politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » WH2020: We need a market on who will President on January 21st
Options
Comments
-
The obsession with cummings continues to cloud any sense of judgement these people have. They really do not like the plebs do they?CarlottaVance said:
Certainly seems to be annoying the right people:Richard_Tyndall said:
Claire Fox is an interesting choice.algarkirk said:CarlottaVance said:Daniel Moylan (another contemporary of Philip & Theresa May) on the peerage list too. Fun that Frank Field. Kate Hoey, Ian Austin, Gisela Stuart and John Woodcock were not nominated by Corbyn!
Pretty good list all in all. Charles Moore is a bonus.
https://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/1289226107254759424?s=201 -
I'd give it to Johnson. He tipped the blue- collar waverers over the Brexit line, albeit quite possibly without meaning so to do.CatMan said:
I'd say the person most responsible for Brexit is Rupert Murdoch.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
That is a bold statement.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
There wasn't.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
That was the point.
Without him, it may not have happened at the time it did, or the way it did.
Equally, his brashness, dubious morality and overt populism may have put off as many people as it attracted. Do you think Leave would have won if he had been the key frontman?
The great untold story of Brexit - so far - is that the EU was always tolerated in this country, never loved. And it turned out that in the last analysis, that wasn't enough to keep us in. It was enough for Scotland, who wanted a brake on Westminster, Northern Ireland, where there was an urgent need to avoid a return to the Troubles, and Gibraltar, where it was seen as preferable to integration with Spain. It wasn't enough for England and Wales, where it was seen as at best an expensive irrelevance and at worst, a malign and destructive influence.
That predated Farage's rise to prominence and it would have happened anyway. He surfed a wave, rather than made it.
Did his ability to surf that wave lead Cameron to the referendum? Yes. But it wasn't the only factor.1 -
Yes he's in there with a shout.Luckyguy1983 said:
Mandela.TOPPING said:
I think they ran out of money rather than the fall of the Soviet Union being something that Ronald Reagan had dedicated himself to achieving over a number of decades.ydoethur said:
Ronald Reagan and the collapse of the Soviet Union?TOPPING said:
Who else has wanted something so singular and has achieved it, via decades of determined effort, through political means?ydoethur said:
I am not wedded to 'ineluctable tides.' In fact, look at the earlier comments and you will note I said: 'Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.'IshmaelZ said:
And you stay wedded to your "ineluctable tide of history" theory if you wish. You aren't correct either, the truth is in the middle. Farage's key role if he had one wasn't persuading voters, it was pushing Cameron to hold the referendum in the first place.ydoethur said:
There you go again. Without the votes of a majority in England and Wales, many of whom thought (correctly) that he was a posh twat who didn't care about them, there would be no Brexit. That's the key.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
That is a bold statement.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
There wasn't.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
That was the point.
Without him, it may not have happened at the time it did, or the way it did.
Equally, his brashness, dubious morality and overt populism may have put off as many people as it attracted. Do you think Leave would have won if he had been the key frontman?
The great untold story of Brexit - so far - is that the EU was always tolerated in this country, never loved. And it turned out that in the last analysis, that wasn't enough to keep us in. It was enough for Scotland, who wanted a brake on Westminster, Northern Ireland, where there was an urgent need to avoid a return to the Troubles, and Gibraltar, where it was seen as preferable to integration with Spain. It wasn't enough for England and Wales, where it was seen as at best an expensive irrelevance and at worst, a malign and destructive influence.
That predated Farage's rise to prominence and it would have happened anyway. He surfed a wave, rather than made it.
Did his ability to surf that wave lead Cameron to the referendum? Yes. But it wasn't the only factor.
Stay wedded to your 'great men' theory if you wish. You aren't correct, but ultimately it's harmless if diverting.
But ultimately, however we cut it, the reason we have left the EU is that a majority of the British public were opposed to membership of it, and that wasn't the result of Nigel Farage.
So to get back to the point - he wasn't the most effective political campaigner of the last 30 years.
Edit: and that just squeaks into "the last 30 years".
So far we have:
a) Ronald Reagan
b) Nelson Mandela
c) Nigel Farage
An interesting contest I'm sure but the fact that that is what people are countering with itself is indicative.
What about British politician? Unambiguously the case according to the PB cognoscenti.0 -
I have two very happy kids and love them very much of course. The elder is 19 and is delighted at Brexit. She clearly has more sense and foresight than you.IshmaelZ said:
I do often wonder whether leavers don't have children at all, or have them but don't like them all that much.OldKingCole said:
I am indeed very sore at prospect of the level to which my country looks like falling. As are my children and and grandchildren who have stayed here. I don''t think those who have been brought up elsewhere are likely to return.Richard_Tyndall said:
...is that you are indeed a sore loser. Correct!OldKingCole said:
Fair comment about the Hitler etc comment.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not for a second. But that is not the question being debated. The vast majority of politicians are totally self interested. I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them.OldKingCole said:
I wouldn't deny that. I've been involved in pro-Europe campaigns at various levels since the late 60's. I hope you're not going to suggest that Johnson and Cummings are other than totally self-interested.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah the bitterness of losers.OldKingCole said:
He used to bang on about it when he worked in the City and many people thought him a loon. Done more damage this country that Hitler and Kaiser Bill combined.Richard_Tyndall said:
I wold certainly agree that he was the man who got us to the point where we were actually given the choice. That took decades of campaigning and for that alone I am very grateful to him.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
What matters is what they are fighting for and whether they achieve it and Farage was fighting for something I wholeheartedly supported and had the nous, the skill or the cunning - whichever you prefer - to actually get us to the point where we were able to make a choice.
The comment about Hitler and Kaiser Bill is just fatuous bollocks. Hence my sore loser retort.
However, in the end the proof of the pudding.......0 -
More a horseshoe jump.Luckyguy1983 said:I always find Claire Fox very eloquent, and what she's saying usually very sound, politically.
However, I am puzzled with how one journeys from revolutionary communism to libertarianism without it being a u-turn.
1 -
She was taken in on Day 1 and had the procedure first on the morning list on Day 2.Foxy said:
The problem at the moment is not the usual. Historically surgical throughput has been constrained by bed shortages, but at present the bottleneck is theatre capacity. Almost every surgical procedure takes twice as long at the moment because of PPE and social distancing requirements, so theatre time is at a premium. Staffing requirements are higher for similar reasons.TOPPING said:Okay @NerysHughes et al NHS/COVID update:
My mother broke her hip last week. In her local hospital orthopaedic ward.
She is the only one in it.
So yes, elective admission wards are very quiet, but it is not simply a matter of ringing around the waiting list. Everything at the moment is held back by logistics. Its like wading in treacle. It is also why, if you do get a slot, you get deluxe treatment at present.0 -
Do you have anything to support such an ill motivation behind the action? It seems highly unlikely to be the case since knighting him is presumably pleasing to Mrs May, so any awful intent would be lost.kinabalu said:
Is that a sly jab at his predecessor? Knighted for putting up with her? Bet it is. Would be typical puerile Johnson.geoffw said:Mr May has been knighted.
Rather more likely is your view is a prime example of people not being satisfied with all the genuine examples to criticise or demonise Johnson, and inventing ones unnecessarily by making even something nice or neutral a petty act. Even Boris, even Corbyn, even Trump, is not awful every minute of every day.1 -
Just had a phone consultation with someone from the Urinary Oncology (AKA prostate cancer) team. He was very anxious to tell me what he wanted to tell me, but far less anxious to listen to what I had to say.Foxy said:
The problem at the moment is not the usual. Historically surgical throughput has been constrained by bed shortages, but at present the bottleneck is theatre capacity. Almost every surgical procedure takes twice as long at the moment because of PPE and social distancing requirements, so theatre time is at a premium. Staffing requirements are higher for similar reasons.TOPPING said:Okay @NerysHughes et al NHS/COVID update:
My mother broke her hip last week. In her local hospital orthopaedic ward.
She is the only one in it.
So yes, elective admission wards are very quiet, but it is not simply a matter of ringing around the waiting list. Everything at the moment is held back by logistics. Its like wading in treacle. It is also why, if you do get a slot, you get deluxe treatment at present.
However, what he wanted to tell me was that the Consultant had looked at the recent results and the records, and it had been decided that my GP ....... who he insisted on referring to as he, although it's a she ...... could monitor my 6 monthly PSA tests in future.
Which, of course, is good news.3 -
I do find it strange as well. It is a journey quite a few of them have taken including of course Brendan O'Neil. I must admit I have never bothered to go and look how they justify it but do mean to sometime.Luckyguy1983 said:I always find Claire Fox very eloquent, and what she's saying usually very sound, politically.
However, I am puzzled with how one journeys from revolutionary communism to libertarianism without it being a u-turn.0 -
Farage polishing his nails at being included in that top three! Probably disappointed he only comes in at c).TOPPING said:
Yes he's in there with a shout.Luckyguy1983 said:
Mandela.TOPPING said:
I think they ran out of money rather than the fall of the Soviet Union being something that Ronald Reagan had dedicated himself to achieving over a number of decades.ydoethur said:
Ronald Reagan and the collapse of the Soviet Union?TOPPING said:
Who else has wanted something so singular and has achieved it, via decades of determined effort, through political means?ydoethur said:
I am not wedded to 'ineluctable tides.' In fact, look at the earlier comments and you will note I said: 'Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.'IshmaelZ said:
And you stay wedded to your "ineluctable tide of history" theory if you wish. You aren't correct either, the truth is in the middle. Farage's key role if he had one wasn't persuading voters, it was pushing Cameron to hold the referendum in the first place.ydoethur said:
There you go again. Without the votes of a majority in England and Wales, many of whom thought (correctly) that he was a posh twat who didn't care about them, there would be no Brexit. That's the key.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
That is a bold statement.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
There wasn't.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
That was the point.
Without him, it may not have happened at the time it did, or the way it did.
Equally, his brashness, dubious morality and overt populism may have put off as many people as it attracted. Do you think Leave would have won if he had been the key frontman?
The great untold story of Brexit - so far - is that the EU was always tolerated in this country, never loved. And it turned out that in the last analysis, that wasn't enough to keep us in. It was enough for Scotland, who wanted a brake on Westminster, Northern Ireland, where there was an urgent need to avoid a return to the Troubles, and Gibraltar, where it was seen as preferable to integration with Spain. It wasn't enough for England and Wales, where it was seen as at best an expensive irrelevance and at worst, a malign and destructive influence.
That predated Farage's rise to prominence and it would have happened anyway. He surfed a wave, rather than made it.
Did his ability to surf that wave lead Cameron to the referendum? Yes. But it wasn't the only factor.
Stay wedded to your 'great men' theory if you wish. You aren't correct, but ultimately it's harmless if diverting.
But ultimately, however we cut it, the reason we have left the EU is that a majority of the British public were opposed to membership of it, and that wasn't the result of Nigel Farage.
So to get back to the point - he wasn't the most effective political campaigner of the last 30 years.
Edit: and that just squeaks into "the last 30 years".
So far we have:
a) Ronald Reagan
b) Nelson Mandela
c) Nigel Farage
An interesting contest I'm sure but the fact that that is what people are countering with itself is indicative.
What about British politician? Unambiguously the case according to the PB cognoscenti.0 -
EU membership is very popular in those countries, and increasingly so. We plough a lonely furrow.ydoethur said:
Yes, that would be my position. It was a live issue with the Tory right, and their voters, with or without Farage.Philip_Thompson said:
Maybe, maybe not. Considering nearly 100 Tory MPs voted to have a referendum against a three line whip, it was a live issue with or without Farage.Richard_Tyndall said:
You are missing the basic point. You are right that by the time of the vote he was more a liability than a benefit. But we would never have got to that vote without him.ydoethur said:
There you go again. Without the votes of a majority in England and Wales, many of whom thought (correctly) that he was a posh twat who didn't care about them, there would be no Brexit. That's the key.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
That is a bold statement.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
There wasn't.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
That was the point.
Without him, it may not have happened at the time it did, or the way it did.
Equally, his brashness, dubious morality and overt populism may have put off as many people as it attracted. Do you think Leave would have won if he had been the key frontman?
