@HYUFD is right about Dorset. It's blue at the moment. If Conservative support starts to drop nationally, then parts of Dorset could stop being blue, while Surrey is much more likely to remain blue. If the Conservatives succeed in gerrymandering the English boundaries before the next election, then they will cement themselves in in Dorset as well as everywhere else. And politicians will slip another notch in the public's estimation.
The Tories aren't trying to gerrymander the English boundaries, so they are unlikely to succeed.
They would like the boundaries to be updated to reflect the fact that things have changed since the 2001 census.
I understand why they want to change the boundaries, but why are they reducing the number of MPs?
The population is going up rather than down and decreasing the number of MPs just makes parliament even less representative. If anything they should up it to 700 since the population has increased by over 10% in the last 30 years.
Making Parliament smaller in no way makes it less representative. It just means we have fewer representatives.
Parliament's size has been creeping up for decades - there is no magic to 650 - the US federal system works just fine with far fewer Representatives and Senators to give one example.
The "payroll" vote is a far bigger issue, IMHO, than the number of MPs
While I agree with your point, Charles, the Commons has been around 650 MPs since 1808.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
Being insulted by MalcolmG is almost as great a compliment as being insulted by SeanT.
That's probably quite true! This could only happen on PB though; where an insult is simultaneously a compliment.
I hope you won't be put off PB. I don't post much myself because (a) I don't bet and (b) I don't know very much about very much, so almost all my posts are opinions or anecdotes. But it's great to have young people on here and I admire the way you argue your points.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
Being insulted by MalcolmG is almost as great a compliment as being insulted by SeanT.
That's probably quite true! This could only happen on PB though; where an insult is simultaneously a compliment.
I don't know very much about very much, so almost all my posts are opinions or anecdotes.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
Being insulted by MalcolmG is almost as great a compliment as being insulted by SeanT.
Why thank you Anne, I hope you are having a pleasant evening.
Thank you, Malcolm, yes - it's been a very informative debate today.
Miss JGP, I didn't bet for a while [which may sound odd now], and I'm far behind most people on the politics. I think it can be helpful for the site to have people who are interested but aren't super anoraks or insiders.
@HYUFD is right about Dorset. It's blue at the moment. If Conservative support starts to drop nationally, then parts of Dorset could stop being blue, while Surrey is much more likely to remain blue. If the Conservatives succeed in gerrymandering the English boundaries before the next election, then they will cement themselves in in Dorset as well as everywhere else. And politicians will slip another notch in the public's estimation.
The Tories aren't trying to gerrymander the English boundaries, so they are unlikely to succeed.
They would like the boundaries to be updated to reflect the fact that things have changed since the 2001 census.
I understand why they want to change the boundaries, but why are they reducing the number of MPs?
The population is going up rather than down and decreasing the number of MPs just makes parliament even less representative. If anything they should up it to 700 since the population has increased by over 10% in the last 30 years.
Making Parliament smaller in no way makes it less representative. It just means we have fewer representatives.
Parliament's size has been creeping up for decades - there is no magic to 650 - the US federal system works just fine with far fewer Representatives and Senators to give one example.
The "payroll" vote is a far bigger issue, IMHO, than the number of MPs
The US Government, while having a greater size because of how big its economy is, actually is responsible for substantially less than Parliament. Their system sits on top of a pretty sophisticated (and utterly autonomous) series of state governments that control a whole manner of things that we would think ridiculous to be controlled at a local level.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
There you go, then. Since 1997 significant powers have been devolved from the UK parliament, which can therefore safely be smaller?
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01,
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband
I know you don't like to agree with me,
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
It is fair to say I perhaps sometimes press the point a little,
Which was never in question. It was whether Dorset was trending blue.
I suppose it rather depends on the chosen starting point. Compared with 1983 or 1987 it's rather more doubtful that it is trending blue.
In 1983 the Tory majority over Labour in Dorset South was almost 21,000. On the other hand some allowance has to be made for the Tory national lead of 15.2% in 1983 compared with just 6.6% in 2015.
Someone the other day mentioned you'd written a book on your experiences. Would you mind posting an amazon link? (Or you can PM me if you don't want to reveal your identity on a public forum)
I think I've been identified many times over the years on PB. Here's the link
As the chap in question: I was really asking whether you had many any headway on that follow-up that (unless my memory is failing me, which is possible) you were thinking of writing about the lead-up to the 2003 decision, which was something I was very interested in reading if it ever came to fruition. I was wondering whether you might be waiting for Chilcot (the modern-day equivalent of waiting for Godot...).
Indeed, Chilcot is somewhat central to the book. Otherwise, good materials from the taped conversations Saddam had with his inner circle, now archived at the National Defense University here in DC. Some of that has found its way into a chapter I have written for a book due out soon from Imperial, ed Lentzos: Biological Threats in the 21st Century (my contribution is chapter 4, Iraq's Bioweapons Program - not sure why the US spelling in an Imperial publication ...)
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
Being insulted by MalcolmG is almost as great a compliment as being insulted by SeanT.
That's probably quite true! This could only happen on PB though; where an insult is simultaneously a compliment.
I hope you won't be put off PB. I don't post much myself because (a) I don't bet and (b) I don't know very much about very much, so almost all my posts are opinions or anecdotes. But it's great to have young people on here and I admire the way you argue your points.
Thank you I was a bit upset earlier today, and did consider leaving. But I do get along with quite a few others here, including you and there have been many moments where I've also enjoyed being on this site. I have learned quite a bit since coming on this site, too.
