Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
'Labour has a number of experienced and competent leaders from the New Labour era they could rely on instead of digging up Blair from his crypt?'
Ha, good one.
Hey now, I'm sure 'Two Jags' Prescott would loooooove another crack at the whip, give him a chance to get another knighthood? Or maybe Harriet Harman is biding her time? Or maybe even David Blunkett!
If the UK is headed towards Americanisation of politics, does that mean my British friends may soon be able cast a ballot for PM Fry? That would be fantastic.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Tories are counting on taking enough seats to indicate that the tide has turned and the high water mark of the SNP is behind them. It may not be true, but if the Tories gain seats while Sturgeon is on her Indyref tunnel vision it will be taken as a sign that one vote is enough.
It'd be pretty embarrassing if the tories couldn't improve on their single seat. That said; whilst SNP still get a majority eith indyref2 in thrir manifesto, they'll keep pushing for it. Polls have it more popular than Brexit and we're still pushing on with that...
Tories are counting on taking enough seats to indicate that the tide has turned and the high water mark of the SNP is behind them. It may not be true, but if the Tories gain seats while Sturgeon is on her Indyref tunnel vision it will be taken as a sign that one vote is enough.
It'd be pretty embarrassing if the tories couldn't improve on their single seat. That said; whilst SNP still get a majority eith indyref2 in thrir manifesto, they'll keep pushing for it. Polls have it more popular than Brexit and we're still pushing on with that...
This admission may shock people given my earlier opinions, but I voted Tory today for the first time ever...
I put a 9 in the box next to the Tory candidate
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
r_squared wrote: Just voted Labour in my local council election, for what good it will do.
We've got UKIP/ conservative run council here, and to be fair to them, they do a reasonable job of filling in potholes.
Local Councils work differently to national government. The things that get achieved like filling pot holes is all done by the Council employees not the Councillors. Unlike the civil service which work for the government of the day (hence you see a merry-go-round whenever the party changes), local government officers are independent of local Councillors and work on behalf of the local populace. A local Councillor can't tell a local authority officer what to do and what pot hole to fill for example, that's the remit of the officers to decide as they are the experts. Councillors make the strategic decisions (such as how much funding highways have, strategic housing plans etc). For the most part these plans come from the recommendation of the officers anyway, guided by the 'strategic vision' of the Councillors. It's very rare for example for Council officers to submit such documents to the Council that are then rejected (this only really happens in hung Councils). The reality is that the person with the most power in a Council is usually the Chief Executive not the Councillors despite what they like to think - most Councils would work just fine without Councillors (albeit being a mini dictatorship directed by the Chief Exec, and hence why you have Councillors to stop this).
As such I'd recommend you are always wary about any Councillor stating he managed to ensure a specific action was taken in an area, because the likelihood it would have happened whether they were present or not.
But I have done my part and voted, not that it will make much difference, too much blue blood. Happily walked past the Tory Councillor talking about how to vote strategically to remove the Tories though....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: If the UK is headed towards Americanisation of politics, does that mean my British friends may soon be able cast a ballot for PM Fry? That would be fantastic.
You mean this Fry. Think he would fit perfectly in either the Tory or Labour party....
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/04 19:19:02
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
feeder wrote: If the UK is headed towards Americanisation of politics, does that mean my British friends may soon be able cast a ballot for PM Fry? That would be fantastic.
You mean this Fry. Think he would fit perfectly in either the Tory or Labour party....
If banter from MtW is any indication, that clip would put Philip J Fry firmly at the head of the Lib Dem party.
I was, of course, referring to this Fry:
From his talks, I guess he would be Labour.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
'Labour has a number of experienced and competent leaders from the New Labour era they could rely on instead of digging up Blair from his crypt?'
Ha, good one.
Hey now, I'm sure 'Two Jags' Prescott would loooooove another crack at the whip, give him a chance to get another knighthood? Or maybe Harriet Harman is biding her time? Or maybe even David Blunkett!
Why would you even consider digging up that grave. ?
Your resurrecting a monster.
