info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Oh, for gawd's sake!
52 views
Skip to first unread message
Sid Nuncius
Apr 18, 2017, 2:15:06 PM4/18/17
to
Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
<head in hands>
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
<head in hands>
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Fenny
Apr 18, 2017, 4:28:01 PM4/18/17
to
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:15:15 +0100, Sid Nuncius
<matron....@tesco.net> wrote:
>Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>
><head in hands>
--
Fenny
<matron....@tesco.net> wrote:
>Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>
><head in hands>
--
Fenny
Apr 18, 2017, 4:28:54 PM4/18/17
to
>Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>
><head in hands>
I need to get on the election staff payroll pdq. Not sure if I'll
>
><head in hands>
make it for the local elections, but deffo for the new GE.
--
Fenny
Sam Plusnet
Apr 18, 2017, 5:13:09 PM4/18/17
to
On 18/04/2017 19:15, Sid Nuncius wrote:
> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>
> <head in hands>
>
Is there a "Put a stake through the heart of Brexit" Party standing?
> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>
> <head in hands>
>
--
Sam Plusnet
Nick Odell
Apr 18, 2017, 6:51:04 PM4/18/17
to
there'll be lots of single-issue independents springing up all over
the place and I'd expect that to be one of the single issues.
Nick
Fenny
Apr 18, 2017, 7:11:12 PM4/18/17
to
anyone could be more irritating and obnoxious than Alex Salmond and
there have been plenty of contenders for that title, none of whom hold
a candle to Ms Sturgeon.
--
Fenny
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 18, 2017, 7:37:32 PM4/18/17
to
In message <ju5dfc522kgssd8bo...@4ax.com>, Nick Odell
to it for several months, if not over a year". My second reaction was
"Hey, I thought we'd now got fixed-term parliaments, that could only be
terminated by a vote of no confidence [or the sovereign perhaps], not by
the sitting PM - otherwise how is it different from _not_ having
fixed-term parliaments. But I'm sure we'll be told the answer to that,
in exhaustive detail."
Though the prospect doesn't appeal, I think there's some justification:
1. Ms. May was/is unelected, and I for reasons I now can't remember
thought even Cameron didn't have a huge mandate, so we've been sort of
rudderless for a while; and 2. having Brexit happen during the run-up to
the 2020 election really doesn't seem a good idea.
(Though those saying she's not called it for either of those reasons,
but because of her/their position in the polls, I can't help thinking
may have some of a point.)
stopped now it's been invoked (just a technical wonder, quite separate
from whether it would be a good idea to do so).
I caught a bit of Any Questions on Saturday. One of the panellists
explained that he'd voted for leave, but didn't care about immigration;
I found this a refreshing change (that I heard about it, not that such
views exist).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Someone once said that scientists and prostitutes get paid for doing what they
enjoy. - Prof Stepehen Hawking in RT 2013/12/7-13
<ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com> writes:
>On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:13:07 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>On 18/04/2017 19:15, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>>
>>> <head in hands>
My first reaction was "oh good - only 50 days or so; we won't be subject
>On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:13:07 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>On 18/04/2017 19:15, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>>
>>> <head in hands>
to it for several months, if not over a year". My second reaction was
"Hey, I thought we'd now got fixed-term parliaments, that could only be
terminated by a vote of no confidence [or the sovereign perhaps], not by
the sitting PM - otherwise how is it different from _not_ having
fixed-term parliaments. But I'm sure we'll be told the answer to that,
in exhaustive detail."
Though the prospect doesn't appeal, I think there's some justification:
1. Ms. May was/is unelected, and I for reasons I now can't remember
thought even Cameron didn't have a huge mandate, so we've been sort of
rudderless for a while; and 2. having Brexit happen during the run-up to
the 2020 election really doesn't seem a good idea.
(Though those saying she's not called it for either of those reasons,
but because of her/their position in the polls, I can't help thinking
may have some of a point.)
>>>
>>Is there a "Put a stake through the heart of Brexit" Party standing?
>
>Probably not in your part of Wales (ie: any part of Wales) but I bet
>there'll be lots of single-issue independents springing up all over
>the place and I'd expect that to be one of the single issues.
>
>Nick
I'd been wondering - even before today's announcement - if it could be
>>Is there a "Put a stake through the heart of Brexit" Party standing?
>
>Probably not in your part of Wales (ie: any part of Wales) but I bet
>there'll be lots of single-issue independents springing up all over
>the place and I'd expect that to be one of the single issues.
>
>Nick
stopped now it's been invoked (just a technical wonder, quite separate
from whether it would be a good idea to do so).
I caught a bit of Any Questions on Saturday. One of the panellists
explained that he'd voted for leave, but didn't care about immigration;
I found this a refreshing change (that I heard about it, not that such
views exist).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Someone once said that scientists and prostitutes get paid for doing what they
enjoy. - Prof Stepehen Hawking in RT 2013/12/7-13
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 18, 2017, 7:39:34 PM4/18/17
to
In message <337dfct7um723iu5q...@4ax.com>, Fenny
The fishy lady's party is somewhat restricted over where they can stand,
though. (At least, in practice; I suspect there's no _theoretical_
reason they can't stand in any constituency, though why they would ...)
though. (At least, in practice; I suspect there's no _theoretical_
reason they can't stand in any constituency, though why they would ...)
Chris J Dixon
Apr 19, 2017, 3:05:43 AM4/19/17
to
Sid Nuncius wrote:
>Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>
><head in hands>
Along the lines of unexpected outcomes, I can't quite understand
>Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>
><head in hands>
why Labour are so keen to throw themselves off the cliff instead
of digging their heels in and opposing (isn't that what the
opposition is for?) the proposal for an early election?
Haven't they worked out that the Conservatives would probably
have been more vulnerable in 2020, by which time the sheer
awfulness of Brexit would have become glaringly apparent. Or is
this more than countered by the 20 or so extra seats that
boundary changes would have gifted the Tories?
Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
ch...@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Fenny
Apr 19, 2017, 3:27:28 AM4/19/17
to
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:05:43 +0100, Chris J Dixon <ch...@cdixon.me.uk>
wrote:
>
>Along the lines of unexpected outcomes, I can't quite understand
>why Labour are so keen to throw themselves off the cliff instead
>of digging their heels in and opposing (isn't that what the
>opposition is for?) the proposal for an early election?
Because Jeremy is a useless waste of space and the NEC haven't noticed
this.
--
Fenny
wrote:
>
>Along the lines of unexpected outcomes, I can't quite understand
>why Labour are so keen to throw themselves off the cliff instead
>of digging their heels in and opposing (isn't that what the
>opposition is for?) the proposal for an early election?
this.