The great untold story of Brexit - so far - is that the EU was always tolerated in this country, never loved. And it turned out that in the last analysis, that wasn't enough to keep us in. It was enough for Scotland, who wanted a brake on Westminster, Northern Ireland, where there was an urgent need to avoid a return to the Troubles, and Gibraltar, where it was seen as preferable to integration with Spain. It wasn't enough for England and Wales, where it was seen as at best an expensive irrelevance and at worst, a malign and destructive influence.
That predated Farage's rise to prominence and it would have happened anyway. He surfed a wave, rather than made it.
Did his ability to surf that wave lead Cameron to the referendum? Yes. But it wasn't the only factor.
Stay wedded to your 'great men' theory if you wish. You aren't correct, but ultimately it's harmless if diverting.
I do think however it would have taken another 10 years without the pressure he brought from UKIP.
Equally, in another 10 years I think we would probably have effectively wandered out of the EU anyway, as Poland, Sweden, Hungary and any other non-euro members are going to.
0 -
Not necessarily, given in the Australian case the vaccine has already been tested in human volunteers (I don't think Nerys was suggesting moving straight from mice to care home residents...).MaxPB said:
That's highly unethical.NerysHughes said:
I dont get why they are not just giving potential vaccines to people in Care Homes and use them as the test subjects. They have shown thay they are harmless so if they work great, if they don't no harm done. Australia look likely to do this.Nigelb said:The good news is that this really does not seem the most difficult virus to develop an effective vaccine against. Here's yet another one, along with clear evidence of neutralising antibodies (in mice).
Replication-competent vesicular stomatitis virus vaccine vector protects against SARS-CoV-2-mediated pathogenesis in mice
https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/fulltext/S1931-3128(20)30421-2
Previously, we developed a replication-competent vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) expressing a modified form of the SARS-CoV-2 spike gene in place of the native glycoprotein gene (VSV-eGFP-SARS-CoV-2). Here, we show that vaccination with VSV-eGFP-SARS-CoV-2 generates neutralizing immune responses and protects mice from SARS-CoV-2. Immunization of mice with VSV-eGFP-SARS-CoV-2 elicits high antibody titers that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 and target the receptor binding domain that engages human angiotensin converting enzyme-2 (ACE2). Upon challenge with a human isolate of SARS-CoV-2, mice expressing human ACE2 and immunized with VSV-eGFP-SARS-CoV-2 show profoundly reduced viral infection and inflammation in the lung, indicating protection against pneumonia. Passive transfer of sera from VSV-eGFP-SARS-CoV-2-immunized animals also protects naïve mice from SARS-CoV-2 challenge. These data support development of VSV-eGFP-SARS-CoV-2 as an attenuated, replication-competent vaccine against SARS-CoV-2.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8578411/Coronavirus-vaccine-developed-Australian-researchers-develops-immune-response.html
There is obviously a question of informed consent, but there's no reason to think some care home residents aren't capable of giving it. And they are also at a very high risk of serious illness or death should they contract the virus itself, and as we've seen, at some risk of contracting it.
There's certainly an urgent need to test these vaccines in older people, as they are the ones at most risk - early trials are almost always in the young and healthy.
FWIW, I've volunteered for a trial, but yet to hear anything back.
0 -
Stuff like this makes me want to get rid of honours completely. If only our ruling class spent as much time worrying about how to deal with covid (or jobs, etc in normal times) as they do one-ups-manship on their silly games, we would be a lot better off.ydoethur said:
Bizarre though it sounds, it's most likely a slap at Tony Blair.kinabalu said:
Is that a sly jab at his predecessor? Knighted for putting up with her? Bet it is. Would be typical puerile Johnson.geoffw said:Mr May has been knighted.
Traditionally, former prime ministers are elevated to the Order of the Garter. Unless, of course, they refuse.
At the moment, there are vacancies in the Garter. So the Queen could admit Blair, and Cameron if she so wished. Given that four of the other members are over 90, Theresa May would then become eligible quite soon.
Yet although she has had many opportunities to admit Blair, the fact is she hasn't done so. Why not? Well, according to rumour, because she doesn't like him and thinks he doesn't deserve the honour.
If so, that is remarkable because even though it was no secret she disliked Thatcher (and even said so in public, most unusually for someone so discreet) she made her a member in 1995.
But the tradition is, that while a living Prime Minister has not been offered membership, nor will his successors.
So knighting Philip May could be a very roundabout (and frankly inappropriate) way of honoring Theresa May, while keeping Blair in the cold.3 -
Then they will be missing out and I pity them. I certainly wouldn't live anywhere else in the world by choice.OldKingCole said:
I am indeed very sore at prospect of the level to which my country looks like falling. As are my children and and grandchildren who have stayed here. I don''t think those who have been brought up elsewhere are likely to return.Richard_Tyndall said:
...is that you are indeed a sore loser. Correct!OldKingCole said:
Fair comment about the Hitler etc comment.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not for a second. But that is not the question being debated. The vast majority of politicians are totally self interested. I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them.OldKingCole said:
I wouldn't deny that. I've been involved in pro-Europe campaigns at various levels since the late 60's. I hope you're not going to suggest that Johnson and Cummings are other than totally self-interested.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah the bitterness of losers.OldKingCole said:
He used to bang on about it when he worked in the City and many people thought him a loon. Done more damage this country that Hitler and Kaiser Bill combined.Richard_Tyndall said:
I wold certainly agree that he was the man who got us to the point where we were actually given the choice. That took decades of campaigning and for that alone I am very grateful to him.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
What matters is what they are fighting for and whether they achieve it and Farage was fighting for something I wholeheartedly supported and had the nous, the skill or the cunning - whichever you prefer - to actually get us to the point where we were able to make a choice.
The comment about Hitler and Kaiser Bill is just fatuous bollocks. Hence my sore loser retort.
However, in the end the proof of the pudding.......0 -
I should have done it alphabetically.Mexicanpete said:
Farage polishing his nails at being included in that top three! Probably disappointed he only comes in at c).TOPPING said:
Yes he's in there with a shout.Luckyguy1983 said:
Mandela.TOPPING said:
I think they ran out of money rather than the fall of the Soviet Union being something that Ronald Reagan had dedicated himself to achieving over a number of decades.ydoethur said:
Ronald Reagan and the collapse of the Soviet Union?TOPPING said:
Who else has wanted something so singular and has achieved it, via decades of determined effort, through political means?ydoethur said:
I am not wedded to 'ineluctable tides.' In fact, look at the earlier comments and you will note I said: 'Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.'IshmaelZ said:
And you stay wedded to your "ineluctable tide of history" theory if you wish. You aren't correct either, the truth is in the middle. Farage's key role if he had one wasn't persuading voters, it was pushing Cameron to hold the referendum in the first place.ydoethur said:
There you go again. Without the votes of a majority in England and Wales, many of whom thought (correctly) that he was a posh twat who didn't care about them, there would be no Brexit. That's the key.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
That is a bold statement.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
There wasn't.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
That was the point.
Without him, it may not have happened at the time it did, or the way it did.
Equally, his brashness, dubious morality and overt populism may have put off as many people as it attracted. Do you think Leave would have won if he had been the key frontman?
The great untold story of Brexit - so far - is that the EU was always tolerated in this country, never loved. And it turned out that in the last analysis, that wasn't enough to keep us in. It was enough for Scotland, who wanted a brake on Westminster, Northern Ireland, where there was an urgent need to avoid a return to the Troubles, and Gibraltar, where it was seen as preferable to integration with Spain. It wasn't enough for England and Wales, where it was seen as at best an expensive irrelevance and at worst, a malign and destructive influence.
That predated Farage's rise to prominence and it would have happened anyway. He surfed a wave, rather than made it.
Did his ability to surf that wave lead Cameron to the referendum? Yes. But it wasn't the only factor.
Stay wedded to your 'great men' theory if you wish. You aren't correct, but ultimately it's harmless if diverting.
But ultimately, however we cut it, the reason we have left the EU is that a majority of the British public were opposed to membership of it, and that wasn't the result of Nigel Farage.
So to get back to the point - he wasn't the most effective political campaigner of the last 30 years.
Edit: and that just squeaks into "the last 30 years".
So far we have:
a) Ronald Reagan
b) Nelson Mandela
c) Nigel Farage
An interesting contest I'm sure but the fact that that is what people are countering with itself is indicative.
What about British politician? Unambiguously the case according to the PB cognoscenti.1 -
Hugo Chavez if you want a Venezuelan.TOPPING said:
Yes he's in there with a shout.Luckyguy1983 said:
Mandela.TOPPING said:
I think they ran out of money rather than the fall of the Soviet Union being something that Ronald Reagan had dedicated himself to achieving over a number of decades.ydoethur said:
Ronald Reagan and the collapse of the Soviet Union?TOPPING said:
Who else has wanted something so singular and has achieved it, via decades of determined effort, through political means?ydoethur said:
I am not wedded to 'ineluctable tides.' In fact, look at the earlier comments and you will note I said: 'Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.'IshmaelZ said:
And you stay wedded to your "ineluctable tide of history" theory if you wish. You aren't correct either, the truth is in the middle. Farage's key role if he had one wasn't persuading voters, it was pushing Cameron to hold the referendum in the first place.ydoethur said:
There you go again. Without the votes of a majority in England and Wales, many of whom thought (correctly) that he was a posh twat who didn't care about them, there would be no Brexit. That's the key.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
That is a bold statement.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
There wasn't.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
That was the point.
Without him, it may not have happened at the time it did, or the way it did.
Equally, his brashness, dubious morality and overt populism may have put off as many people as it attracted. Do you think Leave would have won if he had been the key frontman?
The great untold story of Brexit - so far - is that the EU was always tolerated in this country, never loved. And it turned out that in the last analysis, that wasn't enough to keep us in. It was enough for Scotland, who wanted a brake on Westminster, Northern Ireland, where there was an urgent need to avoid a return to the Troubles, and Gibraltar, where it was seen as preferable to integration with Spain. It wasn't enough for England and Wales, where it was seen as at best an expensive irrelevance and at worst, a malign and destructive influence.
That predated Farage's rise to prominence and it would have happened anyway. He surfed a wave, rather than made it.
Did his ability to surf that wave lead Cameron to the referendum? Yes. But it wasn't the only factor.
Stay wedded to your 'great men' theory if you wish. You aren't correct, but ultimately it's harmless if diverting.
But ultimately, however we cut it, the reason we have left the EU is that a majority of the British public were opposed to membership of it, and that wasn't the result of Nigel Farage.
So to get back to the point - he wasn't the most effective political campaigner of the last 30 years.
Edit: and that just squeaks into "the last 30 years".
So far we have:
a) Ronald Reagan
b) Nelson Mandela
c) Nigel Farage
An interesting contest I'm sure but the fact that that is what people are countering with itself is indicative.
What about British politician? Unambiguously the case according to the PB cognoscenti.
He's even more extraordinary because he persuaded the Venezuelans to conspire in his stealing billions of dollars of their own money.
Salmond, in his campaigning for a Scottish parliament and a referendum on independence.
Gerry Adams, in his campaign for more power for the ethnically Irish in Ulster.0 -
While I recognise her facility with argument, I've always thought her a complete steamer.Luckyguy1983 said:I always find Claire Fox very eloquent, and what she's saying usually very sound, politically.
However, I am puzzled with how one journeys from revolutionary communism to libertarianism without it being a u-turn.1 -
I think it's quite common to go from one extreme to the other.Luckyguy1983 said:I always find Claire Fox very eloquent, and what she's saying usually very sound, politically.
However, I am puzzled with how one journeys from revolutionary communism to libertarianism without it being a u-turn.
Or put it this way, if you take a bunch of R/W extremists, there will be more of them that used to be L/W extremists than used to be Centrist Dads or One Nation Conservatives or Liberal Democrats.
I also sense that moving from extreme L to extreme R is more common than the other way around. Would be interesting to speculate as to why that might be but I don't care to right this minute.1 -
Surely Mr Putin deserves a few garlands too?Mexicanpete said:
I'd give it to Johnson. He tipped the blue- collar waverers over the Brexit line, albeit quite possibly without meaning, so to do.CatMan said:
I'd say the person most responsible for Brexit is Rupert Murdoch.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
That is a bold statement.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
There wasn't.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
That was the point.
Without him, it may not have happened at the time it did, or the way it did.
Equally, his brashness, dubious morality and overt populism may have put off as many people as it attracted. Do you think Leave would have won if he had been the key frontman?
