should be opposed by all right thinking people
"On 18 April 2017, the Prime Minister Theresa May announced she would seek an election on 8 June,[21] despite previously ruling out an early election.[22][23] A House of Commons motion to allow this was passed on 19 April, with 522 votes for and 13 against, a majority of 509.[24] The motion was supported by the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, while the SNP abstained.[21] Nine Labour MPs, one SDLP MP and three independents (Sylvia Hermon and two former SNP MPs, Natalie McGarry and Michelle Thomson) voted against the motion.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn supported the early election,[26] as did Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron and the Green Party.[27][28] The SNP stated that it was in favour of fixed-term parliaments, and would abstain in the House of Commons vote.[29] UKIP leader Paul Nuttall and First Minister of Wales Carwyn Jones criticised May for being opportunistic in the timing of the election, motivated by the then strong position of the Conservative Party in the opinion polls.
On 25 April, the election date was confirmed as 8 June,[32] with dissolution on 3 May. The government announced that it intended for the next parliament to assemble on 13 June, with the state opening on 19 June.
If the election date is set for 5th December it's set for 5th December and the PM wouldn't be able to change it without a recall of Parliament and Parliaments agreement.
That was the same with a 14th or 15th October election of well of course.
Of course things would get messy if something happened mid-campaign that meant the election had to be postponed but again it couldn't happen without a recall of Parliament and Parliaments agreement.
The date of the election is set by proclamation, and it was set a week after parliament had voted for it. I think that’s their worry.
The date is set by the PM so the only way to ensure you get the date you want is to kick the PM out and take his place.
Is there a limit to how far in the future the PM can set the election date? I sense another Supreme Court hearing.
Does anyone still think Johnson would actually prefer a No Deal Brexit to getting his deal through?
If anyone does think that, do they think he'd prefer a No Deal at the end of January 2020 to leaving perhaps this year with a deal?
True enough. But I hate this climate and these circumstances for Labour. I think it is better to take it into next year, block the Deal, block a GE, force Johnson to either No Deal on 31 Jan or (which I think more likely) bottle it and seek his own 'surrender' further extension. That could be transformational as regards election prospects.
I really don't believe that would be in Labour's long-term interests.
At the very least Labour need to stay competitive for the GE after this one and if they try and play silly games through until next year then I can see them getting such a beating they won't be back in contention for a long time.
They should grab the chance of making it look like they are forcing the Tories in to an election and then make the best of the Brexit message they can.
I've been up to my eyeballs in stuff. Why has Elizabeth Warren dramatically lengthened for the Democratic nomination and Joe Biden significantly shortened?
What ever it is it is terrible and should be opposed by all right thinking people
Not at all. Opportunities to lay Joe Biden at favourable prices are always to be welcomed.
It seemed pretty crazy of them to agree to one in April 2017. But at 10pm on polling day it seemed rather less crazy.
True enough. But I hate this climate and these circumstances for Labour. I think it is better to take it into next year, block the Deal, block a GE, force Johnson to either No Deal on 31 Jan or (which I think more likely) bottle it and seek his own 'surrender' further extension. That could be transformational as regards election prospects.
Good to see the importance of the country party over party country.
I think Labour would fall to derisory levels of vote, sub 20% if this is the strategy they use.
In other US news, disapproval of Trump appears to be ticking up slowly but surely. Now at 54.6 according to the 538 rolling average, compared to lows of 51.3 in 2018 and 52.3 in 2019.
Great news. But 40.9% are still saying that they APPROVE of him!
In other US news, disapproval of Trump appears to be ticking up slowly but surely. Now at 54.6 according to the 538 rolling average, compared to lows of 51.3 in 2018 and 52.3 in 2019.
Great news. But 40.9% are still saying that they APPROVE of him!
Dread to think what else these people approve of.
They are all brickies, waiting for lucrative contracts on the border.
In other US news, disapproval of Trump appears to be ticking up slowly but surely. Now at 54.6 according to the 538 rolling average, compared to lows of 51.3 in 2018 and 52.3 in 2019.
Great news. But 40.9% are still saying that they APPROVE of him!
Dread to think what else these people approve of.