--
Fenny
Mike Ruddock
Apr 19, 2017, 3:57:51 AM4/19/17
to
On 19/04/2017 8:05 AM, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Sid Nuncius wrote:
>
>> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>
>> <head in hands>
>
> Along the lines of unexpected outcomes, I can't quite understand
> why Labour are so keen to throw themselves off the cliff instead
> of digging their heels in and opposing (isn't that what the
> opposition is for?) the proposal for an early election?
>
> Haven't they worked out that the Conservatives would probably
> have been more vulnerable in 2020, by which time the sheer
> awfulness of Brexit would have become glaringly apparent. Or is
> this more than countered by the 20 or so extra seats that
> boundary changes would have gifted the Tories?
>
> Chris
>
About the boundary changes I can't comment but I thoroughly agree with
> Sid Nuncius wrote:
>
>> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>
>> <head in hands>
>
> Along the lines of unexpected outcomes, I can't quite understand
> why Labour are so keen to throw themselves off the cliff instead
> of digging their heels in and opposing (isn't that what the
> opposition is for?) the proposal for an early election?
>
> Haven't they worked out that the Conservatives would probably
> have been more vulnerable in 2020, by which time the sheer
> awfulness of Brexit would have become glaringly apparent. Or is
> this more than countered by the 20 or so extra seats that
> boundary changes would have gifted the Tories?
>
> Chris
>
you about the earlier part of your post. This is in the good old Labour
tradition of not doing what it is glaringly obvious is the best thing.
Mike Ruddock
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Mike
Apr 19, 2017, 4:05:52 AM4/19/17
to
--
Toodle Pip
Mike
Apr 19, 2017, 4:09:22 AM4/19/17
to
--
Toodle Pip
Vicky
Apr 19, 2017, 4:22:11 AM4/19/17
to
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:35:38 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>Though the prospect doesn't appeal, I think there's some justification:
>1. Ms. May was/is unelected, and I for reasons I now can't remember
>thought even Cameron didn't have a huge mandate, so we've been sort of
>rudderless for a while; and 2. having Brexit happen during the run-up to
>the 2020 election really doesn't seem a good idea.
>
>(Though those saying she's not called it for either of those reasons,
>but because of her/their position in the polls, I can't help thinking
>may have some of a point.)
Apparently 30 Tory MPs are being investigated for election fraud and
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>Though the prospect doesn't appeal, I think there's some justification:
>1. Ms. May was/is unelected, and I for reasons I now can't remember
>thought even Cameron didn't have a huge mandate, so we've been sort of
>rudderless for a while; and 2. having Brexit happen during the run-up to
>the 2020 election really doesn't seem a good idea.
>
>(Though those saying she's not called it for either of those reasons,
>but because of her/their position in the polls, I can't help thinking
>may have some of a point.)
prosecutions are now close. DPP is reviewing. She might want to get
more MPs fast as she'd lose the majority. Plus the stink might
handicap her chances. Plus she wants a bigger mandate BEFORE we know
the nuggering terms. She wants carte Erdogan.
If everyone made sure they can vote, if everyone who wanted to Remain
forgot party divisions and ..except the two big parties are not
offering remain. And I am not sure all the rest will be enough.
I've seen stuff about a reversal of Brexit being possible. I wonder
how much damage is irreversible though already.
--
Vicky
krw
Apr 19, 2017, 4:22:14 AM4/19/17
to
irritating or obnoxious.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
tiny.cc/KRWpics
krw
Apr 19, 2017, 4:23:19 AM4/19/17
to
On 19/04/2017 00:39, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote; my response is lower down:
> The fishy lady's party is somewhat restricted over where they can stand,
> though.
It would be interesting if they did field a few candidates outside of
> The fishy lady's party is somewhat restricted over where they can stand,
> though.
Scotland I would have thought. If they get elected in say Wales?
Steve Hague
Apr 19, 2017, 4:37:10 AM4/19/17
to
On 19/04/2017 08:57, Mike Ruddock wrote:
> On 19/04/2017 8:05 AM, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>> Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>
>>> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>>
>>> <head in hands>
>>
>> Along the lines of unexpected outcomes, I can't quite understand
>> why Labour are so keen to throw themselves off the cliff instead
>> of digging their heels in and opposing (isn't that what the
>> opposition is for?) the proposal for an early election?
>>
>> Haven't they worked out that the Conservatives would probably
>> have been more vulnerable in 2020, by which time the sheer
>> awfulness of Brexit would have become glaringly apparent. Or is
>> this more than countered by the 20 or so extra seats that
>> boundary changes would have gifted the Tories?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> About the boundary changes I can't comment but I thoroughly agree with
> you about the earlier part of your post. This is in the good old Labour
> tradition of not doing what it is glaringly obvious is the best thing.
>
> Mike Ruddock
I think she's done this because she expects to obliterate the Labour
> On 19/04/2017 8:05 AM, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>> Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>
>>> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>>
>>> <head in hands>
>>
>> Along the lines of unexpected outcomes, I can't quite understand
>> why Labour are so keen to throw themselves off the cliff instead
>> of digging their heels in and opposing (isn't that what the
>> opposition is for?) the proposal for an early election?
>>
>> Haven't they worked out that the Conservatives would probably
>> have been more vulnerable in 2020, by which time the sheer
>> awfulness of Brexit would have become glaringly apparent. Or is
>> this more than countered by the 20 or so extra seats that
>> boundary changes would have gifted the Tories?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> About the boundary changes I can't comment but I thoroughly agree with
> you about the earlier part of your post. This is in the good old Labour
> tradition of not doing what it is glaringly obvious is the best thing.
>
> Mike Ruddock
Party, and she's probably not far wrong. We're effectively a one party
state already, and it will be even more so after the GE.
Steve
BrritSki
Apr 19, 2017, 7:07:30 AM4/19/17
to
On 19/04/2017 09:05, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Sid Nuncius wrote:
>
>> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>
>> <head in hands>
>
> Along the lines of unexpected outcomes, I can't quite understand
> why Labour are so keen to throw themselves off the cliff instead
> of digging their heels in and opposing (isn't that what the
> opposition is for?) the proposal for an early election?
>
> Haven't they worked out that the Conservatives would probably
> have been more vulnerable in 2020, by which time the sheer
> awfulness of Brexit would have become glaringly apparent. Or is
> this more than countered by the 20 or so extra seats that
> boundary changes would have gifted the Tories?
>
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Would have been labelled as
> Sid Nuncius wrote:
>
>> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>
>> <head in hands>
>
> Along the lines of unexpected outcomes, I can't quite understand
> why Labour are so keen to throw themselves off the cliff instead
> of digging their heels in and opposing (isn't that what the
> opposition is for?) the proposal for an early election?
>
> Haven't they worked out that the Conservatives would probably
> have been more vulnerable in 2020, by which time the sheer
> awfulness of Brexit would have become glaringly apparent. Or is
> this more than countered by the 20 or so extra seats that
> boundary changes would have gifted the Tories?