Tony Blair has more baggage, bad press and general being himself to put off alot of people.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
'Labour has a number of experienced and competent leaders from the New Labour era they could rely on instead of digging up Blair from his crypt?'
Ha, good one.
Hey now, I'm sure 'Two Jags' Prescott would loooooove another crack at the whip, give him a chance to get another knighthood? Or maybe Harriet Harman is biding her time? Or maybe even David Blunkett!
I would not include John Prescott in any list that didnt involve arrest warrants.
Anyway, just because I said there are New Labour veterans who would make a better choice of leader than Blair doesnt make me a Blairite - I have been quite consistent on my opinions on New Labour. Besids being better than Blair isnt exactly a high passmark.
Anyway for those who think there are no viable leaders from the New Labour era, I can name two Jack Straw and John Reid. Both were competent and while Staw was lefty he had the moral gumption to oppose Blair on the Iraq war and even resigned as a result, most politicians who resign do so to advance their careers by the back door, Like Livingstone or BoJo, Jack Straw took a hit on genuine ethical grounds and won my respect, sadly he is a tad old. John Reid was the most competent New Labour leadrer outside of the monster Blair himself, and didnt sell out the nation in the process. He is a sitting peer sadly.
Anyway I think of two who had value, there may well be more before having to scrape the barrel.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/04 21:01:31
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Ketara wrote: I just had a runner come around and hammer on my door to come out and vote for the local Lib Dems because it's neck and neck. Mildly entertaining.
'Labour has a number of experienced and competent leaders from the New Labour era they could rely on instead of digging up Blair from his crypt?'
Ha, good one.
Hey now, I'm sure 'Two Jags' Prescott would loooooove another crack at the whip, give him a chance to get another knighthood? Or maybe Harriet Harman is biding her time? Or maybe even David Blunkett!
I would not include John Prescott in any list that didnt involve arrest warrants.
Anyway, just because I said there are New Labour veterans who would make a better choice of leader than Blair doesnt make me a Blairite - I have been quite consistent on my opinions on New Labour. Besids being better than Blair isnt exactly a high passmark.
Anyway for those who think there are no viable leaders from the New Labour era, I can name two Jack Straw and John Reid. Both were competent and while Staw was lefty he had the moral gumption to oppose Blair on the Iraq war and even resigned as a result, most politicians who resign do so to advance their careers by the back door, Like Livingstone or BoJo, Jack Straw took a hit on genuine ethical grounds and won my respect, sadly he is a tad old. John Reid was the most competent New Labour leadrer outside of the monster Blair himself, and didnt sell out the nation in the process. He is a sitting peer sadly.
Anyway I think of two who had value, there may well be more before having to scrape the barrel.
Given parties recent troubles, thr various inter faction battles.
Can any leader remotely bring order effectively to this mess? As MP, unions, pressure and grass routes all have different ideas of direction and political learning.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Given parties recent troubles, thr various inter faction battles.
Can any leader remotely bring order effectively to this mess? As MP, unions, pressure and grass routes all have different ideas of direction and political learning.
Having a competent leader doesnt make the problems go away, it simple means they are less likely to get worse through poor decision making.
I have little faith in Theresa May's ability, but the alternatives are worse. Both Tories and Labour have potential leaders far more fit than the ones we have.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Paras 16 and 17 detail the intent for dispute resolution prior to Brexit, anything that happens before the cut off date must be handled by the existing legislature, that's not unreasonable. Para 17 talks of negotiating the post Brexit arrangements which "bears in mind" the EUs interests in their current legislature. There is no compulsion there, just a statement of intent for negotiation.
Check the wording, the legal restrictions do not expire, and are already in place so dont need to be currently added as the U currently has thrm as an EU member state.
I made mistake here, I was referring to paras 15 and 16, not 17.
However, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. So, rather than put words in your mouth I will simply re-iterate that para 15 discuss the EUs desire to ensure that any legal problems that occur before we leave, are dealt with under the current legal mechanisms which include arbitration by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Para 16 concerns the creation of a dispute resolution mechanism to deal with complications and unforseen situations. I believe this is the part that is troubling you?