The great untold story of Brexit - so far - is that the EU was always tolerated in this country, never loved. And it turned out that in the last analysis, that wasn't enough to keep us in. It was enough for Scotland, who wanted a brake on Westminster, Northern Ireland, where there was an urgent need to avoid a return to the Troubles, and Gibraltar, where it was seen as preferable to integration with Spain. It wasn't enough for England and Wales, where it was seen as at best an expensive irrelevance and at worst, a malign and destructive influence.
That predated Farage's rise to prominence and it would have happened anyway. He surfed a wave, rather than made it.
Did his ability to surf that wave lead Cameron to the referendum? Yes. But it wasn't the only factor.1 -
Tony Blair, for leading his party back to power after 18 years.
He hadn't a clue what to do next, of course, but that only makes the parallel better.
He won far more elections than Farage as well, at all levels.0 -
Probably not the only one who needs to be in it though.TOPPING said:Okay @NerysHughes et al NHS/COVID update:
My mother broke her hip last week. In her local hospital orthopaedic ward.
She is the only one in it.
0 -
Upsetting the 'right people' is a very slippery slope in my opinion, and ends up justifying a lot more than peopel initally intend once they go down that path. It's also possible to be a disruptor without being a dick, for example, though I must sayI had completely forgotten about Fox.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because it upsets all the right people. We need more disruptors in politics.Pulpstar said:
Why are you delighted ?Richard_Tyndall said:
Hahahaha. I am delighted.Alistair said:
Fuck me. That is genuinely disgusting.Richard_Tyndall said:
Claire Fox is an interesting choice.algarkirk said:CarlottaVance said:Daniel Moylan (another contemporary of Philip & Theresa May) on the peerage list too. Fun that Frank Field. Kate Hoey, Ian Austin, Gisela Stuart and John Woodcock were not nominated by Corbyn!
Pretty good list all in all. Charles Moore is a bonus.1 -
Yes all in the mix.ydoethur said:
Hugo Chavez if you want a Venezuelan.TOPPING said:
Yes he's in there with a shout.Luckyguy1983 said:
Mandela.TOPPING said:
I think they ran out of money rather than the fall of the Soviet Union being something that Ronald Reagan had dedicated himself to achieving over a number of decades.ydoethur said:
Ronald Reagan and the collapse of the Soviet Union?TOPPING said:
Who else has wanted something so singular and has achieved it, via decades of determined effort, through political means?ydoethur said:
I am not wedded to 'ineluctable tides.' In fact, look at the earlier comments and you will note I said: 'Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.'IshmaelZ said:
And you stay wedded to your "ineluctable tide of history" theory if you wish. You aren't correct either, the truth is in the middle. Farage's key role if he had one wasn't persuading voters, it was pushing Cameron to hold the referendum in the first place.ydoethur said:
There you go again. Without the votes of a majority in England and Wales, many of whom thought (correctly) that he was a posh twat who didn't care about them, there would be no Brexit. That's the key.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
That is a bold statement.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
There wasn't.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
That was the point.
Without him, it may not have happened at the time it did, or the way it did.
Equally, his brashness, dubious morality and overt populism may have put off as many people as it attracted. Do you think Leave would have won if he had been the key frontman?
The great untold story of Brexit - so far - is that the EU was always tolerated in this country, never loved. And it turned out that in the last analysis, that wasn't enough to keep us in. It was enough for Scotland, who wanted a brake on Westminster, Northern Ireland, where there was an urgent need to avoid a return to the Troubles, and Gibraltar, where it was seen as preferable to integration with Spain. It wasn't enough for England and Wales, where it was seen as at best an expensive irrelevance and at worst, a malign and destructive influence.
That predated Farage's rise to prominence and it would have happened anyway. He surfed a wave, rather than made it.
Did his ability to surf that wave lead Cameron to the referendum? Yes. But it wasn't the only factor.
Stay wedded to your 'great men' theory if you wish. You aren't correct, but ultimately it's harmless if diverting.
But ultimately, however we cut it, the reason we have left the EU is that a majority of the British public were opposed to membership of it, and that wasn't the result of Nigel Farage.
So to get back to the point - he wasn't the most effective political campaigner of the last 30 years.
Edit: and that just squeaks into "the last 30 years".
So far we have:
a) Ronald Reagan
b) Nelson Mandela
c) Nigel Farage
An interesting contest I'm sure but the fact that that is what people are countering with itself is indicative.
What about British politician? Unambiguously the case according to the PB cognoscenti.
He's even more extraordinary because he persuaded the Venezuelans to conspire in his stealing billions of dollars of their own money.
Salmond, in his campaigning for a Scottish parliament and a referendum on independence.
Gerry Adams, in his campaign for more power for the ethnically Irish in Ulster.0 -
And what will their trade and customs relationship with the EU be?ydoethur said:Equally, in another 10 years I think we would probably have effectively wandered out of the EU anyway, as Poland, Sweden, Hungary and any other non-euro members are going to.
0 -
Indeed he does. Nigey dropping down the list like a pair of lead underpants.Foxy said:
Surely Mr Putin deserves a few garlands too?Mexicanpete said:
I'd give it to Johnson. He tipped the blue- collar waverers over the Brexit line, albeit quite possibly without meaning, so to do.CatMan said:
I'd say the person most responsible for Brexit is Rupert Murdoch.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
That is a bold statement.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
There wasn't.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
That was the point.
Without him, it may not have happened at the time it did, or the way it did.
Equally, his brashness, dubious morality and overt populism may have put off as many people as it attracted. Do you think Leave would have won if he had been the key frontman?
The great untold story of Brexit - so far - is that the EU was always tolerated in this country, never loved. And it turned out that in the last analysis, that wasn't enough to keep us in. It was enough for Scotland, who wanted a brake on Westminster, Northern Ireland, where there was an urgent need to avoid a return to the Troubles, and Gibraltar, where it was seen as preferable to integration with Spain. It wasn't enough for England and Wales, where it was seen as at best an expensive irrelevance and at worst, a malign and destructive influence.
That predated Farage's rise to prominence and it would have happened anyway. He surfed a wave, rather than made it.
Did his ability to surf that wave lead Cameron to the referendum? Yes. But it wasn't the only factor.0 -
Well, you are entitled to your view, but I rather regret have been talked out of emigration to Australia or New Zealand by my father.Richard_Tyndall said:
Then they will be missing out and I pity them. I certainly wouldn't live anywhere else in the world by choice.OldKingCole said:
I am indeed very sore at prospect of the level to which my country looks like falling. As are my children and and grandchildren who have stayed here. I don''t think those who have been brought up elsewhere are likely to return.Richard_Tyndall said:
...is that you are indeed a sore loser. Correct!OldKingCole said:
Fair comment about the Hitler etc comment.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not for a second. But that is not the question being debated. The vast majority of politicians are totally self interested. I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them.OldKingCole said:
I wouldn't deny that. I've been involved in pro-Europe campaigns at various levels since the late 60's. I hope you're not going to suggest that Johnson and Cummings are other than totally self-interested.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah the bitterness of losers.OldKingCole said:
He used to bang on about it when he worked in the City and many people thought him a loon. Done more damage this country that Hitler and Kaiser Bill combined.Richard_Tyndall said:
I wold certainly agree that he was the man who got us to the point where we were actually given the choice. That took decades of campaigning and for that alone I am very grateful to him.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
What matters is what they are fighting for and whether they achieve it and Farage was fighting for something I wholeheartedly supported and had the nous, the skill or the cunning - whichever you prefer - to actually get us to the point where we were able to make a choice.
The comment about Hitler and Kaiser Bill is just fatuous bollocks. Hence my sore loser retort.
However, in the end the proof of the pudding.......
Who, my sister and I agree, was world-class at bad advice.
0 -
Interesting theory, but isn't it more likely that it is that way because TMay asked for it? They're a devoted couple and she obviously felt he should be recognised for his support of her through what nobody would disagree was a very tough time.ydoethur said:
Bizarre though it sounds, it's most likely a slap at Tony Blair.kinabalu said:
Is that a sly jab at his predecessor? Knighted for putting up with her? Bet it is. Would be typical puerile Johnson.geoffw said:Mr May has been knighted.
Traditionally, former prime ministers are elevated to the Order of the Garter. Unless, of course, they refuse.
At the moment, there are vacancies in the Garter. So the Queen could admit Blair, and Cameron if she so wished. Given that four of the other members are over 90, Theresa May would then become eligible quite soon.
Yet although she has had many opportunities to admit Blair, the fact is she hasn't done so. Why not? Well, according to rumour, because she doesn't like him and thinks he doesn't deserve the honour.
If so, that is remarkable because even though it was no secret she disliked Thatcher (and even said so in public, most unusually for someone so discreet) she made her a member in 1995.
But the tradition is, that while a living Prime Minister has not been offered membership, nor will his successors.
So knighting Philip May could be a very roundabout (and frankly inappropriate) way of honoring Theresa May, while keeping Blair in the cold.
I knew the Queen regularly showed her exasperation for Thatcher and that they weren't natural bosom friends, but I think they had respect for one another. I didn't know the Queen was on record with her dislike. Thatcher got the Order of Merit.0 -
Interesting that those outside of it really don't want to join it.Foxy said:
EU membership is very popular in those countries, and increasingly so. We plough a lonely furrow.ydoethur said:
Yes, that would be my position. It was a live issue with the Tory right, and their voters, with or without Farage.Philip_Thompson said:
Maybe, maybe not. Considering nearly 100 Tory MPs voted to have a referendum against a three line whip, it was a live issue with or without Farage.Richard_Tyndall said:
You are missing the basic point. You are right that by the time of the vote he was more a liability than a benefit. But we would never have got to that vote without him.ydoethur said:
There you go again. Without the votes of a majority in England and Wales, many of whom thought (correctly) that he was a posh twat who didn't care about them, there would be no Brexit. That's the key.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
That is a bold statement.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
There wasn't.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
That was the point.
Without him, it may not have happened at the time it did, or the way it did.
Equally, his brashness, dubious morality and overt populism may have put off as many people as it attracted. Do you think Leave would have won if he had been the key frontman?
The great untold story of Brexit - so far - is that the EU was always tolerated in this country, never loved. And it turned out that in the last analysis, that wasn't enough to keep us in. It was enough for Scotland, who wanted a brake on Westminster, Northern Ireland, where there was an urgent need to avoid a return to the Troubles, and Gibraltar, where it was seen as preferable to integration with Spain. It wasn't enough for England and Wales, where it was seen as at best an expensive irrelevance and at worst, a malign and destructive influence.
That predated Farage's rise to prominence and it would have happened anyway. He surfed a wave, rather than made it.
Did his ability to surf that wave lead Cameron to the referendum? Yes. But it wasn't the only factor.
Stay wedded to your 'great men' theory if you wish. You aren't correct, but ultimately it's harmless if diverting.
I do think however it would have taken another 10 years without the pressure he brought from UKIP.
Equally, in another 10 years I think we would probably have effectively wandered out of the EU anyway, as Poland, Sweden, Hungary and any other non-euro members are going to.1 -
Sashes and Ermine bother me little. It is giving people lifelong seats in our legislature because of political or other favours that annoys.noneoftheabove said:
Stuff like this makes me want to get rid of honours completely. If only our ruling class spent as much time worrying about how to deal with covid (or jobs, etc in normal times) as they do one-ups-manship on their silly games, we would be a lot better off.ydoethur said:
Bizarre though it sounds, it's most likely a slap at Tony Blair.kinabalu said:
Is that a sly jab at his predecessor? Knighted for putting up with her? Bet it is. Would be typical puerile Johnson.geoffw said:Mr May has been knighted.
Traditionally, former prime ministers are elevated to the Order of the Garter. Unless, of course, they refuse.
At the moment, there are vacancies in the Garter. So the Queen could admit Blair, and Cameron if she so wished. Given that four of the other members are over 90, Theresa May would then become eligible quite soon.
Yet although she has had many opportunities to admit Blair, the fact is she hasn't done so. Why not? Well, according to rumour, because she doesn't like him and thinks he doesn't deserve the honour.
If so, that is remarkable because even though it was no secret she disliked Thatcher (and even said so in public, most unusually for someone so discreet) she made her a member in 1995.
But the tradition is, that while a living Prime Minister has not been offered membership, nor will his successors.
So knighting Philip May could be a very roundabout (and frankly inappropriate) way of honoring Theresa May, while keeping Blair in the cold.0 -
Those of you defending or laughing about Claire Fox with a peerage: take a good long look in the mirror.