>
frit again if they'd voted against.
The boundary changes aren't a "gift" to anyone. Just a necessary and
regular review of the size and balance of the constituences that has
recently favoured Labour.
BrritSki
Apr 19, 2017, 7:17:53 AM4/19/17
to
On 19/04/2017 10:22, Vicky wrote:
>
> Apparently 30 Tory MPs are being investigated for election fraud and
> prosecutions are now close. DPP is reviewing.
The investigations will now be closed according to Guido Fawkes: "The
>
> Apparently 30 Tory MPs are being investigated for election fraud and
> prosecutions are now close. DPP is reviewing.
calling of the general election wipes the slate clean on those 2015
Election allegations. Unless an MP is personally convicted of a corrupt
practice (in which case can be banned from public office), nothing can
be gained by contesting the 2015 result. Convenient…"
>
> If everyone made sure they can vote, if everyone who wanted to Remain
> forgot party divisions and ..except the two big parties are not
> offering remain. And I am not sure all the rest will be enough.
Labour are going to be the big losers thanks to JC (he's not the
> If everyone made sure they can vote, if everyone who wanted to Remain
> forgot party divisions and ..except the two big parties are not
> offering remain. And I am not sure all the rest will be enough.
Messiah...) and confusion over Brexit, but they will still retain a lot
of their solid Labour seats. In marginals though, where the MP does not
reflect the views of the voters there will be some unexpected results
that go against the national poll numbers, with LibDems picking up
Remain constituencies and Tories the Leavers. Tories might also lose
some seats to LDs in that situation. I expect SNP to lose some seats to
Tories too. UKIP are dead in the water imo. Some people are forecasting
a majority of over 100 after the election. It will be close to 50 than
100 I reckon.
>
> I've seen stuff about a reversal of Brexit being possible.
Anything's possible, but it is highly unlikely.
> I've seen stuff about a reversal of Brexit being possible.
BrritSki
Apr 19, 2017, 7:23:44 AM4/19/17
to
On 19/04/2017 10:34, Steve Hague wrote:
>
> I think she's done this because she expects to obliterate the Labour
> Party, and she's probably not far wrong. We're effectively a one party
> state already, and it will be even more so after the GE.
>
Agreed. A sad decline of a once great party.
>
> I think she's done this because she expects to obliterate the Labour
> Party, and she's probably not far wrong. We're effectively a one party
> state already, and it will be even more so after the GE.
>
Peter Percival
Apr 19, 2017, 7:30:05 AM4/19/17
to
the Commons have no sense of loyalty at all. Whether 'Xs have no sense
of loyalty' means 'Y is a useless waste of space' is doubtful.
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
krw
Apr 19, 2017, 7:40:43 AM4/19/17
to
On 19/04/2017 12:17, BrritSki wrote; my response is lower down:
> Some people are forecasting a majority of over 100 after the election.
> It will be close to 50 than 100 I reckon.
I am not sure there will be a majority. Just because TM is personally
> Some people are forecasting a majority of over 100 after the election.
> It will be close to 50 than 100 I reckon.
popular it may well not convert to party support.
But like TA I plan to ignore most of it.
LFS
Apr 19, 2017, 7:50:13 AM4/19/17
to
On 19/04/2017 00:35, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>
> I'd been wondering - even before today's announcement - if it could be
> stopped now it's been invoked (just a technical wonder, quite separate
> from whether it would be a good idea to do so).
There are distinguished lawyers who are investigating that very issue
>
>
> I'd been wondering - even before today's announcement - if it could be
> stopped now it's been invoked (just a technical wonder, quite separate
> from whether it would be a good idea to do so).
from the point of view of constitutional process.
https://goodlawproject.org/brexit/
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Nick Odell
Apr 19, 2017, 9:00:22 AM4/19/17
to
>Sid Nuncius wrote:
>
>>Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>
>><head in hands>
>
>Along the lines of unexpected outcomes, I can't quite understand
>why Labour are so keen to throw themselves off the cliff instead
>of digging their heels in and opposing (isn't that what the
>opposition is for?) the proposal for an early election?
>
>Haven't they worked out that the Conservatives would probably
>have been more vulnerable in 2020, by which time the sheer
>awfulness of Brexit would have become glaringly apparent. Or is
>this more than countered by the 20 or so extra seats that
>boundary changes would have gifted the Tories?
>
Because being called scaredy-cats who are frightened to face an
>
>>Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>
>><head in hands>
>
>Along the lines of unexpected outcomes, I can't quite understand
>why Labour are so keen to throw themselves off the cliff instead
>of digging their heels in and opposing (isn't that what the
>opposition is for?) the proposal for an early election?
>
>Haven't they worked out that the Conservatives would probably
>have been more vulnerable in 2020, by which time the sheer
>awfulness of Brexit would have become glaringly apparent. Or is
>this more than countered by the 20 or so extra seats that
>boundary changes would have gifted the Tories?
>
election bothers them more than being annihilated in one?
Nick
Peter Percival
Apr 19, 2017, 1:02:59 PM4/19/17
to
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> [...]
> Though the prospect doesn't appeal, I think there's some justification:
> 1. Ms. May was/is unelected,
She was elected as an MP. If you mean no one put a cross by her name in
> 1. Ms. May was/is unelected,
a "who do you want to be Prime Minister?" vote, then you are right, but
that is true of all PMs because we have never had a "who do you want to
be Prime Minister?" vote.
I have made this point at least forty-eight thousand times and I suspect
I will make it another forty-eight thousand times.
Where has this idea, that we do, or can, or should elect our PM come from?
We vote (if we vote at all) for our representative in Parliament. If,
the next day, that person remains or becomes PM, that is merely a
side-effect.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 19, 2017, 1:42:00 PM4/19/17
to
In message <gn2efclvoqhbkmqpj...@4ax.com>, Chris J Dixon
It's not so much a matter of being keen, it's that any party not
actually in power can never admit they're other than keen when such an
announcement is made, or it makes them look as if they're not ready, i.
e. think they'd lose
<ch...@cdixon.me.uk> writes:
>Sid Nuncius wrote:
>
>>Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>
>><head in hands>
>
>Along the lines of unexpected outcomes, I can't quite understand
>why Labour are so keen to throw themselves off the cliff instead
[]
>Sid Nuncius wrote:
>
>>Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>
>><head in hands>
>
>Along the lines of unexpected outcomes, I can't quite understand
>why Labour are so keen to throw themselves off the cliff instead
It's not so much a matter of being keen, it's that any party not
actually in power can never admit they're other than keen when such an
announcement is made, or it makes them look as if they're not ready, i.
e. think they'd lose
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT)
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Sid Nuncius
Apr 19, 2017, 2:08:49 PM4/19/17
to
On 19/04/2017 18:02, Peter Percival wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> [...]