This should be done bearing in mind the Union's interest to effectively protect its autonomy and its legal order, including the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union. (CJEU)
You feel that the EU are trying to make us answerable to the CJEU in any dispute post Brexit, and that is what they're trying for here. Well, this is down to the Govt to accede to, and I think they'd be pretty foolish to agree to what could be considered a partisan court. That's if the UK Govt believes the CJEU to be partisan in its rulings. If it was proved to be such, then I imagine that it could open up a can of worms regarding any previous judgements.
However, it is still only a statement of intent, and not currently binding on us, unless we agree to it.
Maijoor said it was essential that national regulators do not compete on regulatory and supervisory treatment of UK firms wanting to relocate operations.
"Some practical examples where this may be a risk include such issues as UK firms seeking authorisation from one of the EU27 financial markets regulators and subsequently outsourcing and delegating some of the activities back to the UK entity," he said.
In essence, the EU is attempting to prevent the UK from operating a system whereby they circumvent EU regulation by creating a shell in the EU, granting them their licence, whilst punting all that business back to an unregulated UK based company who proceeds to do what they want. In essense, it's about closing loopholes, and not attempting to reap the benefits of an EU licence, whilst ignoring the contracts and regulation that places upon the institutions. Not unreasonable.
However the means to do this should be within the EU itself, however the EU wants to place the treaty restriction on London when outside the EU, not on the 27 remaining member states within its aegis.
Hence is not about closing loopholes, as existing laws already cover that.
Not really, as we've not left the EU before, and the EU hasn't had to craft legislation to cover a country that was the EU's financial hub, deciding to leave. It's pretty simple to see a situation exactly as Maijoor describes happening and I imagine the EU is keen to protect its interests.
That maybe in the form of a change in the rules whereby the UK, in order to maintain passporting rights agrees to comply with this legislation. Passporting rights are the EU's after all, and if we want them, we have to play ball.
If that means that we can't deregulate to our hearts content because we want to maintain this access, then that's what will happen, otherwise we'll probably need to abandon those passporting rights altogether.
Yes, and we should be negotiating to prevent that happening,
Good, so can we expect you to leave remainer la la land, thinking that the negotiations will be fair.
The EU might only offer extremely negative trade deal offers that include said restrictions, if they do a hard Brexit may be necessary to prevent a double punishment.
Remainer la la land? That's feeble. No one on the remain side has thought anything other than that negotiations will probably be pretty gritty, that's for sure.
It is deliberate self delusion on behalf of many people to believe that BREXIT will be both simple, and painfree, unfortunately that delusion appears to be infecting our Govt.
True, but first don't assume that every leave voter or hard Brexitter is of that opinion.
Second deal with your own delusion.
The delusion that Brexit is purely about national pride
You're having to mis-quote me out of context to make your argument.
If you are referring to this...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Well we are their cash cow after all, they need to milk us as much as possible while they still can.
We are one of their cash cows as a net contributor, that is true, and we should definitely use that in our negotiations. This is, after all, primarily a financial arrangement. They are standing to lose our contributions, and I believe we were the second biggest contributor? However, the benefits in trade are considerable, otherwise we'd have left ages ago. We too have a great deal to lose, and we need to be careful not to burn our bridges on the altar of ignorant pride.
We need cool pragmatic heads in these negotiations, not sloganeering and politicking.
That was in response to Theresa May's stance on being a "difficult woman", and her insistence on using stubbornness and slogans instead of diplomacy. But it seems to have touched a nerve with you particularly, because you keep banging on about it.
and we should get a fair trade deal if we stick at it. Sorry no. There is a lot of EU bias that wants to proactively punish the UK, though the reasons for that varies, from anglo-phobia, to wanting to damage our economy in the hope of attracting over our business centres through to simply raising a price as high as possible for direct profit.
It is not in the interests of the EU to "punish" the UK, apparently Brexit is already punishment enough. Many of their own nations would stand to lose a great deal if we tank, however, it is in their interests to ensure that we don't get a better deal by leaving.
There has to be benefits to being in the club, and as many many people have pointed out, we can't leave the golf club, but expect to keep access to the subsidised, members only bar.