F1: the small chance of Hamilton starting from the pit lane is due to a potential engine issue, akin to Rosberg's. If that is the case, and he doesn't start from the pit lane, his engine may fail during the race.
Of course, it could be fine. But let's hope not. Starting from the pit lane would prove quite helpful to the bet laying him to lead lap 1.
Miss JGP, I didn't bet for a while [which may sound odd now], and I'm far behind most people on the politics. I think it can be helpful for the site to have people who are interested but aren't super anoraks or insiders.
Someone the other day mentioned you'd written a book on your experiences. Would you mind posting an amazon link? (Or you can PM me if you don't want to reveal your identity on a public forum)
I think I've been identified many times over the years on PB. Here's the link
As the chap in question: I was really asking whether you had many any headway on that follow-up that (unless my memory is failing me, which is possible) you were thinking of writing about the lead-up to the 2003 decision, which was something I was very interested in reading if it ever came to fruition. I was wondering whether you might be waiting for Chilcot (the modern-day equivalent of waiting for Godot...).
Indeed, Chilcot is somewhat central to the book. Otherwise, good materials from the taped conversations Saddam had with his inner circle, now archived at the National Defense University here in DC. Some of that has found its way into a chapter I have written for a book due out soon from Imperial, ed Lentzos: Biological Threats in the 21st Century (my contribution is chapter 4, Iraq's Bioweapons Program - not sure why the US spelling in an Imperial publication ...)
Thanks for this answer - I have asked you a few times without reply (unless I missed it, sorry), but such are the difficulties of communicating via message board! I'm delighted that you're going to get a book out about it, the very simplified narrative that we are getting in the media (and political discourse) is clearly at odds with the historicity. Regardless of how we view the Iraq War, it's vitally important to understand how such a momentous policy came to pass.
Did you get anywhere with your plans to interview some (ex) MPs to see how informed they were, and what influenced their decisions, in the Commons vote? I know you talked about setting up an interview with Nick P on here a while back.
I agree with @CopperSulphate on this. Back in July, I was reading that apparently Priti Patel's seat could also be endanger (so Priti4leader has even more obstacles to face!) I think it's reasonable to want to update the boundaries, but reducing the number of seats is a more questionable act. I see that the 1922 committee aren't all that happy about it, either so the chances of this actually happening could be quite slim.
Essex loses one seat and Witham was the last one created so is quite a likely candidate for the chop. If it does go, Patel should try and line herself up for Saffron Waldon as Sir Alan Haselhurst is 78 and must surely be thinking about retiring.
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
Mr. T, I forget the figure (I think it was low hundreds) but the Roman Empire had a tiny civil service. Its approach was basically "Just pay your taxes and don't rebel. Or we'll nail you to large bits of wood" and it didn't mess about with much else.
Of course, that changed later, especially in the Eastern Empire.
Under an early Eastern Emperor (maybe Constantine, but if not him one soon after) they actually changed the legion from several thousand men to one thousand. Not for a military reason, but so that the roll call would sound more impressive.
Someone the other day mentioned you'd written a book on your experiences. Would you mind posting an amazon link? (Or you can PM me if you don't want to reveal your identity on a public forum)
I think I've been identified many times over the years on PB. Here's the link
As the chap in question: I was really asking whether you had many any headway on that follow-up that (unless my memory is failing me, which is possible) you were thinking of writing about the lead-up to the 2003 decision, which was something I was very interested in reading if it ever came to fruition. I was wondering whether you might be waiting for Chilcot (the modern-day equivalent of waiting for Godot...).
Indeed, Chilcot is somewhat central to the book. Otherwise, good materials from the taped conversations Saddam had with his inner circle, now archived at the National Defense University here in DC. Some of that has found its way into a chapter I have written for a book due out soon from Imperial, ed Lentzos: Biological Threats in the 21st Century (my contribution is chapter 4, Iraq's Bioweapons Program - not sure why the US spelling in an Imperial publication ...)
Thanks for this answer - I have asked you a few times without reply (unless I missed it, sorry), but such are the difficulties of communicating via message board! I'm delighted that you're going to get a book out about it, the very simplified narrative that we are getting in the media (and political discourse) is clearly at odds with the historicity. Regardless of how we view the Iraq War, it's vitally important to understand how such a momentous policy came to pass.
Did you get anywhere with your plans to interview some (ex) MPs to see how informed they were, and what influenced their decisions, in the Commons vote? I know you talked about setting up an interview with Nick P on here a while back.
I did meet up with Nick when he passed through DC once, and I've spoken to a number of senior officials both side of the Atlantic from State/FCO, DoD and the intelligence communities to understand the decision-making process somewhat better. It helps that I knew many of them beforehand.
Dorset has always attracted wealthy retirees from the South East and Sandbanks could match Surrey in terms of wealth and house prices, however many of the locals in Dorset still have relatively low wages and work in tourism, the service sector or agriculture and do not have the type of salaries to match the City
Nowhere has the type of salaries to match the City, Mr HYUFD. Likewise overpriced property which they can flog off to gullible foreigners. This is why incomers are so strongly disliked by the original inhabitants, and why the Tory dominance in rural England has to be a transitory bubble.
Is it all sewn up for Watson, or is there some result, or proportion of results, for the Deputy Leadership, that could be a good signifier for the Leadership, or is the Corbyn factor to unique to that race to show in the deputy race?