>> Though the prospect doesn't appeal, I think there's some justification:
>> 1. Ms. May was/is unelected,
>
> She was elected as an MP. If you mean no one put a cross by her name in
> a "who do you want to be Prime Minister?" vote, then you are right, but
> that is true of all PMs because we have never had a "who do you want to
> be Prime Minister?" vote.
>
> I have made this point at least forty-eight thousand times and I suspect
> I will make it another forty-eight thousand times.
>
> Where has this idea, that we do, or can, or should elect our PM come from?
>
> We vote (if we vote at all) for our representative in Parliament. If,
> the next day, that person remains or becomes PM, that is merely a
> side-effect.
You are correct in a strictly definitional[1] sense. However, in
> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> [...]
>> Though the prospect doesn't appeal, I think there's some justification:
>> 1. Ms. May was/is unelected,
>
> She was elected as an MP. If you mean no one put a cross by her name in
> a "who do you want to be Prime Minister?" vote, then you are right, but
> that is true of all PMs because we have never had a "who do you want to
> be Prime Minister?" vote.
>
> I have made this point at least forty-eight thousand times and I suspect
> I will make it another forty-eight thousand times.
>
> Where has this idea, that we do, or can, or should elect our PM come from?
>
> We vote (if we vote at all) for our representative in Parliament. If,
> the next day, that person remains or becomes PM, that is merely a
> side-effect.
General Elections it is plain who the leader of each party is and
therefore who would be Prime Minister if that party were to win a
majority. Hence, "What sort of PM would X be?" is always a big factor
in campaigning. So, although we do not elect our PM in the way that the
USA elects a President, for example, people generally think that when
they vote, they know who, by implication, they are voting for as PM.
Thus, if Theresa May were to be PM after this election, she could
justifiably claim that people voted for her, because it is clear that a
vote for the Conservatives is a vote for a result which will mean she is
PM. The same applies to Jeremy Corbyn and a vote for Labour.
(I accept that this does not apply to those parties who cannot
realistically be expected to attain a parliamentary majority, but I do
not think that detracts from the general point.)
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
[1]If there is such a word.
Peter Percival
Apr 19, 2017, 2:29:31 PM4/19/17
to
Sid Nuncius wrote:
> You are correct in a strictly definitional[1] sense.
[...]
> You are correct in a strictly definitional[1] sense.
> [1]If there is such a word.
There is and it has the required meaning.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 19, 2017, 4:47:43 PM4/19/17
to
In message <elpndg...@mid.individual.net>, Sid Nuncius
_suspect_ a majority - know little of their MP (and even less of other
candidates), so elect him/her by party ticket; they vote for a party.
(And, on the whole, the parties and media all collude in this.)
Yes, of course, there are exceptions - people who've been very good
constituency MPs may get votes from people who wouldn't normally vote
for the party that candidate is standing for - but I suspect that's a
small enough effect that it doesn't sway things _much_.
referendum on voting, it might have gone differently? Probably not, as
the powers that be would have confused matters however they could (e. g.
holding it on the same day as something else), as they want to keep the
present system. But every time I hear mention of "first past the post",
I want to - and do! - scream THERE IS NO SUCH POST!
now, it's lost its true meaning. - Mike [{at}ostic.demon.co.uk], 2003-12-24
<matron....@tesco.net> writes:
>On 19/04/2017 18:02, Peter Percival wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Though the prospect doesn't appeal, I think there's some justification:
>>> 1. Ms. May was/is unelected,
>>
>> She was elected as an MP. If you mean no one put a cross by her name in
>> a "who do you want to be Prime Minister?" vote, then you are right, but
>> that is true of all PMs because we have never had a "who do you want to
>> be Prime Minister?" vote.
>>
>> I have made this point at least forty-eight thousand times and I suspect
>> I will make it another forty-eight thousand times.
>>
>> Where has this idea, that we do, or can, or should elect our PM come from?
>>
>> We vote (if we vote at all) for our representative in Parliament. If,
>> the next day, that person remains or becomes PM, that is merely a
>> side-effect.
>
>You are correct in a strictly definitional[1] sense. However, in
>General Elections it is plain who the leader of each party is and
>therefore who would be Prime Minister if that party were to win a
>majority. Hence, "What sort of PM would X be?" is always a big factor
>in campaigning. So, although we do not elect our PM in the way that
>the USA elects a President, for example, people generally think that
>when they vote, they know who, by implication, they are voting for as PM.
Indeed. In Westminster elections, a significant number of voters - I
>On 19/04/2017 18:02, Peter Percival wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Though the prospect doesn't appeal, I think there's some justification:
>>> 1. Ms. May was/is unelected,
>>
>> She was elected as an MP. If you mean no one put a cross by her name in
>> a "who do you want to be Prime Minister?" vote, then you are right, but
>> that is true of all PMs because we have never had a "who do you want to
>> be Prime Minister?" vote.
>>
>> I have made this point at least forty-eight thousand times and I suspect
>> I will make it another forty-eight thousand times.
>>
>> Where has this idea, that we do, or can, or should elect our PM come from?
>>
>> We vote (if we vote at all) for our representative in Parliament. If,
>> the next day, that person remains or becomes PM, that is merely a
>> side-effect.
>
>You are correct in a strictly definitional[1] sense. However, in
>General Elections it is plain who the leader of each party is and
>therefore who would be Prime Minister if that party were to win a
>majority. Hence, "What sort of PM would X be?" is always a big factor
>in campaigning. So, although we do not elect our PM in the way that
>the USA elects a President, for example, people generally think that
>when they vote, they know who, by implication, they are voting for as PM.
_suspect_ a majority - know little of their MP (and even less of other
candidates), so elect him/her by party ticket; they vote for a party.
(And, on the whole, the parties and media all collude in this.)
Yes, of course, there are exceptions - people who've been very good
constituency MPs may get votes from people who wouldn't normally vote
for the party that candidate is standing for - but I suspect that's a
small enough effect that it doesn't sway things _much_.
>
>Thus, if Theresa May were to be PM after this election, she could
>justifiably claim that people voted for her, because it is clear that a
>vote for the Conservatives is a vote for a result which will mean she
>is PM. The same applies to Jeremy Corbyn and a vote for Labour.
>
>(I accept that this does not apply to those parties who cannot
>realistically be expected to attain a parliamentary majority, but I do
>not think that detracts from the general point.)
>
I wonder if, after (or around the time of) Brexit, if we'd had another
>Thus, if Theresa May were to be PM after this election, she could
>justifiably claim that people voted for her, because it is clear that a
>vote for the Conservatives is a vote for a result which will mean she
>is PM. The same applies to Jeremy Corbyn and a vote for Labour.