People are funny like that though. I mean, you vote Leave, discover the promised land is in fact desolate wasteland, and the only food in the supermarket is drenched in chlorine, but you still can't quite admit that maybe it wasn't such a whizzo idea after all.
Mr. B, don't know if it's happened yet or coming soon, but Formula E is going to enable gamers to 'drive' against the actual drivers in real time, combining gaming with sports coverage.
It's a brilliant idea.
Collisions that are risk-free for one party but dangerous for the other? Sounds like a recipe for slaughter.
Indeed. Are the constructors really going to want to have their flounce-prone drivers beaten by a spotty 12 year old in Croydon playing in his bedroom?
I'm presuming that the gamers will be driving virtually around the course, and can be knocked out by collision with real drivers, but won't have a physical presence on the track.
Until some savant consistently knocks 3 seconds a lap off the times the real drivers can do. How is that good for the sport?
Well, as the e-sports drivers won't be dealing with the physical effects of racing, in terms of g-forces on the body, I'd expect them to be faster.
But
Don't forget that the real drivers will be able to crash into the virtual ones without consequence, while the virtual ones will have to avoid drivers who cannot see them, and other virtual drivers. They'll effectively have a much more crowded race track, and that will slow them down a lot.
Mr. B, don't know if it's happened yet or coming soon, but Formula E is going to enable gamers to 'drive' against the actual drivers in real time, combining gaming with sports coverage.
It's a brilliant idea.
Collisions that are risk-free for one party but dangerous for the other? Sounds like a recipe for slaughter.
Indeed. Are the constructors really going to want to have their flounce-prone drivers beaten by a spotty 12 year old in Croydon playing in his bedroom?
I'm presuming that the gamers will be driving virtually around the course, and can be knocked out by collision with real drivers, but won't have a physical presence on the track.
Until some savant consistently knocks 3 seconds a lap off the times the real drivers can do. How is that good for the sport?
Well, as the e-sports drivers won't be dealing with the physical effects of racing, in terms of g-forces on the body, I'd expect them to be faster.
But
Don't forget that the real drivers will be able to crash into the virtual ones without consequence, while the virtual ones will have to avoid drivers who cannot see them, and other virtual drivers. They'll effectively have a much more crowded race track, and that will slow them down a lot.
And it would be a piece of cake to 'tune' the virtual car to make sure it couldn't quite win.
I wondered this earlier and was told parliament has primacy.
So in a procedural sense Boris was right.
Not quite. The Sewell convention is basically that Westminster can't pass laws in the areas of competence of the Holyrood and the other devolved parliaments. However a recent UKSC (I think) judgement claimed that this was only a 'political' decision. So Mr Johnson would be breaking an established procedure, if not quite illegally, then certainly at some political cost.
Nicky Butt: Ex-Manchester United player denies wife attack https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-50152306 "As well as pleading not guilty to assault by beating, he further denies causing £800 of damage to an iPhone 7, Manchester Magistrates' Court heard."
How do you do £800 of damage to an iPhone 7?
More to the point...only an iphone 7...dont most 10 years old have more recent phone than that.
I wondered this earlier and was told parliament has primacy.
So in a procedural sense Boris was right.
Not quite. The Sewell convention is basically that Westminster can't pass laws in the areas of competence of the Holyrood and the other devolved parliaments. However a recent UKSC (I think) judgement claimed that this was only a 'political' decision. So Mr Johnson would be breaking an established procedure, if not quite illegally, then certainly at some political cost.
It was Miller (No. 1) that decided that the Sewel convention, while recognised by statute as a political convention, did not have legal consequences.
I've been up to my eyeballs in stuff. Why has Elizabeth Warren dramatically lengthened for the Democratic nomination and Joe Biden significantly shortened?
What ever it is it is terrible and should be opposed by all right thinking people
Not at all. Opportunities to lay Joe Biden at favourable prices are always to be welcomed.
Probably just the latest poll, which shows Biden with a 15% lead nationally.