I think you're reading far too much malice into the motivations of the EU, it's OK to be cautious, but treating the EU like a hostile enemy is likely to end up with us all having to accept the worst possible outcome, which will almost certainly hit us harder. However, seeing as you wanted to leave the EU, I think you may see the institution as a negative force, and are ready to believe that they wish us harm, so I'm not going to try further to dissuade you of this idea.
Anyway, we're going around in circles now, and this has devolved into more "Brexit bad" nonsense. We all know that Brexit is going to be rubbish, and we're in for a hard time. This thread is supposed to be about which Govt is best placed to lead the country for the next 5 years, that's what I'm going to talk about from now on.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Given parties recent troubles, thr various inter faction battles.
Can any leader remotely bring order effectively to this mess? As MP, unions, pressure and grass routes all have different ideas of direction and political learning.
Having a competent leader doesnt make the problems go away, it simple means they are less likely to get worse through poor decision making.
I have little faith in Theresa May's ability, but the alternatives are worse. Both Tories and Labour have potential leaders far more fit than the ones we have.
Theresa May was also pretty ruthless in putting Cameron loyalists from cabinet level.
She removed a few challengers by making enemies closer ala BoJo, or exile like thr former chancler.
True, a good labour leader could hold them at least better together on surface and reign in the divides more than now.
Corbyn has such as past history of being a party rebel, abit out spoken so that might effect his ability to reign others in.
Good partly leaders are few and fat between.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
'Labour has a number of experienced and competent leaders from the New Labour era they could rely on instead of digging up Blair from his crypt?'
Ha, good one.
Hey now, I'm sure 'Two Jags' Prescott would loooooove another crack at the whip, give him a chance to get another knighthood? Or maybe Harriet Harman is biding her time? Or maybe even David Blunkett!
I'm not sure it's possible to pull Prescott out of the Lords...literally.
I made mistake here, I was referring to paras 15 and 16, not 17.
However, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. So, rather than put words in your mouth I will simply re-iterate that para 15 discuss the EUs desire to ensure that any legal problems that occur before we leave, are dealt with under the current legal mechanisms which include arbitration by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Para 16 concerns the creation of a dispute resolution mechanism to deal with complications and unforseen situations. I believe this is the part that is troubling you?
This is what is happening, but it is not all that is happening. We have secondary comments from EU leaders that the Uk should expect to come under EU rulings on any trade iss ue that includes trade with the EU, this includes third party countries not in the EU if the Uk can undercut the EU and make it uncompetitive.
You feel that the EU are trying to make us answerable to the CJEU in any dispute post Brexit, and that is what they're trying for here. Well, this is down to the Govt to accede to, and I think they'd be pretty foolish to agree to what could be considered a partisan court. That's if the UK Govt believes the CJEU to be partisan in its rulings. If it was proved to be such, then I imagine that it could open up a can of worms regarding any previous judgements.
The European Court is known for being highly politicised, this is the feeling in Whitehall at least.
If the European court has jurisdiction on disputes between application of trade agreements between the Uk and EU we will be in a very bad position long term.
However, it is still only a statement of intent, and not currently binding on us, unless we agree to it.
The concern is that we might be given a choice, hard Brexit or comply with terms offered. We arent even being allowed to see terms until we agree to an exit payment plan up front, which says a lot frankly.
If we agree to pay we have lost half the benefit of hard Brexit already.
Not really, as we've not left the EU before, and the EU hasn't had to craft legislation to cover a country that was the EU's financial hub, deciding to leave. It's pretty simple to see a situation exactly as Maijoor describes happening and I imagine the EU is keen to protect its interests.
I am not unsympathetic to the EU's concerns, however the safeguards are so heavy handed they cripple our own ability to do trade. When we add to this tarriff agreements, payment contribution agreements and selective trade restrictions intended to steal trsde from London we are left with a poisoned cocktail.
That maybe in the form of a change in the rules whereby the UK, in order to maintain passporting rights agrees to comply with this legislation. Passporting rights are the EU's after all, and if we want them, we have to play ball.