Mr. T, I forget the figure (I think it was low hundreds) but the Roman Empire had a tiny civil service. Its approach was basically "Just pay your taxes and don't rebel. Or we'll nail you to large bits of wood" and it didn't mess about with much else.
Of course, that changed later, especially in the Eastern Empire.
Under an early Eastern Emperor (maybe Constantine, but if not him one soon after) they actually changed the legion from several thousand men to one thousand. Not for a military reason, but so that the roll call would sound more impressive.
But I digress.
LOL - small is sometimes more impressive than massive. When we set up the monitoring centre in Baghdad, Charlie Duelfer was disappointed that it did not have TV monitor walls a la James Bond baddies. I was super impressed with the fact that one monitor could, using split screens, monitor 16 sites simultaneously (remember, this was the mid-1990s, so it was impressive back then).
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
Being insulted by MalcolmG is almost as great a compliment as being insulted by SeanT.
That's probably quite true! This could only happen on PB though; where an insult is simultaneously a compliment.
But it's great to have young people on here
Hard to tell the young from the old sometimes, I feel, I'm often surprised at the age of some posters.
@HYUFD is right about Dorset. It's blue at the moment. If Conservative support starts to drop nationally, then parts of Dorset could stop being blue, while Surrey is much more likely to remain blue. If the Conservatives succeed in gerrymandering the English boundaries before the next election, then they will cement themselves in in Dorset as well as everywhere else. And politicians will slip another notch in the public's estimation.
The Tories aren't trying to gerrymander the English boundaries, so they are unlikely to succeed.
They would like the boundaries to be updated to reflect the fact that things have changed since the 2001 census.
I understand why they want to change the boundaries, but why are they reducing the number of MPs?
The population is going up rather than down and decreasing the number of MPs just makes parliament even less representative. If anything they should up it to 700 since the population has increased by over 10% in the last 30 years.
Making Parliament smaller in no way makes it less representative. It just means we have fewer representatives.
Parliament's size has been creeping up for decades - there is no magic to 650 - the US federal system works just fine with far fewer Representatives and Senators to give one example.
The "payroll" vote is a far bigger issue, IMHO, than the number of MPs
While I agree with your point, Charles, the Commons has been around 650 MPs since 1808.
@HYUFD is right about Dorset. It's blue at the moment. If Conservative support starts to drop nationally, then parts of Dorset could stop being blue, while Surrey is much more likely to remain blue. If the Conservatives succeed in gerrymandering the English boundaries before the next election, then they will cement themselves in in Dorset as well as everywhere else. And politicians will slip another notch in the public's estimation.
The Tories aren't trying to gerrymander the English boundaries, so they are unlikely to succeed.
They would like the boundaries to be updated to reflect the fact that things have changed since the 2001 census.
I understand why they want to change the boundaries, but why are they reducing the number of MPs?
The population is going up rather than down and decreasing the number of MPs just makes parliament even less representative. If anything they should up it to 700 since the population has increased by over 10% in the last 30 years.
Making Parliament smaller in no way makes it less representative. It just means we have fewer representatives.
Parliament's size has been creeping up for decades - there is no magic to 650 - the US federal system works just fine with far fewer Representatives and Senators to give one example.
The "payroll" vote is a far bigger issue, IMHO, than the number of MPs
The US Government, while having a greater size because of how big its economy is, actually is responsible for substantially less than Parliament. Their system sits on top of a pretty sophisticated (and utterly autonomous) series of state governments that control a whole manner of things that we would think ridiculous to be controlled at a local level.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
There you go, then. Since 1997 significant powers have been devolved from the UK parliament, which can therefore safely be smaller?
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.) It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01,
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband
I know you don't like to agree with me,
Don't think ir's personal @HYUFD just likes to be right. Even when he's not.
If he argues long enough others will get bored and give up
It is fair to say I perhaps sometimes press the point a little,
Which was never in question. It was whether Dorset was trending blue.
I suppose it rather depends on the chosen starting point. Compared with 1983 or 1987 it's rather more doubtful that it is trending blue.
In 1983 the Tory majority over Labour in Dorset South was almost 21,000. On the other hand some allowance has to be made for the Tory national lead of 15.2% in 1983 compared with just 6.6% in 2015.
Dorset has always attracted wealthy retirees from the South East and Sandbanks could match Surrey in terms of wealth and house prices, however many of the locals in Dorset still have relatively low wages and work in tourism, the service sector or agriculture and do not have the type of salaries to match the City
Nowhere has the type of salaries to match the City, Mr HYUFD. Likewise overpriced property which they can flog off to gullible foreigners. This is why incomers are so strongly disliked by the original inhabitants, and why the Tory dominance in rural England has to be a transitory bubble.
Mind you some of those incomers, weekenders and wealthy retirees will be bring income and spending power to the local area and that will boost the local economy
@HYUFD is right about Dorset. It's blue at the moment. If Conservative support starts to drop nationally, then parts of Dorset could stop being blue, while Surrey is much more likely to remain blue. If the Conservatives succeed in gerrymandering the English boundaries before the next election, then they will cement themselves in in Dorset as well as everywhere else. And politicians will slip another notch in the public's estimation.
The Tories aren't trying to gerrymander the English boundaries, so they are unlikely to succeed.
They would like the boundaries to be updated to reflect the fact that things have changed since the 2001 census.
I understand why they want to change the boundaries, but why are they reducing the number of MPs?
The population is going up rather than down and decreasing the number of MPs just makes parliament even less representative. If anything they should up it to 700 since the population has increased by over 10% in the last 30 years.