Seriously, you're a whisker away from true horror.3 -
Though both are in the EEA, so get much of the benefits.RobD said:
Interesting that those outside of it really don't want to join it.Foxy said:
EU membership is very popular in those countries, and increasingly so. We plough a lonely furrow.ydoethur said:
Yes, that would be my position. It was a live issue with the Tory right, and their voters, with or without Farage.Philip_Thompson said:
Maybe, maybe not. Considering nearly 100 Tory MPs voted to have a referendum against a three line whip, it was a live issue with or without Farage.Richard_Tyndall said:
You are missing the basic point. You are right that by the time of the vote he was more a liability than a benefit. But we would never have got to that vote without him.ydoethur said:
There you go again. Without the votes of a majority in England and Wales, many of whom thought (correctly) that he was a posh twat who didn't care about them, there would be no Brexit. That's the key.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
That is a bold statement.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
There wasn't.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
That was the point.
Without him, it may not have happened at the time it did, or the way it did.
Equally, his brashness, dubious morality and overt populism may have put off as many people as it attracted. Do you think Leave would have won if he had been the key frontman?
The great untold story of Brexit - so far - is that the EU was always tolerated in this country, never loved. And it turned out that in the last analysis, that wasn't enough to keep us in. It was enough for Scotland, who wanted a brake on Westminster, Northern Ireland, where there was an urgent need to avoid a return to the Troubles, and Gibraltar, where it was seen as preferable to integration with Spain. It wasn't enough for England and Wales, where it was seen as at best an expensive irrelevance and at worst, a malign and destructive influence.
That predated Farage's rise to prominence and it would have happened anyway. He surfed a wave, rather than made it.
Did his ability to surf that wave lead Cameron to the referendum? Yes. But it wasn't the only factor.
Stay wedded to your 'great men' theory if you wish. You aren't correct, but ultimately it's harmless if diverting.
I do think however it would have taken another 10 years without the pressure he brought from UKIP.
Equally, in another 10 years I think we would probably have effectively wandered out of the EU anyway, as Poland, Sweden, Hungary and any other non-euro members are going to.0 -
Since Corbyn has been replaced by Starmer he's become more tribal again and less interestingfelix said:
Indeed Southam this morning was in full 'outraged of Hampstead Heath' mode.BluestBlue said:
But how can that be? I thought the Government had lost all trust in its public health policy and no one could possibly approve of or comply with its decisions...Big_G_NorthWales said:1 -
"The real Covid-19 death toll in Spain: at least 44,868 victims
EL PAÍS used regional records and reports from three different agencies to arrive at a figure that is much higher than the official one of 28,432"
Left leaning El Pais in Spain.0 -
If the euro is to survive, the core will have to federate. That's been obvious from day 1. In fact, quite a number of supporters of the Euro stated that was the reason why they supported it. Ultimately, a unified currency doesn't work without a unified tax system.williamglenn said:
And what will their trade and customs relationship with the EU be?ydoethur said:Equally, in another 10 years I think we would probably have effectively wandered out of the EU anyway, as Poland, Sweden, Hungary and any other non-euro members are going to.
Therefore, those countries not members of the Euro will have to decide whether to join it, or whether to let them go ahead while different rules apply elsewhere. Most of them will take the second option because the Euro isn't especially popular. For example, would the Danes win a referendum on joining it? They tried once under more propitious circumstances and failed.
Most of them, presumably, will end up in a modified EEA. And that actually would be the best outcome for most of Europe, if it was done on the basis of a return to unanimity in decision making so the EU had the same weight as Iceland or Denmark.
Michael Howard was ridiculed for his idea of a two-speed Europe, but actually he was right. That is the way it's going because that's the only solution that can work from here. The other solution is either the collapse of the entire EU or federation over the objection of national electorates, which would lead at the very least to civil disorder and possibly to war.
And incidentally, we would be well off in the EEA of such an organisation.1 -
Leaving aside the negative attributes of the soon-to-be-Lady Fox (which do look pretty vile), I'm puzzled at what positive merits she has. I can't say I knew much about her, but looking at her Wikipedia page she seems to be a complete nonentity, whose highest claim to fame was a few months as a Brexit MEP at a time when Brexit MEPs had precisely no role. If Boris wanted to find some Kipper/Brexit Party zealot to promote to the Lords, surely there are dozens of somewhat less obscure figures he could have chosen, all of whom aren't quite so rebarbative.1
-
Why wouldn't she have asked for it in her resignation honours in that case?Luckyguy1983 said:
Interesting theory, but isn't it more likely that it is that way because TMay asked for it? They're a devoted couple and she obviously felt he should be recognised for his support of her through what nobody would disagree was a very tough time.ydoethur said:
Bizarre though it sounds, it's most likely a slap at Tony Blair.kinabalu said:
Is that a sly jab at his predecessor? Knighted for putting up with her? Bet it is. Would be typical puerile Johnson.geoffw said:Mr May has been knighted.
Traditionally, former prime ministers are elevated to the Order of the Garter. Unless, of course, they refuse.
At the moment, there are vacancies in the Garter. So the Queen could admit Blair, and Cameron if she so wished. Given that four of the other members are over 90, Theresa May would then become eligible quite soon.
Yet although she has had many opportunities to admit Blair, the fact is she hasn't done so. Why not? Well, according to rumour, because she doesn't like him and thinks he doesn't deserve the honour.
If so, that is remarkable because even though it was no secret she disliked Thatcher (and even said so in public, most unusually for someone so discreet) she made her a member in 1995.
But the tradition is, that while a living Prime Minister has not been offered membership, nor will his successors.
So knighting Philip May could be a very roundabout (and frankly inappropriate) way of honoring Theresa May, while keeping Blair in the cold.
I knew the Queen regularly showed her exasperation for Thatcher and that they weren't natural bosom friends, but I think they had respect for one another. I didn't know the Queen was on record with her dislike. Thatcher got the Order of Merit.0 -
Because it's more seemly to be given it.ydoethur said:
Why wouldn't she have asked for it in her resignation honours in that case?Luckyguy1983 said:
Interesting theory, but isn't it more likely that it is that way because TMay asked for it? They're a devoted couple and she obviously felt he should be recognised for his support of her through what nobody would disagree was a very tough time.ydoethur said:
Bizarre though it sounds, it's most likely a slap at Tony Blair.kinabalu said:
Is that a sly jab at his predecessor? Knighted for putting up with her? Bet it is. Would be typical puerile Johnson.geoffw said:Mr May has been knighted.
Traditionally, former prime ministers are elevated to the Order of the Garter. Unless, of course, they refuse.
At the moment, there are vacancies in the Garter. So the Queen could admit Blair, and Cameron if she so wished. Given that four of the other members are over 90, Theresa May would then become eligible quite soon.
Yet although she has had many opportunities to admit Blair, the fact is she hasn't done so. Why not? Well, according to rumour, because she doesn't like him and thinks he doesn't deserve the honour.
If so, that is remarkable because even though it was no secret she disliked Thatcher (and even said so in public, most unusually for someone so discreet) she made her a member in 1995.
But the tradition is, that while a living Prime Minister has not been offered membership, nor will his successors.
So knighting Philip May could be a very roundabout (and frankly inappropriate) way of honoring Theresa May, while keeping Blair in the cold.
I knew the Queen regularly showed her exasperation for Thatcher and that they weren't natural bosom friends, but I think they had respect for one another. I didn't know the Queen was on record with her dislike. Thatcher got the Order of Merit.0 -
Fair point.Luckyguy1983 said:
Because it's more seemly to be given it.ydoethur said:
Why wouldn't she have asked for it in her resignation honours in that case?Luckyguy1983 said:
Interesting theory, but isn't it more likely that it is that way because TMay asked for it? They're a devoted couple and she obviously felt he should be recognised for his support of her through what nobody would disagree was a very tough time.ydoethur said:
Bizarre though it sounds, it's most likely a slap at Tony Blair.kinabalu said:
Is that a sly jab at his predecessor? Knighted for putting up with her? Bet it is. Would be typical puerile Johnson.geoffw said:Mr May has been knighted.
Traditionally, former prime ministers are elevated to the Order of the Garter. Unless, of course, they refuse.
At the moment, there are vacancies in the Garter. So the Queen could admit Blair, and Cameron if she so wished. Given that four of the other members are over 90, Theresa May would then become eligible quite soon.
Yet although she has had many opportunities to admit Blair, the fact is she hasn't done so. Why not? Well, according to rumour, because she doesn't like him and thinks he doesn't deserve the honour.
If so, that is remarkable because even though it was no secret she disliked Thatcher (and even said so in public, most unusually for someone so discreet) she made her a member in 1995.
But the tradition is, that while a living Prime Minister has not been offered membership, nor will his successors.
So knighting Philip May could be a very roundabout (and frankly inappropriate) way of honoring Theresa May, while keeping Blair in the cold.
I knew the Queen regularly showed her exasperation for Thatcher and that they weren't natural bosom friends, but I think they had respect for one another. I didn't know the Queen was on record with her dislike. Thatcher got the Order of Merit.0 -
Why on earth would the EU agree to that?ydoethur said:Most of them, presumably, will end up in a modified EEA. And that actually would be the best outcome for most of Europe, if it was done on the basis of a return to unanimity in decision making so the EU had the same weight as Iceland or Denmark.
0 -
Yes, I wonder if I too should have stayed in the Antipodes after working there some decades ago. Ultimately though I am glad that I came back. Britain is a lovely country, despite being run by fuckwits at present. It will survive, albeit damaged, the current navel gazing fit of Nationalism, and turn away from the dark side in time.OldKingCole said:
Well, you are entitled to your view, but I rather regret have been talked out of emigration to Australia or New Zealand by my father.Richard_Tyndall said:
Then they will be missing out and I pity them. I certainly wouldn't live anywhere else in the world by choice.OldKingCole said:
I am indeed very sore at prospect of the level to which my country looks like falling. As are my children and and grandchildren who have stayed here. I don''t think those who have been brought up elsewhere are likely to return.Richard_Tyndall said:
...is that you are indeed a sore loser. Correct!OldKingCole said:
Fair comment about the Hitler etc comment.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not for a second. But that is not the question being debated. The vast majority of politicians are totally self interested. I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them.OldKingCole said:
I wouldn't deny that. I've been involved in pro-Europe campaigns at various levels since the late 60's. I hope you're not going to suggest that Johnson and Cummings are other than totally self-interested.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah the bitterness of losers.OldKingCole said:
He used to bang on about it when he worked in the City and many people thought him a loon. Done more damage this country that Hitler and Kaiser Bill combined.Richard_Tyndall said:
I wold certainly agree that he was the man who got us to the point where we were actually given the choice. That took decades of campaigning and for that alone I am very grateful to him.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
What matters is what they are fighting for and whether they achieve it and Farage was fighting for something I wholeheartedly supported and had the nous, the skill or the cunning - whichever you prefer - to actually get us to the point where we were able to make a choice.
The comment about Hitler and Kaiser Bill is just fatuous bollocks. Hence my sore loser retort.
However, in the end the proof of the pudding.......
Who, my sister and I agree, was world-class at bad advice.
0 -
Or pretending to be delighted about it in order to avoid a clip round the ear.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have two very happy kids and love them very much of course. The elder is 19 and is delighted at Brexit. She clearly has more sense and foresight than you.IshmaelZ said:
I do often wonder whether leavers don't have children at all, or have them but don't like them all that much.OldKingCole said:
I am indeed very sore at prospect of the level to which my country looks like falling. As are my children and and grandchildren who have stayed here. I don''t think those who have been brought up elsewhere are likely to return.Richard_Tyndall said:
...is that you are indeed a sore loser. Correct!OldKingCole said:
Fair comment about the Hitler etc comment.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not for a second. But that is not the question being debated. The vast majority of politicians are totally self interested. I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them.OldKingCole said:
I wouldn't deny that. I've been involved in pro-Europe campaigns at various levels since the late 60's. I hope you're not going to suggest that Johnson and Cummings are other than totally self-interested.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah the bitterness of losers.OldKingCole said:
He used to bang on about it when he worked in the City and many people thought him a loon. Done more damage this country that Hitler and Kaiser Bill combined.Richard_Tyndall said:
I wold certainly agree that he was the man who got us to the point where we were actually given the choice. That took decades of campaigning and for that alone I am very grateful to him.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
What matters is what they are fighting for and whether they achieve it and Farage was fighting for something I wholeheartedly supported and had the nous, the skill or the cunning - whichever you prefer - to actually get us to the point where we were able to make a choice.