We might be able to agree to jump through EU hoops while passporting, that would be fair. Fair enough that I doubt we will be offerd that, or it will be rejected if we propose it. Some want Brexit to be punitive. Juncker is very vocal on this, so are the French and so are key players in the German economy.
If that means that we can't deregulate to our hearts content because we want to maintain this access, then that's what will happen, otherwise we'll probably need to abandon those passporting rights altogether.
If forced to do this there will be temporary hardship, but London qill quickly be enabled to undercut the EU at every turn. The citty will like that, the government will have no choice and it would work.
No one on the remain side has thought anything other than that negotiations will probably be pretty gritty, that's for sure.
However hard Brexit is looked at with the suffix 'reckless' in much of the press. trade links at any cost will be the reckless part, as the EU will take us to the cleaners.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Well we are their cash cow after all, they need to milk us as much as possible while they still can.
We are one of their cash cows as a net contributor, that is true, and we should definitely use that in our negotiations. This is, after all, primarily a financial arrangement. They are standing to lose our contributions, and I believe we were the second biggest contributor? However, the benefits in trade are considerable, otherwise we'd have left ages ago. We too have a great deal to lose, and we need to be careful not to burn our bridges on the altar of ignorant pride.
We need cool pragmatic heads in these negotiations, not sloganeering and politicking.
I will accept your correction. However I cannot be criticised for reading your comments at face value. There are too many remainers who are fixated on the dogma that anyone who voted Brexit or hasd since come to agree with it is either a dupe who listened to too much Nigel Farage and is unable to think for themselves; is a 'Little Englander' with a head stuck in the past, or is an alt-right hatemonger hell bent on immigration and race issues. The Guardian is cram full of such assumptions.
That was in response to Theresa May's stance on being a "difficult woman", and her insistence on using stubbornness and slogans instead of diplomacy. But it seems to have touched a nerve with you particularly, because you keep banging on about it.
Theresa May is self absorbed, apathetic to anything but party and personal interest and piss weak at negotiations. IIRC she has been advised to not to represent us in the negotiations themselves so that we can choose a fiery civil servant with brass balls to do so instead.
It is not in the interests of the EU to "punish" the UK, apparently Brexit is already punishment enough.
That means different tihngs to different people. To some literally what it says, to others it includes whatever they can gouge out as collateral during the exit.
However others dont think like that at all. Juncker has many times commented that he wants a damaging Brexit. The above comment comes from Tusk, who has the same agenda but is far better at diplomatic phrasing. Personally I am pretty sure Tusk and Juncker are more likelt on the same page than not, and one is only using diplomatic language to mask the heavy punishment they wish to impose. The comments on Gibraltar express exactly that even through Tusks wording.
There has to be benefits to being in the club, and as many many people have pointed out, we can't leave the golf club, but expect to keep access to the subsidised, members only bar.
Some might think we can get that, but I dont know of any who believed it.
However, seeing as you wanted to leave the EU, I think you may see the institution as a negative force, and are ready to believe that they wish us harm, so I'm not going to try further to dissuade you of this idea.
Where did I give that impression. I was careful to give two types of Brexit supporter. Those who voted for it and those who came to see that it may not be a bad idea. I wish we didn't as a nation vote for Brexit, but now it has happened and the EU's mask has slipped a little I am convinced that we will be offered fools terms for continued access to trade with the EU and a hard Brexit is likely our best option.
Many remainers are either looking for ways to reverse Brexit or are hoping that the EU will play nice with us, or we will just pony up and cave in to EU demands.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/05 00:29:18
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
So, at the polls before I leave for work, UKIP and Labour are getting a pounding.
Huge gains for the conservatives, and some gains and losses for the Lib Dems.
If that's reflective of the GE, TM has this sown up, and we can expect a Tory Govt for the next 5 years.