I know. And it was not factored into the rhetoric of either side during the referendum. It renders much of the debate unfit for purpose, looking back. Perhaps the referendum itself was unfit for purpose. In fact, there is no 'perhaps' about it, IMO. It was. Still, what can you do? We had it. It was Leave. We must Leave. And I'm sure we will - eventually - probably with this Deal and under Blondie. I kind of hope we don't though. Well in one sense I do, but in another I don't. Lots of people have gotten themselves heavily invested in Brexit and if we don't do it they will get the monk on and, going by the looks of some of them, things might get a bit vulgar and reprehensible.
I've been up to my eyeballs in stuff. Why has Elizabeth Warren dramatically lengthened for the Democratic nomination and Joe Biden significantly shortened?
What ever it is it is terrible and should be opposed by all right thinking people
Not at all. Opportunities to lay Joe Biden at favourable prices are always to be welcomed.
I had inadvisably further backed Warren at the top of the market.
Just a thought (and apologies if the point has already been made down thread), but if the LDs are using the above line, doesn't that conclusively close off the Remain Alliance approach to a GE? Presumably, this has implications for UNS and similar becoming more useful predictors again?
I wondered this earlier and was told parliament has primacy.
So in a procedural sense Boris was right.
Not quite. The Sewell convention is basically that Westminster can't pass laws in the areas of competence of the Holyrood and the other devolved parliaments. However a recent UKSC (I think) judgement claimed that this was only a 'political' decision. So Mr Johnson would be breaking an established procedure, if not quite illegally, then certainly at some political cost.
It was Miller (No. 1) that decided that the Sewel convention, while recognised by statute as a political convention, did not have legal consequences.
Not quite. The Sewell convention is basically that Westminster can't pass laws in the areas of competence of the Holyrood and the other devolved parliaments. However a recent UKSC (I think) judgement claimed that this was only a 'political' decision. So Mr Johnson would be breaking an established procedure, if not quite illegally, then certainly at some political cost.
If it helps the SNP further their independence battle then i'm not sure it will be a 'cost'.
I suspect I am in a minority as a Conservative who wants to see Scotland and NI set free...Wales on the other hand I would move heaven and earth to stay together with.
Mr. B, don't know if it's happened yet or coming soon, but Formula E is going to enable gamers to 'drive' against the actual drivers in real time, combining gaming with sports coverage.
It's a brilliant idea.
Collisions that are risk-free for one party but dangerous for the other? Sounds like a recipe for slaughter.
Indeed. Are the constructors really going to want to have their flounce-prone drivers beaten by a spotty 12 year old in Croydon playing in his bedroom?
I'm presuming that the gamers will be driving virtually around the course, and can be knocked out by collision with real drivers, but won't have a physical presence on the track.
Until some savant consistently knocks 3 seconds a lap off the times the real drivers can do. How is that good for the sport?
Well, as the e-sports drivers won't be dealing with the physical effects of racing, in terms of g-forces on the body, I'd expect them to be faster.
But
Don't forget that the real drivers will be able to crash into the virtual ones without consequence, while the virtual ones will have to avoid drivers who cannot see them, and other virtual drivers. They'll effectively have a much more crowded race track, and that will slow them down a lot.
A while a go one of the top drivers from a hard core driving sim was given a chance to drive a track he held a record time on for real.
He was pretty good in real life but his body couldn't take the strain and he ended up throwing up.
It is certainly true that Corbyn and the Labour Party have been a major factor in Brexit and the damage it has done and will continue to do to the country. I have always felt that Brexit should be implemented as long as the government of the day can do a deal which looks 90 plus percent like the arrangements which Vote Leave said they would get in the referendum of 2016. Delivering no Brexit or delivering a Brexit which delivered some, but not all the major commitments of the Vote Leave campaign are both exactly the same for me. Neither has a democratic mandate. It was obvious 18 months ago that the Vote Leave deal was not going to happen and that was the time when Corbyn and Labour should have said that the referendum result of 2016 was no longer sound enough to be safe. Personally I suspect that had he done that a way would have been found to pass May's deal at the start of the year subject to a referendum and we would now be moving forward. He failed to have a policy, parliament failed to have an effective opposition and MPs failed to find an option they could agree. The rest, as they say, is history.
I've been up to my eyeballs in stuff. Why has Elizabeth Warren dramatically lengthened for the Democratic nomination and Joe Biden significantly shortened?