The comment about Hitler and Kaiser Bill is just fatuous bollocks. Hence my sore loser retort.
However, in the end the proof of the pudding.......2 -
What choice would it have? The outlines are already there in Lisbon. If it federates and becomes one country, it will have one vote, not 19 as at present. At that point, it will hurriedly ditch the idea of QMV as it could easily be outvoted on every major issue.williamglenn said:
Why on earth would the EU agree to that?ydoethur said:Most of them, presumably, will end up in a modified EEA. And that actually would be the best outcome for most of Europe, if it was done on the basis of a return to unanimity in decision making so the EU had the same weight as Iceland or Denmark.
Bear in mind, any federation would require a new treaty, so it would have to extend Lisbon for those countries joining the federation.0 -
It could offer any country wanting to leave the same choices that we've faced with Brexit. Why offer anything else?ydoethur said:
What choice would it have? The outlines are already there in Lisbon. If it federates and becomes one country, it will have one vote, not 19 as at present.williamglenn said:
Why on earth would the EU agree to that?ydoethur said:Most of them, presumably, will end up in a modified EEA. And that actually would be the best outcome for most of Europe, if it was done on the basis of a return to unanimity in decision making so the EU had the same weight as Iceland or Denmark.
Bear in mind, any federation would require a new treaty, so it would have to extend Lisbon for those countries joining the federation.0 -
The whole notion of gongs seems open to abuse.Foxy said:
Sashes and Ermine bother me little. It is giving people lifelong seats in our legislature because of political or other favours that annoys.noneoftheabove said:
Stuff like this makes me want to get rid of honours completely. If only our ruling class spent as much time worrying about how to deal with covid (or jobs, etc in normal times) as they do one-ups-manship on their silly games, we would be a lot better off.ydoethur said:
Bizarre though it sounds, it's most likely a slap at Tony Blair.kinabalu said:
Is that a sly jab at his predecessor? Knighted for putting up with her? Bet it is. Would be typical puerile Johnson.geoffw said:Mr May has been knighted.
Traditionally, former prime ministers are elevated to the Order of the Garter. Unless, of course, they refuse.
At the moment, there are vacancies in the Garter. So the Queen could admit Blair, and Cameron if she so wished. Given that four of the other members are over 90, Theresa May would then become eligible quite soon.
Yet although she has had many opportunities to admit Blair, the fact is she hasn't done so. Why not? Well, according to rumour, because she doesn't like him and thinks he doesn't deserve the honour.
If so, that is remarkable because even though it was no secret she disliked Thatcher (and even said so in public, most unusually for someone so discreet) she made her a member in 1995.
But the tradition is, that while a living Prime Minister has not been offered membership, nor will his successors.
So knighting Philip May could be a very roundabout (and frankly inappropriate) way of honoring Theresa May, while keeping Blair in the cold.
At least during Blair's time a peerage had a substantial monetary value. With the current Benny Hill tribute act, it would seem that great fun can be had by mischieviously awarding medals to recipients, thus annoying both friend and foe at the same time.0 -
Because actually, that's not the choice. The choice would not be, 'stay in the EU as at present, or go,' but, 'join a superstate, or stay in the current situation.'williamglenn said:
It could offer any country wanting to leave the same choices that we've faced with Brexit. Why offer anything else?ydoethur said:
What choice would it have? The outlines are already there in Lisbon. If it federates and becomes one country, it will have one vote, not 19 as at present.williamglenn said:
Why on earth would the EU agree to that?ydoethur said:Most of them, presumably, will end up in a modified EEA. And that actually would be the best outcome for most of Europe, if it was done on the basis of a return to unanimity in decision making so the EU had the same weight as Iceland or Denmark.
Bear in mind, any federation would require a new treaty, so it would have to extend Lisbon for those countries joining the federation.
Can you not see there is a difference there?1 -
On topic, Mike says, "An interesting bet in this context would who will be president on January 21st the day after the inauguration. So far I’ve not seen this put up by any bookie but my guess is that the odds on that happening would be better than those on Trump winning the election itself."
The Constitution is clear on who would NOT be President on 21st January in the event of an indecisive election or no election. And that is Trump:
Article II, section 2 states, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years." Article XX, section 1 then states, "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January... of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified".
It just isn't like the UK where Brown continued as caretaker briefly in May 2010. The US Constitution is explicit - unless confirmed as election winner himself, Trump automatically ceases to be President at noon on 20th January - no ifs, no buts, no maybes.
So who does it instead if there is no ratified President-elect or VP-elect?
Article XX, section 3 states, "Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."
This has been done by the Presidential Succession Act 1947. Top of the succession list is obviously Pence, but his term would also expire at noon on 20th January as above.
Then it's the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi but could change after House resumes on 3rd January).
If the House election also didn't go ahead or was disputed, however, House members' terms all end on 3rd January and there would thus be no Speaker.
Next is President Pro Tempore of the Senate. By convention, that is the most senior Senator in the majority party (although the Senate could in theory choose another Senator). That's currently Chuck Grassley, but it could potentially be Patrick Leahy of Vermont on 21st January depending on the Senate election results. Neither man is up for election in November so both will definitely be Senators on that date.
There's no real point looking beyond President Pro Tempore of the Senate as it is very hard to envisage that post being vacant. It's also very hard to see the holder of that post declining to take the Presidency. Republican Senators made clear they'd not countenance an election delay, and they'd broadly welcome the chance to install one of their own. But even if they did, and all cabinet members below that on the list (who are Republicans) did likewise, the Presidency still wouldn't be Trump's - it'd be a vacant post.0 -
I think Prem Sikka is one of the vaguely same set as Self-Declared Professor Sir Richard of Murphaloon, is keen on Corbynomics, spends time throwing brickbats at accountancy, writes in the Independent etc.CarlottaVance said:
10. Susan Hayman – lately Member of Parliament for Workington.Pulpstar said:I trust those supporting the Claire Fox peerage will be as accomodating to Corbyn's various friends and acquaintances ?
11. Prem Sikka – Professor of Accounting at the University of Sheffield.
12. Anthony Woodley – formerly Joint-General Secretary of Unite.
Don't know who any of them are.....of course, there may have been other nominations that didn't pass vetting (noncefindergeneral?)
That sort of bent.0 -
I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!3 -
The idea that the Eurozone is going to evolve into a single country that will be on the same footing as countries remaining outside it is a fantasy. It's the same kind of thinking that failed for the UK in the 50s.ydoethur said:
Because actually, that's not the choice. The choice would not be, 'stay in the EU as at present, or go,' but, 'join a superstate, or stay in the current situation.'williamglenn said:
It could offer any country wanting to leave the same choices that we've faced with Brexit. Why offer anything else?ydoethur said:
What choice would it have? The outlines are already there in Lisbon. If it federates and becomes one country, it will have one vote, not 19 as at present.williamglenn said:
Why on earth would the EU agree to that?ydoethur said:Most of them, presumably, will end up in a modified EEA. And that actually would be the best outcome for most of Europe, if it was done on the basis of a return to unanimity in decision making so the EU had the same weight as Iceland or Denmark.
Bear in mind, any federation would require a new treaty, so it would have to extend Lisbon for those countries joining the federation.
Can you not see there is a difference there?0 -
Attrition will take its slow toll.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!1 -
Agreed. Even though I'm a rare beast of supporting PR for the Commons and not opposed in principle to an appointed Lords, it needs tightening up. Gongs matter little, legislative authority does, and it should not be to provide a comfy retirement, get in someone who couldn't get elected but well connected in a party, or as a result of favours.Foxy said:
Sashes and Ermine bother me little. It is giving people lifelong seats in our legislature because of political or other favours that annoys.noneoftheabove said:
Stuff like this makes me want to get rid of honours completely. If only our ruling class spent as much time worrying about how to deal with covid (or jobs, etc in normal times) as they do one-ups-manship on their silly games, we would be a lot better off.ydoethur said:
Bizarre though it sounds, it's most likely a slap at Tony Blair.kinabalu said:
Is that a sly jab at his predecessor? Knighted for putting up with her? Bet it is. Would be typical puerile Johnson.geoffw said:Mr May has been knighted.
Traditionally, former prime ministers are elevated to the Order of the Garter. Unless, of course, they refuse.
At the moment, there are vacancies in the Garter. So the Queen could admit Blair, and Cameron if she so wished. Given that four of the other members are over 90, Theresa May would then become eligible quite soon.
Yet although she has had many opportunities to admit Blair, the fact is she hasn't done so. Why not? Well, according to rumour, because she doesn't like him and thinks he doesn't deserve the honour.
If so, that is remarkable because even though it was no secret she disliked Thatcher (and even said so in public, most unusually for someone so discreet) she made her a member in 1995.
But the tradition is, that while a living Prime Minister has not been offered membership, nor will his successors.
So knighting Philip May could be a very roundabout (and frankly inappropriate) way of honoring Theresa May, while keeping Blair in the cold.
There have been some improvements given people can now retire from the Lords0 -
No. It's the reality. Because it's the only solution that doesn't lead to total chaos.williamglenn said:
The idea that the Eurozone is going to evolve into a single country that will be on the same footing as countries remaining outside it is a fantasy. It's the same kind of thinking that failed for the UK in the 50s.ydoethur said:
Because actually, that's not the choice. The choice would not be, 'stay in the EU as at present, or go,' but, 'join a superstate, or stay in the current situation.'williamglenn said:
It could offer any country wanting to leave the same choices that we've faced with Brexit. Why offer anything else?ydoethur said:
What choice would it have? The outlines are already there in Lisbon. If it federates and becomes one country, it will have one vote, not 19 as at present.williamglenn said:
Why on earth would the EU agree to that?ydoethur said:Most of them, presumably, will end up in a modified EEA. And that actually would be the best outcome for most of Europe, if it was done on the basis of a return to unanimity in decision making so the EU had the same weight as Iceland or Denmark.
Bear in mind, any federation would require a new treaty, so it would have to extend Lisbon for those countries joining the federation.
Can you not see there is a difference there?
I can't help it if, like certain backers of Nigel Farage, you don't like facts. They remain facts.1 -
Kevin Keegan?Fysics_Teacher said:
I’m fairly sure that a lot of England internationals played for England...SandyRentool said:
There are two. One about which England international played for England. The other about driving the green on a particular hole on some golf course or other.Fysics_Teacher said:
What trick question in the sporting round of a pub quiz is Botham the answer to?RobD said:
I was thinking of the only England Captain to play for Scunthorpe.1 -
Nick Clegg would have been much better served asking for a second chamber elected by PR on the basis of the nationwide vote in a general election than agreeing to AV.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!
Discuss.0 -
You're aware the Eurozone is due to expand in the next few years?ydoethur said:
No. It's the reality. Because it's the only solution that doesn't lead to total chaos.williamglenn said:
The idea that the Eurozone is going to evolve into a single country that will be on the same footing as countries remaining outside it is a fantasy. It's the same kind of thinking that failed for the UK in the 50s.ydoethur said:
Because actually, that's not the choice. The choice would not be, 'stay in the EU as at present, or go,' but, 'join a superstate, or stay in the current situation.'williamglenn said:
It could offer any country wanting to leave the same choices that we've faced with Brexit. Why offer anything else?ydoethur said:
What choice would it have? The outlines are already there in Lisbon. If it federates and becomes one country, it will have one vote, not 19 as at present.williamglenn said:
Why on earth would the EU agree to that?ydoethur said:Most of them, presumably, will end up in a modified EEA. And that actually would be the best outcome for most of Europe, if it was done on the basis of a return to unanimity in decision making so the EU had the same weight as Iceland or Denmark.
Bear in mind, any federation would require a new treaty, so it would have to extend Lisbon for those countries joining the federation.
Can you not see there is a difference there?