I'm ambivalent about that at, I'll mull over the consequences today.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
I'm totally out of the loop on British politics, and for that I apologize to start with, but are there any public figures that have generally universal acclaim there, or is it as bad as it is over here where you hate the opposite, no matter if they really are opposite or not. Just a yank trying to get some perspective.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I'm totally out of the loop on British politics, and for that I apologize to start with, but are there any public figures that have generally universal acclaim there, or is it as bad as it is over here where you hate the opposite, no matter if they really are opposite or not. Just a yank trying to get some perspective.
Ant & Dec?
/comedy
Sorry, but it's pretty bad over here, Cameron has fractured the country massively with the fethed up referendum* and there is precisely zero appetite for reconciliation at the moment.
*It should have been a 65% super majority for major constitutional change (which would represent an absolute majority of the electorate even at a 70%ish turnout), legally binding and with a single, agreed, leave proposal developed by a house committee, so that there was clarity on what was being voted for. Instead we got a simple majority (actually representing only 37% of the electorate) voting for a wildly varying, and often contradictory, set of proposals (most of which said "but we'll stay in the single market", remember that?) in an advisory referendum, which is now being taken as an unquestionable mandate from the heavens.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and if you have the gall to suggest that maybe it wasn't such a good idea and won't all be rainbows and unicorns, you get branded a traitor and a remoaner and told that you should leave your own country.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/05 06:43:42
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
r_squared wrote: So, at the polls before I leave for work, UKIP and Labour are getting a pounding.
Huge gains for the conservatives, and some gains and losses for the Lib Dems.
If that's reflective of the GE, TM has this sown up, and we can expect a Tory Govt for the next 5 years.
I'm ambivalent about that at, I'll mull over the consequences today.
The UKIP losses are likely to be reflected in the GE. Labour probably will be too.
I'm still hopeful that Lib Dems do worse than they will in the GE because their supporters are most likely to not vote in a local election. Perhaps I am letting my personal bias affect it.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Well, once again, it looks like John Curtice was spot on with his predictions: the Tories are cashing in on the UKIP vote.
If this is carried over to the General Election, UKIP could be heading for extinction, because they have just had an almighty kick up the rear.
As I've said before I don't like UKIP - never have, never will, but I believe that a multiparty democracy is a good thing, and to see another small party crushed, is not good for our democracy in the long run...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: I'm totally out of the loop on British politics, and for that I apologize to start with, but are there any public figures that have generally universal acclaim there, or is it as bad as it is over here where you hate the opposite, no matter if they really are opposite or not. Just a yank trying to get some perspective.
Some of our political leaders are so bad, they make Trump look like FDR.
In all honesty, our politics is just as bad as the USA in many respects. I doubt if it's any consolation to you, but your nation is not unique in having idiots in charge.
r_squared wrote: So, at the polls before I leave for work, UKIP and Labour are getting a pounding.
Huge gains for the conservatives, and some gains and losses for the Lib Dems.
If that's reflective of the GE, TM has this sown up, and we can expect a Tory Govt for the next 5 years.
I'm ambivalent about that at, I'll mull over the consequences today.
The UKIP losses are likely to be reflected in the GE. Labour probably will be too.
I'm still hopeful that Lib Dems do worse than they will in the GE because their supporters are most likely to not vote in a local election. Perhaps I am letting my personal bias affect it.
Council elections always have low turnouts. I fully expect the Lib Dems to make gains in June.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/05 07:40:25
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
r_squared wrote: So, at the polls before I leave for work, UKIP and Labour are getting a pounding.
Huge gains for the conservatives, and some gains and losses for the Lib Dems.
If that's reflective of the GE, TM has this sown up, and we can expect a Tory Govt for the next 5 years.
I'm ambivalent about that at, I'll mull over the consequences today.
The UKIP losses are likely to be reflected in the GE. Labour probably will be too.
I'm still hopeful that Lib Dems do worse than they will in the GE because their supporters are most likely to not vote in a local election. Perhaps I am letting my personal bias affect it.
Speaking for myself, I voted for an historically successful organised local independent group in my local election, but I probably will vote Lib-Dem at the general. There won't be any independents standing, as it's a local group.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, once again, it looks like John Curtice was spot on with his predictions: the Tories are cashing in on the UKIP vote.