Making Parliament smaller in no way makes it less representative. It just means we have fewer representatives.
Parliament's size has been creeping up for decades - there is no magic to 650 - the US federal system works just fine with far fewer Representatives and Senators to give one example.
The "payroll" vote is a far bigger issue, IMHO, than the number of MPs
While I agree with your point, Charles, the Commons has been around 650 MPs since 1808.
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
In some ways states in America are like mini-countries, but with how big they are, and big the American population is (I think you were projected to be 320 million by earlier this year) that's not too surprising. I found it funny that there are 11 US states which are bigger than the UK, including Texas, California, and Palin's state Alaska: http://www.lostinthepond.com/2014/02/11-us-states-that-are-larger-than-uk.html#.VetMdxHBzGc
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
In some ways states in America are like mini-countries, but with how big they are, and big the American population is (I think you were projected to be 320 million by earlier this year) that's not too surprising. I found it funny that there are 11 US states which are bigger than the UK, including Texas, California, and Palin's state Alaska: http://www.lostinthepond.com/2014/02/11-us-states-that-are-larger-than-uk.html#.VetMdxHBzGc
But even Cali is smaller than England (England, not UK!) in terms of population...
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
In some ways states in America are like mini-countries, but with how big they are, and big the American population is (I think you were projected to be 320 million by earlier this year) that's not too surprising. I found it funny that there are 11 US states which are bigger than the UK, including Texas, California, and Palin's state Alaska: http://www.lostinthepond.com/2014/02/11-us-states-that-are-larger-than-uk.html#.VetMdxHBzGc
Landmass wise, not population wise, but the US is really more like Europe than just the UK. Mind you Russia is bigger in area than the US and UK combined
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
In some ways states in America are like mini-countries, but with how big they are, and big the American population is (I think you were projected to be 320 million by earlier this year) that's not too surprising. I found it funny that there are 11 US states which are bigger than the UK, including Texas, California, and Palin's state Alaska: http://www.lostinthepond.com/2014/02/11-us-states-that-are-larger-than-uk.html#.VetMdxHBzGc
Landmass wise, not population wise, but the US is really more like Europe than just the UK. Mind you Russia is bigger in area than the US and UK combined
Indeed, were England to join as the 51st State, it would be the biggest population-wise by a large margin. I would also hazard that it might have the largest economy, given California's travails in recent years.
They better stick to that timetable. I'll be leaving for football at 12:15, I feel like I'm going to miss all the fun.
I am volunteering at the local library that Saturday morning, so will have to check the results on my smartphone when I get a chance, the excitement mounts!
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
In some ways states in America are like mini-countries, but with how big they are, and big the American population is (I think you were projected to be 320 million by earlier this year) that's not too surprising. I found it funny that there are 11 US states which are bigger than the UK, including Texas, California, and Palin's state Alaska: http://www.lostinthepond.com/2014/02/11-us-states-that-are-larger-than-uk.html#.VetMdxHBzGc
But even Cali is smaller than England (England, not UK!) in terms of population...
Tbf, on population I was referring to American's population as a whole. I remember reading how Australia - a country bigger than us - had only 23 - 24 million people!
'Germany has said it will return non Syrian refugees. It will be interesting to see how this is done - bet its not in front of the media'
Just empty rhetoric,it will take years with all the human rights challenges and if the media whip up a frenzy about it they will quickly go into reverse gear.
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
In some ways states in America are like mini-countries, but with how big they are, and big the American population is (I think you were projected to be 320 million by earlier this year) that's not too surprising. I found it funny that there are 11 US states which are bigger than the UK, including Texas, California, and Palin's state Alaska: http://www.lostinthepond.com/2014/02/11-us-states-that-are-larger-than-uk.html#.VetMdxHBzGc
Landmass wise, not population wise, but the US is really more like Europe than just the UK. Mind you Russia is bigger in area than the US and UK combined
Russia's the biggest country in world so I'm not surprised by that at all.
Why would anyone want to listen to Vince Cable. He is almost as treacherous as Paddy Pantsown, his disgraceful interview on R 4 yesterday shows the colours of the man..
He has traded on his past exploits (excluding his affair !) for too long.. He's one of the members of the House of Lords that should be culled. A shit of the first order.
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
In some ways states in America are like mini-countries, but with how big they are, and big the American population is (I think you were projected to be 320 million by earlier this year) that's not too surprising. I found it funny that there are 11 US states which are bigger than the UK, including Texas, California, and Palin's state Alaska: http://www.lostinthepond.com/2014/02/11-us-states-that-are-larger-than-uk.html#.VetMdxHBzGc
But even Cali is smaller than England (England, not UK!) in terms of population...
Tbf, on population I was referring to American's population as a whole. I remember reading how Australia - a country bigger than us - had only 23 - 24 million people!
At primary school we were given a task of trying to estimate, from an Atlas, how many times the UK could fit into Australia. The figure 50 times springs to mind, but time might have addled my memory.
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
Even better than that, a friend of mine in Philly took me on a quick tour his old family home (they've moved around the corner to a more modern property).
IIRC, the Secretary of State was based in the principal bedroom, the Continental Army was run out of the other main bedroom, Congress met in the front room and the committee that drafted the declaration of independence was in the dining room.