I can't help it if, like certain backers of Nigel Farage, you don't like facts. They remain facts.0 -
Re: vaccine testing. Surely it would be far more sensible to target vaccination at the young and economically active, seeing as apparently it is they who are the biggest reason for the virus spreading?0
-
I'd add Elon Musk, since he's pretty well responsible for planning and ensuring the demise of the internal combustion engine within the next decade. And that was as much a political as a commercial/technical achievement.ydoethur said:
Hugo Chavez if you want a Venezuelan.TOPPING said:
Yes he's in there with a shout.Luckyguy1983 said:
Mandela.TOPPING said:
I think they ran out of money rather than the fall of the Soviet Union being something that Ronald Reagan had dedicated himself to achieving over a number of decades.ydoethur said:
Ronald Reagan and the collapse of the Soviet Union?TOPPING said:
Who else has wanted something so singular and has achieved it, via decades of determined effort, through political means?ydoethur said:
I am not wedded to 'ineluctable tides.' In fact, look at the earlier comments and you will note I said: 'Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.'IshmaelZ said:
And you stay wedded to your "ineluctable tide of history" theory if you wish. You aren't correct either, the truth is in the middle. Farage's key role if he had one wasn't persuading voters, it was pushing Cameron to hold the referendum in the first place.ydoethur said:
There you go again. Without the votes of a majority in England and Wales, many of whom thought (correctly) that he was a posh twat who didn't care about them, there would be no Brexit. That's the key.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
That is a bold statement.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
There wasn't.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
That was the point.
Without him, it may not have happened at the time it did, or the way it did.
Equally, his brashness, dubious morality and overt populism may have put off as many people as it attracted. Do you think Leave would have won if he had been the key frontman?
The great untold story of Brexit - so far - is that the EU was always tolerated in this country, never loved. And it turned out that in the last analysis, that wasn't enough to keep us in. It was enough for Scotland, who wanted a brake on Westminster, Northern Ireland, where there was an urgent need to avoid a return to the Troubles, and Gibraltar, where it was seen as preferable to integration with Spain. It wasn't enough for England and Wales, where it was seen as at best an expensive irrelevance and at worst, a malign and destructive influence.
That predated Farage's rise to prominence and it would have happened anyway. He surfed a wave, rather than made it.
Did his ability to surf that wave lead Cameron to the referendum? Yes. But it wasn't the only factor.
Stay wedded to your 'great men' theory if you wish. You aren't correct, but ultimately it's harmless if diverting.
But ultimately, however we cut it, the reason we have left the EU is that a majority of the British public were opposed to membership of it, and that wasn't the result of Nigel Farage.
So to get back to the point - he wasn't the most effective political campaigner of the last 30 years.
Edit: and that just squeaks into "the last 30 years".
So far we have:
a) Ronald Reagan
b) Nelson Mandela
c) Nigel Farage
An interesting contest I'm sure but the fact that that is what people are countering with itself is indicative.
What about British politician? Unambiguously the case according to the PB cognoscenti.
He's even more extraordinary because he persuaded the Venezuelans to conspire in his stealing billions of dollars of their own money.
Salmond, in his campaigning for a Scottish parliament and a referendum on independence.
Gerry Adams, in his campaign for more power for the ethnically Irish in Ulster.
Like many on the list, he's not exactly admirable in other respects.
0 -
Switzerland isn't in the EEA.Foxy said:
Though both are in the EEA, so get much of the benefits.RobD said:
Interesting that those outside of it really don't want to join it.Foxy said:
EU membership is very popular in those countries, and increasingly so. We plough a lonely furrow.ydoethur said:
Yes, that would be my position. It was a live issue with the Tory right, and their voters, with or without Farage.Philip_Thompson said:
Maybe, maybe not. Considering nearly 100 Tory MPs voted to have a referendum against a three line whip, it was a live issue with or without Farage.Richard_Tyndall said:
You are missing the basic point. You are right that by the time of the vote he was more a liability than a benefit. But we would never have got to that vote without him.ydoethur said:
There you go again. Without the votes of a majority in England and Wales, many of whom thought (correctly) that he was a posh twat who didn't care about them, there would be no Brexit. That's the key.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
That is a bold statement.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
There wasn't.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
That was the point.
Without him, it may not have happened at the time it did, or the way it did.
Equally, his brashness, dubious morality and overt populism may have put off as many people as it attracted. Do you think Leave would have won if he had been the key frontman?
The great untold story of Brexit - so far - is that the EU was always tolerated in this country, never loved. And it turned out that in the last analysis, that wasn't enough to keep us in. It was enough for Scotland, who wanted a brake on Westminster, Northern Ireland, where there was an urgent need to avoid a return to the Troubles, and Gibraltar, where it was seen as preferable to integration with Spain. It wasn't enough for England and Wales, where it was seen as at best an expensive irrelevance and at worst, a malign and destructive influence.
That predated Farage's rise to prominence and it would have happened anyway. He surfed a wave, rather than made it.
Did his ability to surf that wave lead Cameron to the referendum? Yes. But it wasn't the only factor.
Stay wedded to your 'great men' theory if you wish. You aren't correct, but ultimately it's harmless if diverting.
I do think however it would have taken another 10 years without the pressure he brought from UKIP.
Equally, in another 10 years I think we would probably have effectively wandered out of the EU anyway, as Poland, Sweden, Hungary and any other non-euro members are going to.0 -
I take your point. It's a good one. But he was knighted for being married to her, wasn't he? Right. So how big a stretch to imagine Johnson and his ghastly cronies sat around and he goes, "Deserves it, poor chap, what?" and then it's ho ho ho and titter titter titter for a good few minutes. No direct evidence - how could there be? - but I sense I'm right.kle4 said:
Do you have anything to support such an ill motivation behind the action? It seems highly unlikely to be the case since knighting him is presumably pleasing to Mrs May, so any awful intent would be lost.kinabalu said:
Is that a sly jab at his predecessor? Knighted for putting up with her? Bet it is. Would be typical puerile Johnson.geoffw said:Mr May has been knighted.
Rather more likely is your view is a prime example of people not being satisfied with all the genuine examples to criticise or demonise Johnson, and inventing ones unnecessarily by making even something nice or neutral a petty act. Even Boris, even Corbyn, even Trump, is not awful every minute of every day.0 -
I don't think that would have been acceptable as an offer - have PR for one, open the door to PR in the other - even though I suspect most MPs accept in principle sorting out the Lords.ydoethur said:
Nick Clegg would have been much better served asking for a second chamber elected by PR on the basis of the nationwide vote in a general election than agreeing to AV.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!
Discuss.0 -
Another anecdote about how mad the NHS currently is. I have just spoken to our cleaner at work. He has had a little bit of glass in his eye for a couple of weeks. He hoped it would work it’s own way out. It hasn’t and today his eye is bright red and streaming. He phoned his surgery this morning who told him they could not see him and told him to phone the eye hospital which he did. They also said that due to Covid they could not see him and suggested he went to see a pharmacist. I do wonder what a pharmacist will be able to do about glass in the eye and why his surgery and the eye hospital refused to see him.0
-
Facts are chiels that winna dingydoethur said:
No. It's the reality. Because it's the only solution that doesn't lead to total chaos.williamglenn said:
The idea that the Eurozone is going to evolve into a single country that will be on the same footing as countries remaining outside it is a fantasy. It's the same kind of thinking that failed for the UK in the 50s.ydoethur said:
Because actually, that's not the choice. The choice would not be, 'stay in the EU as at present, or go,' but, 'join a superstate, or stay in the current situation.'williamglenn said:
It could offer any country wanting to leave the same choices that we've faced with Brexit. Why offer anything else?ydoethur said:
What choice would it have? The outlines are already there in Lisbon. If it federates and becomes one country, it will have one vote, not 19 as at present.williamglenn said:
Why on earth would the EU agree to that?ydoethur said:Most of them, presumably, will end up in a modified EEA. And that actually would be the best outcome for most of Europe, if it was done on the basis of a return to unanimity in decision making so the EU had the same weight as Iceland or Denmark.
Bear in mind, any federation would require a new treaty, so it would have to extend Lisbon for those countries joining the federation.
Can you not see there is a difference there?
I can't help it if, like certain backers of Nigel Farage, you don't like facts. They remain facts.
0 -
Why reward them for their recklessness?alex_ said:Re: vaccine testing. Surely it would be far more sensible to target vaccination at the young and economically active, seeing as apparently it is they who are the biggest reason for the virus spreading?
0 -
Yes, there's been a big cover up of deaths in Spain.felix said:"The real Covid-19 death toll in Spain: at least 44,868 victims
EL PAÍS used regional records and reports from three different agencies to arrive at a figure that is much higher than the official one of 28,432"
Left leaning El Pais in Spain.0 -
That would certainly have been a better idea, although I think there is a useful role for a bunch of old duffers distinguished former statesmen.ydoethur said:
Nick Clegg would have been much better served asking for a second chamber elected by PR on the basis of the nationwide vote in a general election than agreeing to AV.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!
Discuss.0 -
Yes.williamglenn said:
You're aware the Eurozone is due to expand in the next few years?ydoethur said:
No. It's the reality. Because it's the only solution that doesn't lead to total chaos.williamglenn said:
The idea that the Eurozone is going to evolve into a single country that will be on the same footing as countries remaining outside it is a fantasy. It's the same kind of thinking that failed for the UK in the 50s.ydoethur said:
Because actually, that's not the choice. The choice would not be, 'stay in the EU as at present, or go,' but, 'join a superstate, or stay in the current situation.'williamglenn said:
It could offer any country wanting to leave the same choices that we've faced with Brexit. Why offer anything else?ydoethur said:
What choice would it have? The outlines are already there in Lisbon. If it federates and becomes one country, it will have one vote, not 19 as at present.williamglenn said:
Why on earth would the EU agree to that?ydoethur said:Most of them, presumably, will end up in a modified EEA. And that actually would be the best outcome for most of Europe, if it was done on the basis of a return to unanimity in decision making so the EU had the same weight as Iceland or Denmark.
Bear in mind, any federation would require a new treaty, so it would have to extend Lisbon for those countries joining the federation.
Can you not see there is a difference there?
I can't help it if, like certain backers of Nigel Farage, you don't like facts. They remain facts.
I'm also aware that Denmark was due to join it.
How did that work out?
I'm also aware that you are still confidently predict we will be joining it.
I'm also aware that it is not permitted to issue its own debt.
I'm also aware that its current actions have been ruled illegal.
I'm finally aware that the Euro in its current form has been an utter disaster, and to anyone sober and with an IQ of above three (which I am aware lets out most EU administrators) it has to reform massively to survive.
It is gradually creating a single federal state on this basis. It has to. But that will ultimately lead the EU to change into a federation, and an outer core in an economic area.
Anyway, pointless debating with you on this. Fanatics don't change their views merely because of reality.1 -
This business of cancelling/delaying the "pilot" sporting events with spectators. I understand the concerns about indoor events like World Snooker, but what on earth is the logic behind thinking there are particular risks involved in experimenting with outside events like County cricket? When thousands of people are allowed on Bournemouth beach in a far less controlled socially distance environment? Is it just because everyone at County cricket is thought to be over 80?0
-
Tony Woodley was the TGWU guy who along with the wholly useless Byers encouraged the puchase of MG Rover by The Pheonix Four.CarlottaVance said:
10. Susan Hayman – lately Member of Parliament for Workington.Pulpstar said:I trust those supporting the Claire Fox peerage will be as accomodating to Corbyn's various friends and acquaintances ?
11. Prem Sikka – Professor of Accounting at the University of Sheffield.
12. Anthony Woodley – formerly Joint-General Secretary of Unite.
Don't know who any of them are.....of course, there may have been other nominations that didn't pass vetting (noncefindergeneral?)
Woodley was (presumably is) a decent down to earth trade unionist, who having been hoodwinked by that bunch, should probably be allowed nowhere near the levers of power ever again
Place in the pile marked gullible.0 -
You could put them on the party lists in PR. So even that doesn't necessarily block it.Richard_Nabavi said:
That would certainly have been a better idea, although I think there is a useful role for a bunch of old duffers distinguished former statesmen.ydoethur said:
Nick Clegg would have been much better served asking for a second chamber elected by PR on the basis of the nationwide vote in a general election than agreeing to AV.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!