>
>(I accept that this does not apply to those parties who cannot
>realistically be expected to attain a parliamentary majority, but I do
>not think that detracts from the general point.)
>
referendum on voting, it might have gone differently? Probably not, as
the powers that be would have confused matters however they could (e. g.
holding it on the same day as something else), as they want to keep the
present system. But every time I hear mention of "first past the post",
I want to - and do! - scream THERE IS NO SUCH POST!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I long for the commercialised Christmas of the 1970s. It's got so religious
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
now, it's lost its true meaning. - Mike [{at}ostic.demon.co.uk], 2003-12-24
krw
Apr 19, 2017, 6:30:11 PM4/19/17
to
On 19/04/2017 19:08, Sid Nuncius wrote; my response is lower down:
> So, although we do not elect our PM in the way that the USA elects a
> President, for example, people generally think that when they vote, they
> know who, by implication, they are voting for as PM.
And we have therefore known that in voting for parties led by prats such
> So, although we do not elect our PM in the way that the USA elects a
> President, for example, people generally think that when they vote, they
> know who, by implication, they are voting for as PM.
as Blair and Cameron (and I am not sure which one was more left wing),
we could guess how they might misgovern.
We had no such idea with Brown, Callaghan and Douglas-Home.
Sam Plusnet
Apr 19, 2017, 7:44:54 PM4/19/17
to
On 18/04/2017 23:51, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:13:07 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:13:07 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On 18/04/2017 19:15, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>>
>>> <head in hands>
>>>
>>> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>>
>>> <head in hands>
>>>
>> Is there a "Put a stake through the heart of Brexit" Party standing?
>
>
> Probably not in your part of Wales (ie: any part of Wales) but I bet
> there'll be lots of single-issue independents springing up all over
> the place and I'd expect that to be one of the single issues.
>
I wondered if the Lib Dems might adopt a sub-title.
> there'll be lots of single-issue independents springing up all over
> the place and I'd expect that to be one of the single issues.
>
Liberal Democrats - aka the "Put a Stake through the Heart of Brexit" Party.
It's shorter than some of Dickens' chapter headings.
(Some of Dickens' chapters are shorter than some of his chapter headings)
--
Sam Plusnet
Sam Plusnet
Apr 19, 2017, 7:49:15 PM4/19/17
to
On 19/04/2017 21:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> Indeed. In Westminster elections, a significant number of voters - I
> _suspect_ a majority - know little of their MP (and even less of other
> candidates), so elect him/her by party ticket; they vote for a party.
> (And, on the whole, the parties and media all collude in this.)
>
I can't claim ignorance since our local MP lives about 1/2 mile away on
> Indeed. In Westminster elections, a significant number of voters - I
> _suspect_ a majority - know little of their MP (and even less of other
> candidates), so elect him/her by party ticket; they vote for a party.
> (And, on the whole, the parties and media all collude in this.)
>
our road.
(it is a fairly long road.)
--
Sam Plusnet
Sam Plusnet
Apr 19, 2017, 7:56:38 PM4/19/17
to
towards Ms Sturgeon. Her party has a certain view and aim and she
articulates that. Why does she get so much more stick than others who
do the same?
--
Sam Plusnet
Sid Nuncius
Apr 20, 2017, 2:00:30 AM4/20/17
to
On 19/04/2017 23:30, krw wrote:
> Blair and Cameron (and I am not sure which one was more left wing),
ROFL!
> Blair and Cameron (and I am not sure which one was more left wing),
Blair and Cameron left wing! Oh, that's a good one!
It's the way you tell 'em, KRW.
Btms
Apr 20, 2017, 3:16:16 AM4/20/17
to
enable her to drive a hard bargain in Europe.
--
BTMS - Usurped as Editor in waiting
BrritSki
Apr 20, 2017, 3:18:10 AM4/20/17
to
On 20/04/2017 00:30, krw wrote:
> On 19/04/2017 19:08, Sid Nuncius wrote; my response is lower down:
>> So, although we do not elect our PM in the way that the USA elects a
>> President, for example, people generally think that when they vote,
>> they know who, by implication, they are voting for as PM.
>
> And we have therefore known that in voting for parties led by prats such
> as Blair and Cameron (and I am not sure which one was more left wing),
> we could guess how they might misgovern.
>
> We had no such idea with Brown, Callaghan and Douglas-Home.
>
They could only govern according to the manifesto that their party was
> On 19/04/2017 19:08, Sid Nuncius wrote; my response is lower down:
>> So, although we do not elect our PM in the way that the USA elects a
>> President, for example, people generally think that when they vote,
>> they know who, by implication, they are voting for as PM.
>
> And we have therefore known that in voting for parties led by prats such
> as Blair and Cameron (and I am not sure which one was more left wing),
> we could guess how they might misgovern.
>
> We had no such idea with Brown, Callaghan and Douglas-Home.
>
elected on, as Dodgy Phil found out when he tried to break the election
promise on NI increases.
Penny
Apr 20, 2017, 4:43:48 AM4/20/17
to
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:44:53 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> scrawled in
the dust...
selecting Lembit again. He may be a twat but he was our twat and a good
constituency MP. It's hard to say who was more surprised when he lost the
seat to the Tory in 2010.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
the dust...
>On 18/04/2017 23:51, Nick Odell wrote:
>> Probably not in your part of Wales (ie: any part of Wales) but I bet
>> there'll be lots of single-issue independents springing up all over
>> the place and I'd expect that to be one of the single issues.
>>
>
>I wondered if the Lib Dems might adopt a sub-title.
>
>Liberal Democrats - aka the "Put a Stake through the Heart of Brexit" Party.
I think the Lib Dems shot themselves in the foot in my part of Wales by not
>> Probably not in your part of Wales (ie: any part of Wales) but I bet
>> there'll be lots of single-issue independents springing up all over
>> the place and I'd expect that to be one of the single issues.
>>
>
>I wondered if the Lib Dems might adopt a sub-title.
>
>Liberal Democrats - aka the "Put a Stake through the Heart of Brexit" Party.
selecting Lembit again. He may be a twat but he was our twat and a good
constituency MP. It's hard to say who was more surprised when he lost the
seat to the Tory in 2010.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Nick Odell
Apr 20, 2017, 5:07:19 AM4/20/17
to
Party meeting.
Okay, this may in part be because of his reputation for not turning up
at CLP meetings but probably has more to do with my concious
uncoupling from the party at the time of the Iraq war.
Nick
Sid Nuncius
Apr 20, 2017, 5:21:57 AM4/20/17
to
On 20/04/2017 00:56, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> I heard a number of (English) people express extreme personal hostility
> towards Ms Sturgeon. Her party has a certain view and aim and she
> articulates that. Why does she get so much more stick than others who
> do the same?