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
In some ways states in America are like mini-countries, but with how big they are, and big the American population is (I think you were projected to be 320 million by earlier this year) that's not too surprising. I found it funny that there are 11 US states which are bigger than the UK, including Texas, California, and Palin's state Alaska: http://www.lostinthepond.com/2014/02/11-us-states-that-are-larger-than-uk.html#.VetMdxHBzGc
Landmass wise, not population wise, but the US is really more like Europe than just the UK. Mind you Russia is bigger in area than the US and UK combined
Russia's the biggest country in world so I'm not surprised by that at all.
Why would anyone want to listen to Vince Cable. He is almost as treacherous as Paddy Pantsown, his disgraceful interview on R 4 yesterday shows the colours of the man..
He has traded on his past exploits (excluding his affair !) for too long.. He's one of the members of the House of Lords that should be culled. A shit of the first order.
And lets not forget what a gent Pantsdown was over his affair
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
Even better than that, a friend of mine in Philly took me on a quick tour his old family home (they've moved around the corner to a more modern property).
IIRC, the Secretary of State was based in the principal bedroom, the Continental Army was run out of the other main bedroom, Congress met in the front room and the committee that drafted the declaration of independence was in the dining room.
That's like saying the UK Government does not have money of its own - only money it takes from taxpayers.
While philosophically that is correct, the UK Government (and the EU) do have budgets and taxes/funding they raise that way and this expenditure is coming from that.
I disagree. The Commission spend has come from the taxpayers of the individual countries. The idea that there is a separate EU demos that is providing funds separate from those raised by the constituent states is false. As I said below the UK contribution should be viewed in this way, adding a further $36 million to what we gave last year and taking our contribution above half a billion dollars for the year.
Whether you like it or not the Commission has a budget that has been abrogated to it to spend. To pretend the money being spent by the Commission is being spent by the French national government etc is false - it is being sourced from French and English taxpayers yes, as has our government's expenditure has been sourced from our taxpayers.
But the ultimate source of taxes is not the UK government, it is taxpayers. Spending by the EU Commission is no more spending by Westminster than spending from Holyrood is. It may be sourced from British taxes, but it is not the British government it is the EU Commission that is spending the money.
No it is spending by the British taxpayer. When we hear that the UK has given $475 million last year we understand that it is the British taxpayer who has given that money. There is no such thing as a European taxpayer no matter how much the EU might wish it to be otherwise.
As such the money should always be attributed to the taxpayers of the nation that contributed it, particularly when taxpayers in one country give more than those in others to the EU budget.
I said it came from British taxpayers so I fail to see how that's a No. It isn't attributable to the Westminster government, but it is fair to attribute it to the British taxpayers as I said though you seem to disagree with. "It is being sourced from French and English taxpayers yes" is what I wrote which you're saying No to for some reason?
Dorset has always attracted wealthy retirees from the South East and Sandbanks could match Surrey in terms of wealth and house prices, however many of the locals in Dorset still have relatively low wages and work in tourism, the service sector or agriculture and do not have the type of salaries to match the City
Nowhere has the type of salaries to match the City, Mr HYUFD. Likewise overpriced property which they can flog off to gullible foreigners. This is why incomers are so strongly disliked by the original inhabitants, and why the Tory dominance in rural England has to be a transitory bubble.
"Transitory"?
A transition that's lasted over 120 years (since Hartington and his friends shifted split from Gladstone)
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
In some ways states in America are like mini-countries, but with how big they are, and big the American population is (I think you were projected to be 320 million by earlier this year) that's not too surprising. I found it funny that there are 11 US states which are bigger than the UK, including Texas, California, and Palin's state Alaska: http://www.lostinthepond.com/2014/02/11-us-states-that-are-larger-than-uk.html#.VetMdxHBzGc
But even Cali is smaller than England (England, not UK!) in terms of population...
Tbf, on population I was referring to American's population as a whole. I remember reading how Australia - a country bigger than us - had only 23 - 24 million people!
At primary school we were given a task of trying to estimate, from an Atlas, how many times the UK could fit into Australia. The figure 50 times springs to mind, but time might have addled my memory.
Edit: faulty memory: apparently it's 31.
Giving it a google, it looks as though the figure could be anything between 31 - 59!
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
In some ways states in America are like mini-countries, but with how big they are, and big the American population is (I think you were projected to be 320 million by earlier this year) that's not too surprising. I found it funny that there are 11 US states which are bigger than the UK, including Texas, California, and Palin's state Alaska: http://www.lostinthepond.com/2014/02/11-us-states-that-are-larger-than-uk.html#.VetMdxHBzGc
But even Cali is smaller than England (England, not UK!) in terms of population...
If we vote to leave the EU then the next Tory leader must surely be from the Out camp. The opposite also applies. So don't bet on next PM until you are confident of the result of the referendum.
But... if most of the members vote to leave?
That figure will never be known for certain (besides polls and we know how reliable they are) since the public don't sign their referendum ballots with a party membership.
The party should respect the country's decision.
The figure will be known from various surveys. The party will respect the country's decision and then vote against a europhile.
The party will respect the country's decision and vote for a europragmatist.
A europhile like Clarke is out of the question. A eurosceptic who immediately wants to re-open the decision (like the SNP) would be absurd. The party will go with a pragmatist.
"A eurosceptic who immediately wants to re-open the decision (like the SNP) would be absurd." Who said they would? A eurosceptic who lined up with the "leave" camp has the credibility with the eurosceptic members. They can still say that the referendum has settled things and we move forward on that basis without mentioning a future referendum.
A eurosceptic who considers the decision closed is what I'd call a pragmatist. Just as someone who wanted to stay In and wants to move on from there (eg like Cameron) without being a Ken Clarke-style europhile would be a pragmatist too.