Discuss.0 -
US pledges $2.1 billion to Glaxo, Sanofi for coronavirus vaccine
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/509925-us-pledges-21-billion-to-glaxo-sanofi-for-coronavirus-vaccine0 -
The Eurozone has been due to expand for decades.williamglenn said:
You're aware the Eurozone is due to expand in the next few years?ydoethur said:
No. It's the reality. Because it's the only solution that doesn't lead to total chaos.williamglenn said:
The idea that the Eurozone is going to evolve into a single country that will be on the same footing as countries remaining outside it is a fantasy. It's the same kind of thinking that failed for the UK in the 50s.ydoethur said:
Because actually, that's not the choice. The choice would not be, 'stay in the EU as at present, or go,' but, 'join a superstate, or stay in the current situation.'williamglenn said:
It could offer any country wanting to leave the same choices that we've faced with Brexit. Why offer anything else?ydoethur said:
What choice would it have? The outlines are already there in Lisbon. If it federates and becomes one country, it will have one vote, not 19 as at present.williamglenn said:
Why on earth would the EU agree to that?ydoethur said:Most of them, presumably, will end up in a modified EEA. And that actually would be the best outcome for most of Europe, if it was done on the basis of a return to unanimity in decision making so the EU had the same weight as Iceland or Denmark.
Bear in mind, any federation would require a new treaty, so it would have to extend Lisbon for those countries joining the federation.
Can you not see there is a difference there?
I can't help it if, like certain backers of Nigel Farage, you don't like facts. They remain facts.
Sweden has been deliberately loitering on the doorstep since before Political Betting was even a gleam in Mike's eye.
They all know that it is a pig in a poke, but the EU requires them to join.
Like grubby schoolboys dragging their feet to delay taking a compulsory bath as long as possible.0 -
0
-
True, but the most useful ones are often those out of favour with the current party leadership.ydoethur said:You could put them on the party lists in PR. So even that doesn't necessarily block it.
0 -
I think the point is that by limiting the role PR played it might have been accepted as a halfway house.kle4 said:
I don't think that would have been acceptable as an offer - have PR for one, open the door to PR in the other - even though I suspect most MPs accept in principle sorting out the Lords.ydoethur said:
Nick Clegg would have been much better served asking for a second chamber elected by PR on the basis of the nationwide vote in a general election than agreeing to AV.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!
Discuss.
The problem is however you look at it, and however passionately people feel about it - and many do - PR is at least as flawed a system as FPTP. It doesn't lead to stable government. It puts huge power in the hands of party machines and party whips. It is generally noted for the graft that goes on when forming coalitions - the British public don't like coalitions. We've had two in the last 10 years and both times the junior party has suffered badly. It doesn't even guarantee fair votes, which is crazy.
The only thing I would say is the both are miles better than the hybrid D'Hondt system Blair imposed on his beloved assemblies.0 -
ian BothamTres said:
Kevin Keegan?Fysics_Teacher said:
I’m fairly sure that a lot of England internationals played for England...SandyRentool said:
There are two. One about which England international played for England. The other about driving the green on a particular hole on some golf course or other.Fysics_Teacher said:
What trick question in the sporting round of a pub quiz is Botham the answer to?RobD said:
I was thinking of the only England Captain to play for Scunthorpe.0 -
Who decided on Jo Johnson being a peer, is that his brother or would that be seen as a conflict of interest? We also have the son of a former KGB agent who somehow acquired 30% ownership of aeroflot.0
-
Looks like a bidding war looming.Nigelb said:US pledges $2.1 billion to Glaxo, Sanofi for coronavirus vaccine
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/509925-us-pledges-21-billion-to-glaxo-sanofi-for-coronavirus-vaccine
0 -
You're the one sounding like a fanatic. Asserting that the current situation is a disaster doesn't mean it has to change in the way you think it must.ydoethur said:
Yes.williamglenn said:
You're aware the Eurozone is due to expand in the next few years?ydoethur said:
No. It's the reality. Because it's the only solution that doesn't lead to total chaos.williamglenn said:
The idea that the Eurozone is going to evolve into a single country that will be on the same footing as countries remaining outside it is a fantasy. It's the same kind of thinking that failed for the UK in the 50s.ydoethur said:
Because actually, that's not the choice. The choice would not be, 'stay in the EU as at present, or go,' but, 'join a superstate, or stay in the current situation.'williamglenn said:
It could offer any country wanting to leave the same choices that we've faced with Brexit. Why offer anything else?ydoethur said:
What choice would it have? The outlines are already there in Lisbon. If it federates and becomes one country, it will have one vote, not 19 as at present.williamglenn said:
Why on earth would the EU agree to that?ydoethur said:Most of them, presumably, will end up in a modified EEA. And that actually would be the best outcome for most of Europe, if it was done on the basis of a return to unanimity in decision making so the EU had the same weight as Iceland or Denmark.
Bear in mind, any federation would require a new treaty, so it would have to extend Lisbon for those countries joining the federation.
Can you not see there is a difference there?
I can't help it if, like certain backers of Nigel Farage, you don't like facts. They remain facts.
I'm also aware that Denmark was due to join it.
How did that work out?
I'm also aware that you are still confidently predict we will be joining it.
I'm also aware that it is not permitted to issue its own debt.
I'm also aware that its current actions have been ruled illegal.
I'm finally aware that the Euro in its current form has been an utter disaster, and to anyone sober and with an IQ of above three (which I am aware lets out most EU administrators) it has to reform massively to survive.
It is gradually creating a single federal state on this basis. It has to. But that will ultimately lead the EU to change into a federation, and an outer core in an economic area.
Anyway, pointless debating with you on this. Fanatics don't change their views merely because of reality.0 -
Washington August 4, 2020 Primary - King County Elections
You can watch number of election activities at King County Elections office via live webcams:
https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/elections/about-us/security-and-accountability/watch-us-in-action.aspx
Activities on webcams include:
> Election Service Center voter assistance
> Ballot sorting
> alternate format ballot processing
> signature verification (two cameras)
> envelop review
> ballot opening
> ballot review
> ballot scanning & tabulation
Note - as of last night (Thurs) King Co Elections reported total ballots returned so far = 237k (17.5% of 1.4m active reg voters) which is likely about 35%-40% of eventual, final primary turnout
> this compares with 13.7% returns four years ago Thurs before Primary Day; in Aug 2016 final total primary turnout was 36.1% of active reg.0 -
I believe that we are also due for some House of Lords hereditary peer byelections due to death and retirement.RobD said:
Attrition will take its slow toll.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!0 -
Meanwhile Bulgaria is trying to get into the Euro with all guns blazing so the leadership can make merry before the inevitable disaster.MattW said:
The Eurozone has been due to expand for decades.williamglenn said:
You're aware the Eurozone is due to expand in the next few years?ydoethur said:
No. It's the reality. Because it's the only solution that doesn't lead to total chaos.williamglenn said:
The idea that the Eurozone is going to evolve into a single country that will be on the same footing as countries remaining outside it is a fantasy. It's the same kind of thinking that failed for the UK in the 50s.ydoethur said:
Because actually, that's not the choice. The choice would not be, 'stay in the EU as at present, or go,' but, 'join a superstate, or stay in the current situation.'williamglenn said:
It could offer any country wanting to leave the same choices that we've faced with Brexit. Why offer anything else?ydoethur said:
What choice would it have? The outlines are already there in Lisbon. If it federates and becomes one country, it will have one vote, not 19 as at present.williamglenn said:
Why on earth would the EU agree to that?ydoethur said:Most of them, presumably, will end up in a modified EEA. And that actually would be the best outcome for most of Europe, if it was done on the basis of a return to unanimity in decision making so the EU had the same weight as Iceland or Denmark.
Bear in mind, any federation would require a new treaty, so it would have to extend Lisbon for those countries joining the federation.
Can you not see there is a difference there?
I can't help it if, like certain backers of Nigel Farage, you don't like facts. They remain facts.
Sweden has been deliberately loitering on the doorstep since before Political Betting was even a gleam in Mike's eye.
They all know that it is a pig in a poke, but the EU requires them to join.
Like grubby schoolboys dragging their feet to delay taking a compulsory bath as long as possible.1 -
If Johnson could ennoble Clarke and Hammond, I'm sure he could have put them on a party list.Richard_Nabavi said:True, but the most useful ones are often those out of favour with the current party leadership.
0 -
A second chamber based on national share of the vote in a General Election was/is an absolutely terrible idea that has been doing the rounds for ages. Because it leaves large numbers of people in the ridiculous position of deciding whether they prefer to use their vote to have some influence over the membership of the House of Commons, or over the House of Lords. And leaves both sides claiming a democratic 'mandate' when in one or other of the cases their votes might have been achieved without actual popular support.Richard_Nabavi said:
That would certainly have been a better idea, although I think there is a useful role for a bunch of old duffers distinguished former statesmen.ydoethur said:
Nick Clegg would have been much better served asking for a second chamber elected by PR on the basis of the nationwide vote in a general election than agreeing to AV.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!
Discuss.
0 -
And it's expanded several times and never shrunk. What's your point?MattW said:
The Eurozone has been due to expand for decades.williamglenn said:
You're aware the Eurozone is due to expand in the next few years?ydoethur said:
No. It's the reality. Because it's the only solution that doesn't lead to total chaos.williamglenn said:
The idea that the Eurozone is going to evolve into a single country that will be on the same footing as countries remaining outside it is a fantasy. It's the same kind of thinking that failed for the UK in the 50s.ydoethur said:
Because actually, that's not the choice. The choice would not be, 'stay in the EU as at present, or go,' but, 'join a superstate, or stay in the current situation.'williamglenn said:
It could offer any country wanting to leave the same choices that we've faced with Brexit. Why offer anything else?ydoethur said:
What choice would it have? The outlines are already there in Lisbon. If it federates and becomes one country, it will have one vote, not 19 as at present.williamglenn said:
Why on earth would the EU agree to that?ydoethur said:Most of them, presumably, will end up in a modified EEA. And that actually would be the best outcome for most of Europe, if it was done on the basis of a return to unanimity in decision making so the EU had the same weight as Iceland or Denmark.
Bear in mind, any federation would require a new treaty, so it would have to extend Lisbon for those countries joining the federation.
Can you not see there is a difference there?
I can't help it if, like certain backers of Nigel Farage, you don't like facts. They remain facts.0 -
It has a multiplicity of agreements that give it more or less the same status.MaxPB said:
Switzerland isn't in the EEA.Foxy said:
Though both are in the EEA, so get much of the benefits.RobD said:
Interesting that those outside of it really don't want to join it.Foxy said:
EU membership is very popular in those countries, and increasingly so. We plough a lonely furrow.ydoethur said:
Yes, that would be my position. It was a live issue with the Tory right, and their voters, with or without Farage.Philip_Thompson said:
Maybe, maybe not. Considering nearly 100 Tory MPs voted to have a referendum against a three line whip, it was a live issue with or without Farage.Richard_Tyndall said:
You are missing the basic point. You are right that by the time of the vote he was more a liability than a benefit. But we would never have got to that vote without him.ydoethur said:
There you go again. Without the votes of a majority in England and Wales, many of whom thought (correctly) that he was a posh twat who didn't care about them, there would be no Brexit. That's the key.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
That is a bold statement.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
There wasn't.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
That was the point.
Without him, it may not have happened at the time it did, or the way it did.
Equally, his brashness, dubious morality and overt populism may have put off as many people as it attracted. Do you think Leave would have won if he had been the key frontman?
The great untold story of Brexit - so far - is that the EU was always tolerated in this country, never loved. And it turned out that in the last analysis, that wasn't enough to keep us in. It was enough for Scotland, who wanted a brake on Westminster, Northern Ireland, where there was an urgent need to avoid a return to the Troubles, and Gibraltar, where it was seen as preferable to integration with Spain. It wasn't enough for England and Wales, where it was seen as at best an expensive irrelevance and at worst, a malign and destructive influence.
That predated Farage's rise to prominence and it would have happened anyway. He surfed a wave, rather than made it.
Did his ability to surf that wave lead Cameron to the referendum? Yes. But it wasn't the only factor.
Stay wedded to your 'great men' theory if you wish. You aren't correct, but ultimately it's harmless if diverting.
I do think however it would have taken another 10 years without the pressure he brought from UKIP.