I don't know. I hope Scotland doesn't leave the UK, but by gum, I
> I heard a number of (English) people express extreme personal hostility
> towards Ms Sturgeon. Her party has a certain view and aim and she
> articulates that. Why does she get so much more stick than others who
> do the same?
respect Nicola Sturgeon as a leader. I think she's a tough, principled
politician who has inspired a great many people and from whom a lot of
politicians in Westminster could learn a great deal. I think she'd make
a very good PM...if it weren't for the fact that she doesn't want
Westminster government, which I admit makes her being PM unlikely.
Sid Nuncius
Apr 20, 2017, 5:41:09 AM4/20/17
to
On 19/04/2017 12:17, BrritSki wrote:
>>
>> I've seen stuff about a reversal of Brexit being possible.
>
> Anything's possible, but it is highly unlikely.
It's not going to happen. I voted remain, albeit while holding my nose
>>
>> I've seen stuff about a reversal of Brexit being possible.
>
> Anything's possible, but it is highly unlikely.
at a good deal of what I was voting to remain part of. I wish we
weren't leaving the EU...but we are. I think going on about how we can
change that, however much we dislike it, just makes us look silly
because we can't. Whatever arguments are put forward about the process
or what people really wanted, it's too bloody late, whether they have
any merit or not.
I think leaving the EU will be very bad for Britain and bad for general
stability in Europe - but that's tough. I still don't like it (to put it
mildly) but I just have to hope I'm wrong about the consequences and try
to make sure that when we do leave, any damage is minimised.
In the same way, I wish Donald Trump weren't President of the USA - but
he is. However much some people may wish it were different, he will be
there for four years, God help us all, and there's no point in
daydreaming about him being indicted or anything else.
The sooner we get through the denial, anger, bargaining and depression
stages, move on to acceptance and try to deal with what is really
happening, the better, IMO.
Steve Hague
Apr 20, 2017, 6:02:01 AM4/20/17
to
then changed my mind, but I'm very uncomfortable with many of my fellow
travellers, and didn't vote that way for the same reasons as them. I
probably represent the nation really well. 48% of me wanted to vote
remain, 52% voted leave. I also live in a three way marginal
constituency, and have no party loyalties. Decisions, decisions.
Steve
Steve Hague
Apr 20, 2017, 6:05:55 AM4/20/17
to
thought him a more able politician than any of the other party leaders.
Steve
LFS
Apr 20, 2017, 6:28:18 AM4/20/17
to
On 20/04/2017 10:21, Sid Nuncius wrote:
statesmanlike politician we've seen in any party for a long time.
Peter Percival
Apr 20, 2017, 6:30:05 AM4/20/17
to
Steve Hague wrote:
> I was going to vote remain right up till the day before the
> referendum, then changed my mind, but I'm very uncomfortable with
> many of my fellow travellers, and didn't vote that way for the same
> reasons as them.
How do you know? What were their reasons for wanting to leave?
> I was going to vote remain right up till the day before the
> referendum, then changed my mind, but I'm very uncomfortable with
> many of my fellow travellers, and didn't vote that way for the same
> reasons as them.
> I probably represent the nation really well. 48% of
> me wanted to vote remain, 52% voted leave. I also live in a three way
> marginal constituency, and have no party loyalties. Decisions,
> decisions. Steve
>
>
LFS
Apr 20, 2017, 6:34:10 AM4/20/17
to
On 20/04/2017 10:41, Sid Nuncius wrote:
government have attempted to bypass, as I think setting such precedents
represents a serious threat to democracy. There are still issues to be
resolved, aside from the political process. I support the lawyers who
are seeking to establish the position more clearly and I think it is
very important to establish whether Art 50 *can* be revoked in future.
This should be treated separately from decisions about whether it might
or might not happen.
LFS
Apr 20, 2017, 6:48:22 AM4/20/17
to
ambivalence. I tried very hard to find objective evidence on either side
without success. I voted Remain because of the obvious financial costs
of the leaving process: the longer term benefits/cost of its
consequences seem to me to be unquantifiable but there can be no doubt
that the immediate and ongoing costs of untangling everything will be
very high. I don't think the UK can afford this at a time when public
service provision is so depleted and market solutions are so clearly
inadequate.
The Labour MP who has represented our constituency for 30 years, and has
an excellent record as a constituency MP, is standing down, which will
make the local situation very interesting indeed. In a strongly Remain
area, he ignored representations from constituents of all parties and
voted Leave which I think damaged his local standing quite badly.
Penny
Apr 20, 2017, 8:07:38 AM4/20/17
to
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:28:16 +0100, LFS <lauraDRA...@gmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...
>On 20/04/2017 10:21, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>> On 20/04/2017 00:56, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>
>>> I heard a number of (English) people express extreme personal hostility
>>> towards Ms Sturgeon. Her party has a certain view and aim and she
>>> articulates that. Why does she get so much more stick than others who
>>> do the same?
>>
>> I don't know. I hope Scotland doesn't leave the UK, but by gum, I
>> respect Nicola Sturgeon as a leader. I think she's a tough, principled
>> politician who has inspired a great many people and from whom a lot of
>> politicians in Westminster could learn a great deal. I think she'd make
>> a very good PM...if it weren't for the fact that she doesn't want
>> Westminster government, which I admit makes her being PM unlikely.
I did one of those 'who do you side with?' quizzes on the web earlier and
apparently I am 92% aligned with SNP policies - much good may it do me
since I live in Wales.
>I agree with you, Sid. I think she is far and away the most
>statesmanlike politician we've seen in any party for a long time.
Yup, I'm quite impressed with her too.
scrawled in the dust...
>On 20/04/2017 10:21, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>> On 20/04/2017 00:56, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>
>>> I heard a number of (English) people express extreme personal hostility
>>> towards Ms Sturgeon. Her party has a certain view and aim and she
>>> articulates that. Why does she get so much more stick than others who
>>> do the same?
>>
>> I don't know. I hope Scotland doesn't leave the UK, but by gum, I
>> respect Nicola Sturgeon as a leader. I think she's a tough, principled
>> politician who has inspired a great many people and from whom a lot of
>> politicians in Westminster could learn a great deal. I think she'd make
>> a very good PM...if it weren't for the fact that she doesn't want
>> Westminster government, which I admit makes her being PM unlikely.
apparently I am 92% aligned with SNP policies - much good may it do me
since I live in Wales.
>I agree with you, Sid. I think she is far and away the most
>statesmanlike politician we've seen in any party for a long time.
BrritSki
Apr 20, 2017, 8:08:03 AM4/20/17
to
I agree with pretty much all of that - the only part where I would
differ is in thinking Brexit will be very bad for Britain - I am sure
there will eventually be some downside, but I never believed GO's
Project Fear and still don't think it will be too bad.