Neither extreme eurosceptics nor extreme europhiles will be elected following an In vote, only a pragmatist who can unite everyone and move forward.
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
In some ways states in America are like mini-countries, but with how big they are, and big the American population is (I think you were projected to be 320 million by earlier this year) that's not too surprising. I found it funny that there are 11 US states which are bigger than the UK, including Texas, California, and Palin's state Alaska: http://www.lostinthepond.com/2014/02/11-us-states-that-are-larger-than-uk.html#.VetMdxHBzGc
Landmass wise, not population wise, but the US is really more like Europe than just the UK. Mind you Russia is bigger in area than the US and UK combined
Russia's the biggest country in world so I'm not surprised by that at all.
Ah well. We could be San Marino - now that's a really small country!
Dorset has always attracted wealthy retirees from the South East and Sandbanks could match Surrey in terms of wealth and house prices, however many of the locals in Dorset still have relatively low wages and work in tourism, the service sector or agriculture and do not have the type of salaries to match the City
Nowhere has the type of salaries to match the City, Mr HYUFD. Likewise overpriced property which they can flog off to gullible foreigners. This is why incomers are so strongly disliked by the original inhabitants, and why the Tory dominance in rural England has to be a transitory bubble.
"Transitory"?
A transition that's lasted over 120 years (since Hartington and his friends shifted split from Gladstone)
I guess the transition would be from total dominance to largest but not quite as dominant.
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
Even better than that, a friend of mine in Philly took me on a quick tour his old family home (they've moved around the corner to a more modern property).
IIRC, the Secretary of State was based in the principal bedroom, the Continental Army was run out of the other main bedroom, Congress met in the front room and the committee that drafted the declaration of independence was in the dining room.
We used to live near there 30 years ago. Used to love going to Bookbinders. I think it's closed now. There were some good restaurants around Rittenhouse Square in those days too.
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
In some ways states in America are like mini-countries, but with how big they are, and big the American population is (I think you were projected to be 320 million by earlier this year) that's not too surprising. I found it funny that there are 11 US states which are bigger than the UK, including Texas, California, and Palin's state Alaska: http://www.lostinthepond.com/2014/02/11-us-states-that-are-larger-than-uk.html#.VetMdxHBzGc
Landmass wise, not population wise, but the US is really more like Europe than just the UK. Mind you Russia is bigger in area than the US and UK combined
Russia's the biggest country in world so I'm not surprised by that at all.
Indeed, if you include the bits of Russia which are technically in Asia then Asia is bigger than Africa and the largest continent, though Africa is an equally impressive size as Plato points out
Dorset has always attracted wealthy retirees from the South East and Sandbanks could match Surrey in terms of wealth and house prices, however many of the locals in Dorset still have relatively low wages and work in tourism, the service sector or agriculture and do not have the type of salaries to match the City
Nowhere has the type of salaries to match the City, Mr HYUFD. Likewise overpriced property which they can flog off to gullible foreigners. This is why incomers are so strongly disliked by the original inhabitants, and why the Tory dominance in rural England has to be a transitory bubble.
"Transitory"?
A transition that's lasted over 120 years (since Hartington and his friends shifted split from Gladstone)
I guess the transition would be from total dominance to largest but not quite as dominant.
Still not convinced that something which lasts 120 years is a "bubble"!
Dorset has always attracted wealthy retirees from the South East and Sandbanks could match Surrey in terms of wealth and house prices, however many of the locals in Dorset still have relatively low wages and work in tourism, the service sector or agriculture and do not have the type of salaries to match the City
Nowhere has the type of salaries to match the City, Mr HYUFD. Likewise overpriced property which they can flog off to gullible foreigners. This is why incomers are so strongly disliked by the original inhabitants, and why the Tory dominance in rural England has to be a transitory bubble.
"Transitory"?
A transition that's lasted over 120 years (since Hartington and his friends shifted split from Gladstone)
I guess the transition would be from total dominance to largest but not quite as dominant.
Still not convinced that something which lasts 120 years is a "bubble"!
Dorset has always attracted wealthy retirees from the South East and Sandbanks could match Surrey in terms of wealth and house prices, however many of the locals in Dorset still have relatively low wages and work in tourism, the service sector or agriculture and do not have the type of salaries to match the City
Nowhere has the type of salaries to match the City, Mr HYUFD. Likewise overpriced property which they can flog off to gullible foreigners. This is why incomers are so strongly disliked by the original inhabitants, and why the Tory dominance in rural England has to be a transitory bubble.
"Transitory"?
A transition that's lasted over 120 years (since Hartington and his friends shifted split from Gladstone)
I guess the transition would be from total dominance to largest but not quite as dominant.
Still not convinced that something which lasts 120 years is a "bubble"!
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
Even better than that, a friend of mine in Philly took me on a quick tour his old family home (they've moved around the corner to a more modern property).
IIRC, the Secretary of State was based in the principal bedroom, the Continental Army was run out of the other main bedroom, Congress met in the front room and the committee that drafted the declaration of independence was in the dining room.
We used to live near there 30 years ago. Used to love going to Bookbinders. I think it's closed now. There were some good restaurants around Rittenhouse Square in those days too.
Rittenhouse is still quite ritzy and Le Bec Fin is still going strong. http://www.lebecfin.com
I was there for a couple of years, but the other side, down on Headhouse Square
F1: sounds like there's no issue observed but there is a question mark over the reliability of Hamilton's engine. Changing one takes a while (Ricciardo's was apparently something of a record, to be changed in about an hour and forty minutes), so we'll know well ahead of the race whether it's happening/happened.