New CNN poll shows him with biggest lead since April
People are funny like that though. I mean, you vote Leave, discover the promised land is in fact desolate wasteland, and the only food in the supermarket is drenched in chlorine, but you still can't quite admit that maybe it wasn't such a whizzo idea after all.
Yes, I don't recall chlorinated chicken being on the ballot paper. If it had been would even 10% have voted for it, let alone 52%? Doubt it.
Well he's now won, what, 2 votes? Back to form tomorrow I guess.
Goodall should be aware that Queen's Speech votes all occur at the END of the debate, which is normally IIRC after 4 days of debate. So I expect nothing in particular from those days.
Mr. B, don't know if it's happened yet or coming soon, but Formula E is going to enable gamers to 'drive' against the actual drivers in real time, combining gaming with sports coverage.
It's a brilliant idea.
Collisions that are risk-free for one party but dangerous for the other? Sounds like a recipe for slaughter.
Indeed. Are the constructors really going to want to have their flounce-prone drivers beaten by a spotty 12 year old in Croydon playing in his bedroom?
I'm presuming that the gamers will be driving virtually around the course, and can be knocked out by collision with real drivers, but won't have a physical presence on the track.
Until some savant consistently knocks 3 seconds a lap off the times the real drivers can do. How is that good for the sport?
Well, as the e-sports drivers won't be dealing with the physical effects of racing, in terms of g-forces on the body, I'd expect them to be faster.
But
Don't forget that the real drivers will be able to crash into the virtual ones without consequence, while the virtual ones will have to avoid drivers who cannot see them, and other virtual drivers. They'll effectively have a much more crowded race track, and that will slow them down a lot.
A while a go one of the top drivers from a hard core driving sim was given a chance to drive a track he held a record time on for real.
He was pretty good in real life but his body couldn't take the strain and he ended up throwing up.
Not quite. The Sewell convention is basically that Westminster can't pass laws in the areas of competence of the Holyrood and the other devolved parliaments. However a recent UKSC (I think) judgement claimed that this was only a 'political' decision. So Mr Johnson would be breaking an established procedure, if not quite illegally, then certainly at some political cost.
If it helps the SNP further their independence battle then i'm not sure it will be a 'cost'.
I suspect I am in a minority as a Conservative who wants to see Scotland and NI set free...Wales on the other hand I would move heaven and earth to stay together with.
That's an interesting perspective!
The cost I had in mind was to Mr Johnson - but we may yet see.
Mr. B, don't know if it's happened yet or coming soon, but Formula E is going to enable gamers to 'drive' against the actual drivers in real time, combining gaming with sports coverage.
It's a brilliant idea.
Collisions that are risk-free for one party but dangerous for the other? Sounds like a recipe for slaughter.
Indeed. Are the constructors really going to want to have their flounce-prone drivers beaten by a spotty 12 year old in Croydon playing in his bedroom?
I'm presuming that the gamers will be driving virtually around the course, and can be knocked out by collision with real drivers, but won't have a physical presence on the track.
Until some savant consistently knocks 3 seconds a lap off the times the real drivers can do. How is that good for the sport?
Well, as the e-sports drivers won't be dealing with the physical effects of racing, in terms of g-forces on the body, I'd expect them to be faster.
But
Don't forget that the real drivers will be able to crash into the virtual ones without consequence, while the virtual ones will have to avoid drivers who cannot see them, and other virtual drivers. They'll effectively have a much more crowded race track, and that will slow them down a lot.
A while a go one of the top drivers from a hard core driving sim was given a chance to drive a track he held a record time on for real.
He was pretty good in real life but his body couldn't take the strain and he ended up throwing up.
Mr. B, don't know if it's happened yet or coming soon, but Formula E is going to enable gamers to 'drive' against the actual drivers in real time, combining gaming with sports coverage.
It's a brilliant idea.
Collisions that are risk-free for one party but dangerous for the other? Sounds like a recipe for slaughter.
Indeed. Are the constructors really going to want to have their flounce-prone drivers beaten by a spotty 12 year old in Croydon playing in his bedroom?
I'm presuming that the gamers will be driving virtually around the course, and can be knocked out by collision with real drivers, but won't have a physical presence on the track.