I also think there will be little impact on European stability, unless
they choose to make that so to "punish" us. If they choose that, and I
think there's a strong chance they will, then they'll have to lie in the
bed they've made. If anything is de-stabilising Europe it's the EU and
the Euro in particular.
Peter Percival
Apr 20, 2017, 8:09:56 AM4/20/17
to
Sid Nuncius wrote:
> [...] So, although we do not elect our PM in the way that the
> USA elects a President, [...]
I also get a great deal of pleasure (you can imagine) from remarking,
most especially to Americans, that Americans vote for Electors, not a
President.
> [...] So, although we do not elect our PM in the way that the
> USA elects a President, [...]
I also get a great deal of pleasure (you can imagine) from remarking,
most especially to Americans, that Americans vote for Electors, not a
President.
Peter Percival
Apr 20, 2017, 8:25:12 AM4/20/17
to
Sam Plusnet wrote:
> I heard a number of (English) people express extreme personal
> hostility towards Ms Sturgeon. Her party has a certain view and aim
> and she articulates that. Why does she get so much more stick than
> others who do the same?
Someone who was the target for even more disapprobation was The Reverend
> I heard a number of (English) people express extreme personal
> hostility towards Ms Sturgeon. Her party has a certain view and aim
> and she articulates that. Why does she get so much more stick than
> others who do the same?
Ian Paisley, a man who worked tirelessly for what he thought was the
good of his constituents--and considering the number of times they
elected him, many must have agreed.
krw
Apr 20, 2017, 8:36:36 AM4/20/17
to
On 20/04/2017 10:41, Sid Nuncius wrote; my response is lower down:
> I think going on about how we can change that, however much we dislike
> it, just makes us look silly because we can't.
I might or might not have voted but I certainly second that view.
> I think going on about how we can change that, however much we dislike
> it, just makes us look silly because we can't.
Anne B
Apr 20, 2017, 9:48:13 AM4/20/17
to
On 19/04/2017 21:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <elpndg...@mid.individual.net>, Sid Nuncius
> In message <elpndg...@mid.individual.net>, Sid Nuncius
> Indeed. In Westminster elections, a significant number of voters - I
> _suspect_ a majority - know little of their MP (and even less of other
> candidates), so elect him/her by party ticket; they vote for a party.
> (And, on the whole, the parties and media all collude in this.)
What concerns me is that, as a voter, you have to choose between two, or
> _suspect_ a majority - know little of their MP (and even less of other
> candidates), so elect him/her by party ticket; they vote for a party.
> (And, on the whole, the parties and media all collude in this.)
sometimes three, party manifestos, each of which may contain things you
don't agree with.
Suppose party X's manifesto contains a long list of things you agree
with but two things you strongly disagree with. Party Z lists slightly
fewer things you agree with but more things you don't like. So you vote
for Party X.
Then Party X will say that they have a mandate to do the things you
don't like or approve of, because you voted for them. This I find much
more worrying than who is going to be PM.
The only opportunity I have to tell politicians what I think is either
by writing them a letter, or when they call to canvass my vote. In
practice haven't had a canvasser at my door in decades, and when I write
a letter I get a bland non-committal reply.
Basically, I only vote so that the chance of the party/parties I like
least getting in is marginally reduced. But I don't really, seriously,
believe that as a mere voter I have the slightest influence on what the
politicians actually do.
And I am pretty certain (a) that I am not alone and (b) that this is the
reason for the voter apathy that so many people keep on wringing their
hands about. An individual voter has **no** power at all, so what's the
point?
Anne B
Sid Nuncius
Apr 20, 2017, 11:35:34 AM4/20/17
to
You may be right. My judgement was that, on balance, future armed
conflict between countries was less likely between members of a union
like the EU. Not out of the question, of course, but more likely to be
solved by negotiation and the intervention of other members.
I didn't believe Osborne's tosh either. Nor did I appreciate being
threatened by a foreign president, whoever he might have been. Nor a
lot of other stuff. The Remain campaign was a pathetic, ill-judged
disaster, IMO, and came across as posh boys acting like arrogant
prefects and telling the rest of us lower orders that we'd jolly well
better do what we're told, or we'd get a damned good thrashing. It's an
approach which is unlikely to play well with the British electorate.
What with that and the obvious flaws (to put it mildly) in the
governance of the EU, I can understand why so many people voted to
leave. And, btw, I am appalled that some people are *still* maintaining
that those who voted to leave are therefore in some way racist. Some
may be, but ISTM that most people came to a rational judgement - just
one which was different from mine.
We'll just have to see how this all pans out. But I do think that
parliament should be the body which decides on whether the exit deal is
acceptable. I am very unhappy about leaving it unscrutinised to any
other group.
krw
Apr 20, 2017, 11:40:20 AM4/20/17
to
On 20/04/2017 16:35, Sid Nuncius wrote; my response is lower down:
> The Remain campaign was a pathetic, ill-judged disaster,
As I drove around a part of Wales recently I was struck by the signs
> The Remain campaign was a pathetic, ill-judged disaster,
telling me that the new infrastructure is EU funded. Yet did anyone
point at all this when asking us to remain (or leave)? And remind me
how much do the Welsh value all that spending?
BrritSki
Apr 20, 2017, 12:18:41 PM4/20/17
to
> We'll just have to see how this all pans out. But I do think that
> parliament should be the body which decides on whether the exit deal is
> acceptable. I am very unhappy about leaving it unscrutinised to any
> other group.
>
having a vote is what happens if they don't accept it ?
The EU is not going to let us start again, if they vote it down it will
be out with no deal at all (which it wouldn't surprise me if that's what
happens anyway if the likes of Juncker are as intransigent as I expect).
Penny
Apr 20, 2017, 12:25:10 PM4/20/17
to
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:48:09 +0100, Anne B <threel...@btinternet.com>
scrawled in the dust...
>And I am pretty certain (a) that I am not alone and (b) that this is the
>reason for the voter apathy that so many people keep on wringing their
>hands about. An individual voter has **no** power at all, so what's the
>point?
Well I think part of the point is that 15.9 million people didn't vote in
the 2010 GE. That's more than voted for any of the main parties, in fact it
is more than voted for Labour and the Lib Dems combined.
In 2015 15.7 million didn't vote - again far more than voted for any party
and more than voted for Labour, Lib Dem and UKIP combined.
Of course we don't know how they might have voted had voting been
compulsory. A more interesting question might be why they did not vote.
scrawled in the dust...
>And I am pretty certain (a) that I am not alone and (b) that this is the
>reason for the voter apathy that so many people keep on wringing their
>hands about. An individual voter has **no** power at all, so what's the
>point?
the 2010 GE. That's more than voted for any of the main parties, in fact it
is more than voted for Labour and the Lib Dems combined.