Hope it does, but it seems unlikely, alas.
Edited extra bit: huzzah, editing's working again!
Also, Americans intensely dislike government, and have historically seen the state as a threat to their liberty and freedom. Being instinctively small-state means that they are bound to prefer a smaller national parliament, given that they feel too much state authority can be encroaching. And they (like Germany as well) have a federal system. Perhaps the government are going to renew the idea to devolution in England (although Wales is set to be most effected by the reduction in seats, and they already have devolution). I know that the idea of decentralising decision-making to local governments has been popular among politicians for the last five years now.
Indeed, the first time I visited the White House for discussions, my host stated that air-conditioning had ruined the US. I asked what he meant. He stated that when DC was a swamp without air-conditioning, the federal government met only for two months a year (many state governments still only do). He pointed to the Old Executive Office building and said wistfully "That used to house the entire federal government"
In some ways states in America are like mini-countries, but with how big they are, and big the American population is (I think you were projected to be 320 million by earlier this year) that's not too surprising. I found it funny that there are 11 US states which are bigger than the UK, including Texas, California, and Palin's state Alaska: http://www.lostinthepond.com/2014/02/11-us-states-that-are-larger-than-uk.html#.VetMdxHBzGc
Landmass wise, not population wise, but the US is really more like Europe than just the UK. Mind you Russia is bigger in area than the US and UK combined
Russia's the biggest country in world so I'm not surprised by that at all.
When was a boy I saw a film called "Sammy Going South" which told the story of a school boy travelling alone from Port Said to Durban. Looking at that map, I'm beginning to think I was being misled.
Ha, just seen a tweet pointing out Button qualified 16th, got a 5 place grid penalty and starts 15th.
F1 maths hard at work.
Edited extra bit: anyway, off for the night. I'll check in the morning to see whether Hamilton's changed his engine, though I think it's very long odds now.
We also had polls showing YES winning in the AV referendum. That said looking at that poll, it's odd how the public have concluded invading Syria will solve will the crisis.
Someone the other day mentioned you'd written a book on your experiences. Would you mind posting an amazon link? (Or you can PM me if you don't want to reveal your identity on a public forum)
I think I've been identified many times over the years on PB. Here's the link
As the chap in question: I was really asking whether you had many any headway on that follow-up that (unless my memory is failing me, which is possible) you were thinking of writing about the lead-up to the 2003 decision, which was something I was very interested in reading if it ever came to fruition. I was wondering whether you might be waiting for Chilcot (the modern-day equivalent of waiting for Godot...).
Indeed, Chilcot is somewhat central to the book. Otherwise, good materials from the taped conversations Saddam had with his inner circle, now archived at the National Defense University here in DC. Some of that has found its way into a chapter I have written for a book due out soon from Imperial, ed Lentzos: Biological Threats in the 21st Century (my contribution is chapter 4, Iraq's Bioweapons Program - not sure why the US spelling in an Imperial publication ...)
Thanks for this answer - I have asked you a few times without reply (unless I missed it, sorry), but such are the difficulties of communicating via message board! I'm delighted that you're going to get a book out about it, the very simplified narrative that we are getting in the media (and political discourse) is clearly at odds with the historicity. Regardless of how we view the Iraq War, it's vitally important to understand how such a momentous policy came to pass.
Did you get anywhere with your plans to interview some (ex) MPs to see how informed they were, and what influenced their decisions, in the Commons vote? I know you talked about setting up an interview with Nick P on here a while back.
I did meet up with Nick when he passed through DC once, and I've spoken to a number of senior officials both side of the Atlantic from State/FCO, DoD and the intelligence communities to understand the decision-making process somewhat better. It helps that I knew many of them beforehand.
Sounds really good. Hopefully Chilcot won't keep you waiting too much longer!
Keep calm bitches, this time last year (well technically tomorrow) we had a poll with Yes ahead in the Indyref
Well if we do leave the EU we will certainly lose Scotland this time, but it will be the rest of the UK who will have kicked them out by default, knowing that voting to quit the EU means losing our northern neighbours too (Scotland almost certainly voting Yes)
Keep calm bitches, this time last year (well technically tomorrow) we had a poll with Yes ahead in the Indyref
Well if we do leave the EU we will certainly lose Scotland this time, but it will be the rest of the UK who will have kicked them out by default, knowing that voting to quit the EU means losing our northern neighbours too (Scotland almost certainly voting Yes)
Presumably so Sturgeon has someone else to blame for an independent Scotland's woes...
BBC News is showing the next wave of migrants turning up in Hungary. If I was a Middle Easterner or African watching this footage, I think I'd be seriously considering making the trip (although probably via the overland route.) There's a billion people in Africa. If just 1% makes the trip, then that's 10 million turning up next year. But there must be a point when even Germany says 'enough', surely? What happens then?
Keep calm bitches, this time last year (well technically tomorrow) we had a poll with Yes ahead in the Indyref
Well if we do leave the EU we will certainly lose Scotland this time, but it will be the rest of the UK who will have kicked them out by default, knowing that voting to quit the EU means losing our northern neighbours too (Scotland almost certainly voting Yes)
Presumably so Sturgeon has someone else to blame for an independent Scotland's woes...