Equally, in another 10 years I think we would probably have effectively wandered out of the EU anyway, as Poland, Sweden, Hungary and any other non-euro members are going to.0 -
Is it a more ridiculous idea than a bunch of people who were selected on the basis of the size of the cheque they wrote?alex_ said:
A second chamber based on national share of the vote in a General Election was/is an absolutely terrible idea that has been doing the rounds for ages. Because it leaves large numbers of people in the ridiculous position of deciding whether they prefer to use their vote to have some influence over the membership of the House of Commons, or over the House of Lords. And leaves both sides claiming a democratic 'mandate' when in one or other of the cases their votes might have been achieved without actual popular support.Richard_Nabavi said:
That would certainly have been a better idea, although I think there is a useful role for a bunch of old duffers distinguished former statesmen.ydoethur said:
Nick Clegg would have been much better served asking for a second chamber elected by PR on the basis of the nationwide vote in a general election than agreeing to AV.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!
Discuss.1 -
And Ray Clemence!Tres said:
Kevin Keegan?Fysics_Teacher said:
I’m fairly sure that a lot of England internationals played for England...SandyRentool said:
There are two. One about which England international played for England. The other about driving the green on a particular hole on some golf course or other.Fysics_Teacher said:
What trick question in the sporting round of a pub quiz is Botham the answer to?RobD said:
I was thinking of the only England Captain to play for Scunthorpe.1 -
Sad in the case of the deaths, but I love a good HoL by-election. When John Thurso became the first (I think) to have been a member of the Lords, then an MP, then a member of the Lords again, I seem to recall the election to replace Lord Avebury had seven candidates, and only three eligible voters, all of whom voted for Thurso, who was the only candidate who hadn't even provided a 75 word statement on his background and experience.NickyBreakspear said:
I believe that we are also due for some House of Lords hereditary peer byelections due to death and retirement.RobD said:
Attrition will take its slow toll.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!
I also like when a Heriditary Peer fails to get in as a Heriditary, so gets a Life Peerage on top to get in, like Douglas Hogg.0 -
People aren't just spreading it through 'recklessness'. They are spreading it through going to work and supporting businesses. The point is that there is huge damage caused to the economy by measures put in place to contain the spread of COVID-19. These measures are almost entirely focussed on preventing the spread of the disease - ie. at those who are economically active and generate the wealth of the country by being so.MarqueeMark said:
Why reward them for their recklessness?alex_ said:Re: vaccine testing. Surely it would be far more sensible to target vaccination at the young and economically active, seeing as apparently it is they who are the biggest reason for the virus spreading?
Given that at the moment we seem to be declaring hundreds of deaths a day "from COVID", despite a large proportion of the people apparently not going anywhere near a hospital, one wonders what the purpose of what is going on at the moment actually is.
0 -
Errr, it was a rebel vote on a Queen's Speech on an issue they passionately cared about and had done for decades, when Farage's party was polling negligibly in the polls still.Richard_Tyndall said:
Again they would never have got close to being given the opportunity to have that vote without Farage.Philip_Thompson said:
Maybe, maybe not. Considering nearly 100 Tory MPs voted to have a referendum against a three line whip, it was a live issue with or without Farage.Richard_Tyndall said:
You are missing the basic point. You are right that by the time of the vote he was more a liability than a benefit. But we would never have got to that vote without him.ydoethur said:
There you go again. Without the votes of a majority in England and Wales, many of whom thought (correctly) that he was a posh twat who didn't care about them, there would be no Brexit. That's the key.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
That is a bold statement.TOPPING said:
Without him there would have been no Brexit.ydoethur said:
There wasn't.TOPPING said:
Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.ydoethur said:
He believes he did.TOPPING said:
So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.ydoethur said:
The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?TOPPING said:
He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?ydoethur said:
Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?geoffw said:I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.
Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.
As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.
Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.
So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.
That was the point.
Without him, it may not have happened at the time it did, or the way it did.
Equally, his brashness, dubious morality and overt populism may have put off as many people as it attracted. Do you think Leave would have won if he had been the key frontman?
The great untold story of Brexit - so far - is that the EU was always tolerated in this country, never loved. And it turned out that in the last analysis, that wasn't enough to keep us in. It was enough for Scotland, who wanted a brake on Westminster, Northern Ireland, where there was an urgent need to avoid a return to the Troubles, and Gibraltar, where it was seen as preferable to integration with Spain. It wasn't enough for England and Wales, where it was seen as at best an expensive irrelevance and at worst, a malign and destructive influence.
That predated Farage's rise to prominence and it would have happened anyway. He surfed a wave, rather than made it.
Did his ability to surf that wave lead Cameron to the referendum? Yes. But it wasn't the only factor.
Stay wedded to your 'great men' theory if you wish. You aren't correct, but ultimately it's harmless if diverting.
What makes you think that vote wouldn't have happened without Farage?0 -
Yes, because at least the current House of Lords doesn't claim a democratic mandate for occasionally interfering in the passage of legislation.ydoethur said:
Is it a more ridiculous idea than a bunch of people who were selected on the basis of the size of the cheque they wrote?alex_ said:
A second chamber based on national share of the vote in a General Election was/is an absolutely terrible idea that has been doing the rounds for ages. Because it leaves large numbers of people in the ridiculous position of deciding whether they prefer to use their vote to have some influence over the membership of the House of Commons, or over the House of Lords. And leaves both sides claiming a democratic 'mandate' when in one or other of the cases their votes might have been achieved without actual popular support.Richard_Nabavi said:
That would certainly have been a better idea, although I think there is a useful role for a bunch of old duffers distinguished former statesmen.ydoethur said:
Nick Clegg would have been much better served asking for a second chamber elected by PR on the basis of the nationwide vote in a general election than agreeing to AV.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!
Discuss.0 -
I think it's an excellent idea. It lends democratic legitimacy. It changes everything, whilst actually changing very little. It's very British. Can't see the big parties going for it, but they should.ydoethur said:
You could put them on the party lists in PR. So even that doesn't necessarily block it.Richard_Nabavi said:
That would certainly have been a better idea, although I think there is a useful role for a bunch of old duffers distinguished former statesmen.ydoethur said:
Nick Clegg would have been much better served asking for a second chamber elected by PR on the basis of the nationwide vote in a general election than agreeing to AV.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!
Discuss.0 -
Indeed the current chamber knows it has no democratic mandate and is an advising and revising chamber that can be overruled by the democratic chamber.alex_ said:
Yes, because at least the current House of Lords doesn't claim a democratic mandate for occasionally interfering in the passage of legislation.ydoethur said:
Is it a more ridiculous idea than a bunch of people who were selected on the basis of the size of the cheque they wrote?alex_ said:
A second chamber based on national share of the vote in a General Election was/is an absolutely terrible idea that has been doing the rounds for ages. Because it leaves large numbers of people in the ridiculous position of deciding whether they prefer to use their vote to have some influence over the membership of the House of Commons, or over the House of Lords. And leaves both sides claiming a democratic 'mandate' when in one or other of the cases their votes might have been achieved without actual popular support.Richard_Nabavi said:
That would certainly have been a better idea, although I think there is a useful role for a bunch of old duffers distinguished former statesmen.ydoethur said:
Nick Clegg would have been much better served asking for a second chamber elected by PR on the basis of the nationwide vote in a general election than agreeing to AV.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!
Discuss.0 -
That doesn’t stop it interfering. It’s just a term of abuse for the likes of Baroness Amos when it doesn’t slavishly wave through the government programme.alex_ said:
Yes, because at least the current House of Lords doesn't claim a democratic mandate for occasionally interfering in the passage of legislation.ydoethur said:
Is it a more ridiculous idea than a bunch of people who were selected on the basis of the size of the cheque they wrote?alex_ said:
A second chamber based on national share of the vote in a General Election was/is an absolutely terrible idea that has been doing the rounds for ages. Because it leaves large numbers of people in the ridiculous position of deciding whether they prefer to use their vote to have some influence over the membership of the House of Commons, or over the House of Lords. And leaves both sides claiming a democratic 'mandate' when in one or other of the cases their votes might have been achieved without actual popular support.Richard_Nabavi said:
That would certainly have been a better idea, although I think there is a useful role for a bunch of old duffers distinguished former statesmen.ydoethur said:
Nick Clegg would have been much better served asking for a second chamber elected by PR on the basis of the nationwide vote in a general election than agreeing to AV.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!
Discuss.0 -
House of Lords = House of UNELECTED HAS-BEENS! (or NEVER-BEENS, in many cases!)alex_ said:
A second chamber based on national share of the vote in a General Election was/is an absolutely terrible idea that has been doing the rounds for ages. Because it leaves large numbers of people in the ridiculous position of deciding whether they prefer to use their vote to have some influence over the membership of the House of Commons, or over the House of Lords. And leaves both sides claiming a democratic 'mandate' when in one or other of the cases their votes might have been achieved without actual popular support.Richard_Nabavi said:
That would certainly have been a better idea, although I think there is a useful role for a bunch of old duffers distinguished former statesmen.ydoethur said:
Nick Clegg would have been much better served asking for a second chamber elected by PR on the basis of the nationwide vote in a general election than agreeing to AV.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!
Discuss.0 -
Why do some people think that PR = party list, when actually the party list system is just one of many different PR voting systems.
My preference is for STV, like used in Ireland. It gives a good balance between have a local constituency MP and having a more proportional result.4 -
Quite the contrary, Mr Navabi. Now Lib Dem peers make up only some 11% of the House of Lords. I remember several general elections where the Liberal, Alliance and Lib Dem candidates received votes well in the 20s. This, of course, in elections where their votes were squeezed between the millstones of the two largest parties.Richard_Nabavi said:I have to admire the chutzpah of my old pal Dick Newby:
The Liberal Democrat Lords leader Lord Newby also weighed in on the “bloated” second chamber: "By giving a large number of his cronies peerages, he has shown that the Tories have abandoned any pretence of reducing the size of the bloated House of Lords."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2020/jul/31/uk-coronavirus-large-areas-of-northern-england-put-back-in-lockdown-after-rise-in-cases
It's bloated partly because it is over-stuffed with LibDems!
If the House of Lords is to serve any purpose, it is surely to provide a balance to the disastrous results thrown up by our failed voting system. It is a waste of time having yet more unthinking placemen from the Conservative & Labour Parties.0 -
As the vast majority of people in the UK live in areas with less than 2 cases per 100,000 people the restrictions remaining in place seem crazy. Take Goodwood tomorrow. It’s a vast outdoor site. There is no Covid in Chichester or the surrounding area. Yet public attendance has been cancelled. Yet those people can go to a gym? It’s madness.alex_ said:
People aren't just spreading it through 'recklessness'. They are spreading it through going to work and supporting businesses. The point is that there is huge damage caused to the economy by measures put in place to contain the spread of COVID-19. These measures are almost entirely focussed on preventing the spread of the disease - ie. at those who are economically active and generate the wealth of the country by being so.MarqueeMark said:
Why reward them for their recklessness?alex_ said:Re: vaccine testing. Surely it would be far more sensible to target vaccination at the young and economically active, seeing as apparently it is they who are the biggest reason for the virus spreading?
Given that at the moment we seem to be declaring hundreds of deaths a day "from COVID", despite a large proportion of the people apparently not going anywhere near a hospital, one wonders what the purpose of what is going on at the moment actually is.1 -
It's enough to make you weep. In fact I am. I'm weeping as I type.noneoftheabove said:Who decided on Jo Johnson being a peer, is that his brother or would that be seen as a conflict of interest? We also have the son of a former KGB agent who somehow acquired 30% ownership of aeroflot.
2 -
There has been no journey. I`ve been listening to Claire Fox for at least 15 years. She, and O`Neill, have been consistent throughout.Richard_Tyndall said:
I do find it strange as well. It is a journey quite a few of them have taken including of course Brendan O'Neil. I must admit I have never bothered to go and look how they justify it but do mean to sometime.Luckyguy1983 said:I always find Claire Fox very eloquent, and what she's saying usually very sound, politically.
However, I am puzzled with how one journeys from revolutionary communism to libertarianism without it being a u-turn.
They are strongly anti-authoritarian libertarians (Marxist Libertarian they say) - so are at the extreme (ish) of liberal thought. They stand up for individual flourishment and equality of opportunity, with a particular concern for the working class and suspicion of elites. They love liberal democracy. O`Neill, in particular, argues well and is a cracking good writer.
I`m broadly with them, though they are a touch too libertarian for me.
However ... they are arch humanists - which I am not. They believe that humans are special and good and are not at all responsible for the environmental destruction that abounds. I part company with them there.
Having said that, in this Covid madness, which I believe has quickly transformed into a direct attack on our liberal democracy itself, Spiked provides a dose of sanity in a mad world. I recommend it highly.1