If this is carried over to the General Election, UKIP could be heading for extinction, because they have just had an almighty kick up the rear.
As I've said before I don't like UKIP - never have, never will, but I believe that a multiparty democracy is a good thing, and to see another small party crushed, is not good for our democracy in the long run...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: I'm totally out of the loop on British politics, and for that I apologize to start with, but are there any public figures that have generally universal acclaim there, or is it as bad as it is over here where you hate the opposite, no matter if they really are opposite or not. Just a yank trying to get some perspective.
Some of our political leaders are so bad, they make Trump look like FDR.
In all honesty, our politics is just as bad as the USA in many respects. I doubt if it's any consolation to you, but your nation is not unique in having idiots in charge.
r_squared wrote: So, at the polls before I leave for work, UKIP and Labour are getting a pounding.
Huge gains for the conservatives, and some gains and losses for the Lib Dems.
If that's reflective of the GE, TM has this sown up, and we can expect a Tory Govt for the next 5 years.
I'm ambivalent about that at, I'll mull over the consequences today.
The UKIP losses are likely to be reflected in the GE. Labour probably will be too.
I'm still hopeful that Lib Dems do worse than they will in the GE because their supporters are most likely to not vote in a local election. Perhaps I am letting my personal bias affect it.
Council elections always have low turnouts. I fully expect the Lib Dems to make gains in June.
I'm not sure how actuate this will be.
Council vote on local issues and sometimes people vote entirely out of sync.
You may not like lib Dems but have a great lib dem councler.
Not always gonna follow perfectly.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I'm totally out of the loop on British politics, and for that I apologize to start with, but are there any public figures that have generally universal acclaim there, or is it as bad as it is over here where you hate the opposite, no matter if they really are opposite or not. Just a yank trying to get some perspective.
Errrrr.....*riffles through exceedingly short list of good MP's*
I'd have no real objections to Labour's Frank Field. Proper working class, intelligent enough to have a academic bibliography as long as your arm, no real scandals, history of problems with New Labour, frontbench experience. Against climate change, headed up a child poverty group in the past, chaired a lot of successful committees, etc. His only problem is that he's getting on a bit at 74, and due to his religion, he has a history of opposing maintaining abortion at the current time limit. As I don't see anything along those lines ever getting forced back through the house again though (too many female and modern-minded MP's), he'd probably be able to put out a good manifesto.
Whether he'd be a good leader? Well, unlike Corbyn, he has actually held a number of ministerial and shadow ministeral roles, and is well respected by both Tory & Labour parties alike. He hasn't just sat on the backbenches lobbing insults his entire political career. So he's probably the dream leader I'd parachute into Labour to try and fix it up right now. I'd probably stick Kevin Barron in as his Deputy, and Margaret Beckett/Graham Allen/Andrew Smith in the cabinet somewhere.
For Tories...? Hmmmm. Bit more challenging. I personally still don't really have a problem with David Davis. He's taken a lot of flak over Brexit lately, but I'm of the opinion if Buddha himself had been sitting in his chair he'd be being asked about his divinity about now. I've never minded William Hague much, but he's retired now. David Amess and Bill Cash have a good solid legislative and ethical history in Parliament, but not much frontbench experience. Oliver Heald has some good experience and hasn't done anything too objectionable.
In other words, there are people about, but I doubt I'll see any of them rise to power. The problem, I suspect, is that the ones best suited to it are going to be the ones least likely to aim for it.
Ketara wrote: I just had a runner come around and hammer on my door to come out and vote for the local Lib Dems because it's neck and neck. Mildly entertaining.
How on earth would they know? Exit polls?
I assume so. They must have been sending out runners to all people they've collected data on as having voted Lib Dem in the past, and cross-checked it with the list of people who hadn't voted, the kid at my door couldn't have been past 17 and was breathing hard.
I'm not sure if I approve of my data being used that way, quite frankly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/05 08:48:06
Gordon Shumway wrote: I'm totally out of the loop on British politics, and for that I apologize to start with, but are there any public figures that have generally universal acclaim there, or is it as bad as it is over here where you hate the opposite, no matter if they really are opposite or not. Just a yank trying to get some perspective.