Keep calm bitches, this time last year (well technically tomorrow) we had a poll with Yes ahead in the Indyref
Well if we do leave the EU we will certainly lose Scotland this time, but it will be the rest of the UK who will have kicked them out by default, knowing that voting to quit the EU means losing our northern neighbours too (Scotland almost certainly voting Yes)
The English could do anything, and that would be used as justification by the SNP for another indyref!
I think Cable's right, although it does appear some Conservative MPs are having doubts about Osborne's electability. In the end though, I can see Boris' lack of networking, costing him the leadership. Osborne has essentially spent the last couple of years building up a network of supporters - a lot of the up-and-coming Conservative MPs are Osbornites (Perry, Hancock, Hands, Javid etc). While Osborne can be caricatured as cunning, or mean you can still take him seriously. Boris, on the other-hand is the exact opposite case.
Personally, I think Thersea May would be a far better choice than either of those two.
And FPT, sorry I missed your post @CarlottaValance. I find the use of 'turnip' as an insult quite strange. It's a part of the odd PB vocabulary. Also thanks to the PBers who gave me messages of support. I feel slightly less awkward now....
I thought turnip was a cybernat insult on Unionists or English.
It's an insult that I've only ever seen on PB though (unless cybernats on Twitter are using turnip as an insult too). And sometimes it's been used outside of the context of Scottish nationalism.
I always assumed it was connected to the Turnip Taliban incident pre-GE 2010, i.e. PB Tory inside joke.
Keep calm bitches, this time last year (well technically tomorrow) we had a poll with Yes ahead in the Indyref
Well if we do leave the EU we will certainly lose Scotland this time, but it will be the rest of the UK who will have kicked them out by default, knowing that voting to quit the EU means losing our northern neighbours too (Scotland almost certainly voting Yes)
BBC News is showing the next wave of migrants turning up in Hungary. If I was a Middle Easterner or African watching this footage, I think I'd be seriously considering making the trip (although probably via the overland route.) There's a billion people in Africa. If just 1% makes the trip, then that's 10 million turning up next year. But there must be a point when even Germany says 'enough', surely? What happens then?
In the NYTimes today there was an interesting stat.
Earlier this month 2,000 a week were turning up at the Hungarian border.
This week, after Merkel's announcement, it was 3,000.
I know there's a risk of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but it's an interesting stat that would suggest that the view that Merkel's statement will increase the number of migrants has some basis in fact
Comments
There's a small chance Hamilton could start from the pit lane.
Given my tips, I would not be distraught at such an event.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_Westminster_MPs
Of course, it could be fine. But let's hope not. Starting from the pit lane would prove quite helpful to the bet laying him to lead lap 1.
Did you get anywhere with your plans to interview some (ex) MPs to see how informed they were, and what influenced their decisions, in the Commons vote? I know you talked about setting up an interview with Nick P on here a while back.
http://bit.ly/1FpNMDl
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/1600/page_masthead/1600_eeob.jpg
I hope Mister Toad doesn't get it.
Of course, that changed later, especially in the Eastern Empire.
Under an early Eastern Emperor (maybe Constantine, but if not him one soon after) they actually changed the legion from several thousand men to one thousand. Not for a military reason, but so that the roll call would sound more impressive.
But I digress.
If you take modern politics as being from the time of the second world war, it was at 625 in 1950.
But in honour of @Richard_Tyndall, perhaps we should remember the enfranchisement of Newark in 1673 and have 509 MPs.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/637020695478824960
'Germany has said it will return non Syrian refugees. It will be interesting to see how this is done - bet its not in front of the media'
Just empty rhetoric,it will take years with all the human rights challenges and if the media whip up a frenzy about it they will quickly go into reverse gear.
He has traded on his past exploits (excluding his affair !) for too long.. He's one of the members of the House of Lords that should be culled. A shit of the first order.
Edit: faulty memory: apparently it's 31.
IIRC, the Secretary of State was based in the principal bedroom, the Continental Army was run out of the other main bedroom, Congress met in the front room and the committee that drafted the declaration of independence was in the dining room.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Biddle
Muslim Immigrants Smash & Urinate on Virgin Mary Statue in Italy http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/08/26/flashback-muslim-immigrants-smash-urinate-on-virgin-mary-statue-in-italy/ … #PVV
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/640259325378850817
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1363112/Paddy-Ashdowns-mistress-behaved-like-real-trouper--threw-dogs.html
A transition that's lasted over 120 years (since Hartington and his friends shifted split from Gladstone)
Neither extreme eurosceptics nor extreme europhiles will be elected following an In vote, only a pragmatist who can unite everyone and move forward.
http://www.lebecfin.com
I was there for a couple of years, but the other side, down on Headhouse Square
Hope it does, but it seems unlikely, alas.
Edited extra bit: huzzah, editing's working again!
Mr. K, beware the siren call of One True Voice.
http://bit.ly/1EIbwaH
Keep calm bitches, this time last year (well technically tomorrow) we had a poll with Yes ahead in the Indyref
F1 maths hard at work.
Edited extra bit: anyway, off for the night. I'll check in the morning to see whether Hamilton's changed his engine, though I think it's very long odds now.
Has Out/Leave leading via @suttonnick '
Who could have guessed that both the media & Twitter should be so far behind the curve.
'Well if we do leave the EU we will certainly lose Scotland this time
That's a win win.
You have your mission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011
Earlier this month 2,000 a week were turning up at the Hungarian border.
This week, after Merkel's announcement, it was 3,000.
I know there's a risk of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but it's an interesting stat that would suggest that the view that Merkel's statement will increase the number of migrants has some basis in fact