Until some savant consistently knocks 3 seconds a lap off the times the real drivers can do. How is that good for the sport?
Well, as the e-sports drivers won't be dealing with the physical effects of racing, in terms of g-forces on the body, I'd expect them to be faster.
But
Don't forget that the real drivers will be able to crash into the virtual ones without consequence, while the virtual ones will have to avoid drivers who cannot see them, and other virtual drivers. They'll effectively have a much more crowded race track, and that will slow them down a lot.
A while a go one of the top drivers from a hard core driving sim was given a chance to drive a track he held a record time on for real.
He was pretty good in real life but his body couldn't take the strain and he ended up throwing up.
Comments
One has to wonder if Bercow might rule it out of order though :O :O !?
1. Extension to 31/01
2. Guarantees to satisfy election date concerns
3. GE
It seems to me to be the simplest route through because the deal will never get through parliament without wrecking amendments being attached.
Silly buggery is in BXP DNA.
Whether 2017 Tory voters will fall for it? Not many, is my aseesment, based on talking to some of them.
Of course this will mean more delay, so don't rule it out!
In effect, Corbyn would have it written in stone which is fair enough.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-50152306
"As well as pleading not guilty to assault by beating, he further denies causing £800 of damage to an iPhone 7, Manchester Magistrates' Court heard."
How do you do £800 of damage to an iPhone 7?
The last one proposed was in 1820, although technically it was a Bill of Pains and Penalties (against Queen Caroline), which is not quite the same thing. That passed the Lords but was not debated by the Commons. Churchill advocated using Bills of Attainder to summary execute the captured Nazi leaders after WW2, but was vetoed by the US and USSR who wanted a formal trial process.
Nailed on majority in the House. Makes you wonder why nobody has tabled it?
Biden gains widest lead in 2020 race in months amid Trump's smears – live
In other US news, disapproval of Trump appears to be ticking up slowly but surely. Now at 54.6 according to the 538 rolling average, compared to lows of 51.3 in 2018 and 52.3 in 2019.
But if the deal goes through, that leaves the government without a majority, perhaps until the Spring, and perhaps they think their prospects would be better in an early Brexit election.
F1 should absolutely copy it pronto.
Labour may find other ways to avoid the election but it won't be because of date concerns.
If anyone does think that, do they think he'd prefer a No Deal at the end of January 2020 to leaving perhaps this year with a deal?
At the very least Labour need to stay competitive for the GE after this one and if they try and play silly games through until next year then I can see them getting such a beating they won't be back in contention for a long time.
They should grab the chance of making it look like they are forcing the Tories in to an election and then make the best of the Brexit message they can.
I think Labour would fall to derisory levels of vote, sub 20% if this is the strategy they use.
So in a procedural sense Boris was right.
Dread to think what else these people approve of.
But
Don't forget that the real drivers will be able to crash into the virtual ones without consequence, while the virtual ones will have to avoid drivers who cannot see them, and other virtual drivers. They'll effectively have a much more crowded race track, and that will slow them down a lot.
The vote would have been on Tuesday were it not for other issues taking over.
Meanwhile, a plausible explanation for the Hillary odds:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/467021-clinton-2020-whisper-campaign-hits-new-heights
The EU want to know is there going to be an election . Why should they grant 3 months to just sit and watch more bickering in the Commons .
https://twitter.com/adebradley/status/1187023636022124545
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1187014448453734403
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1187023791349796864
I suspect I am in a minority as a Conservative who wants to see Scotland and NI set free...Wales on the other hand I would move heaven and earth to stay together with.
You're not thinking it is about Brexit, I hope?
Because if so, as the line goes, I have a bridge.
He was pretty good in real life but his body couldn't take the strain and he ended up throwing up.
Can't find the video.
7 in fact.
I'll see myself out.
I feel like an idiot for not spotting that would happen.
Sometimes PB gives you the stuff that really matters.
The cost I had in mind was to Mr Johnson - but we may yet see.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/467021-clinton-2020-whisper-campaign-hits-new-heights"
I`ve been quietly backing Hillary for a while now but up to now haven`t admitted it for fear of you taking the piss and calling me a mug punter.
Something is ending
And something begins