Errrrr.....*riffles through exceedingly short list of good MP's*
I'd have no real objections to Labour's Frank Field. Proper working class, intelligent enough to have a academic bibliography as long as your arm, no real scandals, history of problems with New Labour, frontbench experience. Against climate change, headed up a child poverty group in the past, chaired a lot of successful committees, etc. His only problem is that he's getting on a bit at 74, and due to his religion, he has a history of opposing maintaining abortion at the current time limit. As I don't see anything along those lines ever getting forced back through the house again though (too many female and modern-minded MP's), he'd probably be able to put out a good manifesto.
Whether he'd be a good leader? Well, unlike Corbyn, he has actually held a number of ministerial and shadow ministeral roles, and is well respected by both Tory & Labour parties alike. He hasn't just sat on the backbenches lobbing insults his entire political career. So he's probably the dream leader I'd parachute into Labour to try and fix it up right now. I'd probably stick Kevin Barron in as his Deputy, and Margaret Beckett/Graham Allen/Andrew Smith in the cabinet somewhere.
For Tories...? Hmmmm. Bit more challenging. I personally still don't really have a problem with David Davis. He's taken a lot of flak over Brexit lately, but I'm of the opinion if Buddha himself had been sitting in his chair he'd be being asked about his divinity about now. I've never minded William Hague much, but he's retired now. David Amess and Bill Cash have a good solid legislative and ethical history in Parliament, but not much frontbench experience. Oliver Heald has some good experience and hasn't done anything too objectionable.
In other words, there are people about, but I doubt I'll see any of them rise to power. The problem, I suspect, is that the ones best suited to it are going to be the ones least likely to aim for it.
Ketara wrote: I just had a runner come around and hammer on my door to come out and vote for the local Lib Dems because it's neck and neck. Mildly entertaining.
How on earth would they know? Exit polls?
I assume so. They must have been sending out runners to all people they've collected data on as having voted Lib Dem in the past, and cross-checked it with the list of people who hadn't voted, the kid at my door couldn't have been past 17 and was breathing hard.
I'm not sure if I approve of my data being used that way, quite frankly.
True. And I'm sure though less experienced there's a few decent mps on the back bench who may yet with time prove to be decent leaders.
One of our local mps had hr not had a massive scandal would of maybe made defense secretary.
He was former military, doing alright... Until he tan into a rather large ice berg.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Ketara wrote: I just had a runner come around and hammer on my door to come out and vote for the local Lib Dems because it's neck and neck. Mildly entertaining.
How on earth would they know? Exit polls?
I assume so. They must have been sending out runners to all people they've collected data on as having voted Lib Dem in the past, and cross-checked it with the list of people who hadn't voted, the kid at my door couldn't have been past 17 and was breathing hard.
I'm not sure if I approve of my data being used that way, quite frankly.
Isn't that illegal? Wikipedia says this on the matter:
Some countries, such as the United Kingdom or Germany, have made it a criminal offence to release exit poll figures before all polling stations have closed,
Well, they wouldn't have 'released' the figures, it would just be the party themselves making use of them. A 17 year old telling me that they think the result is going to be close so can I please get down the polling station pronto (if I'm so inclined please thank you very much) hardly qualifies as releasing the exit poll.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/05 10:41:47
Ketara wrote: I just had a runner come around and hammer on my door to come out and vote for the local Lib Dems because it's neck and neck. Mildly entertaining.
How on earth would they know? Exit polls?
I assume so. They must have been sending out runners to all people they've collected data on as having voted Lib Dem in the past, and cross-checked it with the list of people who hadn't voted, the kid at my door couldn't have been past 17 and was breathing hard.
I'm not sure if I approve of my data being used that way, quite frankly.
Isn't that illegal? Wikipedia says this on the matter:
Some countries, such as the United Kingdom or Germany, have made it a criminal offence to release exit poll figures before all polling stations have closed,
Could just be thr know the seat is a very marginal position.
And thus from a estimate of them say that they believe its going to be very close and people should got if they want result.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