In 2015 15.7 million didn't vote - again far more than voted for any party
and more than voted for Labour, Lib Dem and UKIP combined.
Of course we don't know how they might have voted had voting been
compulsory. A more interesting question might be why they did not vote.
Peter Percival
Apr 20, 2017, 12:28:08 PM4/20/17
to
Penny wrote:
> In 2015 15.7 million didn't vote [...] A more interesting question
> In 2015 15.7 million didn't vote [...] A more interesting question
> might be why they did not vote.
Maybe they think that voting changes nothing. Maybe they're right.
Fenny
Apr 20, 2017, 1:13:13 PM4/20/17
to
My view is that having lived through the Thatcher years, the Blair
years and the Cameron years, we've probably coped with as much lunacy
as is likely to happen during and after Brexit. We've had assorted
recessions, financial crises and whathaveyou in the last 50 years and
we're still here. I'd very much like there to be an actual
manufacturing base in the UK, but I can't see that happening. But we
just need to get on with what is happening and stop pretending there's
any way of stopping it without us being an utter laughing stock.
--
Fenny
Fenny
Apr 20, 2017, 1:17:24 PM4/20/17
to
> I think going on about how we can
>change that, however much we dislike it, just makes us look silly
>because we can't.
*cough* Nicola Sturgeon *cough*
>change that, however much we dislike it, just makes us look silly
>because we can't.
--
Fenny
Chris McMillan
Apr 20, 2017, 1:33:46 PM4/20/17
to
BrritSki <rtilbur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/04/2017 09:05, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>> Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>
>>> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>>
>>> <head in hands>
>>
>> Along the lines of unexpected outcomes, I can't quite understand
>> why Labour are so keen to throw themselves off the cliff instead
>> of digging their heels in and opposing (isn't that what the
>> opposition is for?) the proposal for an early election?
>>
>> Haven't they worked out that the Conservatives would probably
>> have been more vulnerable in 2020, by which time the sheer
>> awfulness of Brexit would have become glaringly apparent. Or is
>> this more than countered by the 20 or so extra seats that
>> boundary changes would have gifted the Tories?
>>
> Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Would have been labelled as
> frit again if they'd voted against.
>
> The boundary changes aren't a "gift" to anyone. Just a necessary and
> regular review of the size and balance of the constituences that has
> recently favoured Labour.
>
>
>
>
And having been ward boundary changed, it makes no sense whatsoever to vote
for an MP who needs to find time to attend to constituency matters within
the jurisdiction of a neighbouring town, so in local and general elections
you're dealing with apples and pears. I don't think it works, specially
when your MP is also a Cabinet Minister!
Sincerely Chris
> On 19/04/2017 09:05, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>> Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>
>>> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>>
>>> <head in hands>
>>
>> Along the lines of unexpected outcomes, I can't quite understand
>> why Labour are so keen to throw themselves off the cliff instead
>> of digging their heels in and opposing (isn't that what the
>> opposition is for?) the proposal for an early election?
>>
>> Haven't they worked out that the Conservatives would probably
>> have been more vulnerable in 2020, by which time the sheer
>> awfulness of Brexit would have become glaringly apparent. Or is
>> this more than countered by the 20 or so extra seats that
>> boundary changes would have gifted the Tories?
>>
> Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Would have been labelled as
> frit again if they'd voted against.
>
> The boundary changes aren't a "gift" to anyone. Just a necessary and
> regular review of the size and balance of the constituences that has
> recently favoured Labour.
>
>
>
>
And having been ward boundary changed, it makes no sense whatsoever to vote
for an MP who needs to find time to attend to constituency matters within
the jurisdiction of a neighbouring town, so in local and general elections
you're dealing with apples and pears. I don't think it works, specially
when your MP is also a Cabinet Minister!
Sincerely Chris
Sid Nuncius
Apr 20, 2017, 2:10:58 PM4/20/17
to
independent they might remain in or rejoin the EU, though. As I've
said, I would be very sad of Scotland were to leave the UK, but Brexit
*is* a very substantial change since the last referendum and a majority
of Scots who voted, voted against it.
I don't think NS is being silly. I hope she doesn't get her way, though.
Btms
Apr 20, 2017, 4:30:33 PM4/20/17
to
Sid Nuncius <matron....@tesco.net> wrote:
.
>
> The sooner we get through the denial, anger, bargaining and depression
> stages, move on to acceptance and try to deal with what is really
> happening, the better, IMO.
>
Who has died? 😳
.
>
> The sooner we get through the denial, anger, bargaining and depression
> stages, move on to acceptance and try to deal with what is really
> happening, the better, IMO.
>
--
BTMS - Usurped as Editor in waiting
Btms
Apr 20, 2017, 4:39:59 PM4/20/17
to
rhetoric a bit easier?
BrritSki
Apr 20, 2017, 4:59:05 PM4/20/17
to
day-to-day running the country policies she's terrible.
Btms
Apr 20, 2017, 5:02:13 PM4/20/17
to
Sid Nuncius <matron....@tesco.net> wrote:
> <unsnipped because I think the context needs to stay for a bit>
But snipped by me as I am sure others won't.....
> <unsnipped because I think the context needs to stay for a bit>
>
> You may be right. My judgement was that, on balance, future armed
> conflict between countries was less likely between members of a union
> like the EU. Not out of the question, of course, but more likely to be
> solved by negotiation and the intervention of other members.
>
> I didn't believe Osborne's tosh either. Nor did I appreciate being
> threatened by a foreign president, whoever he might have been. Nor a
> lot of other stuff. The Remain campaign was a pathetic, ill-judged
> disaster, IMO, and came across as posh boys acting like arrogant
> prefects and telling the rest of us lower orders that we'd jolly well
> better do what we're told, or we'd get a damned good thrashing. It's an
> approach which is unlikely to play well with the British electorate.
> What with that and the obvious flaws (to put it mildly) in the
> governance of the EU, I can understand why so many people voted to
> leave. And, btw, I am appalled that some people are *still* maintaining
> that those who voted to leave are therefore in some way racist. Some
> may be, but ISTM that most people came to a rational judgement - just
> one which was different from mine.
>
> We'll just have to see how this all pans out. But I do think that
> parliament should be the body which decides on whether the exit deal is
> acceptable. I am very unhappy about leaving it unscrutinised to any
> other group.
>
>
Quite. I did vote out; for reasons that had nothing to do with immigration
> You may be right. My judgement was that, on balance, future armed
> conflict between countries was less likely between members of a union
> like the EU. Not out of the question, of course, but more likely to be
> solved by negotiation and the intervention of other members.
>
> I didn't believe Osborne's tosh either. Nor did I appreciate being
> threatened by a foreign president, whoever he might have been. Nor a
> lot of other stuff. The Remain campaign was a pathetic, ill-judged
> disaster, IMO, and came across as posh boys acting like arrogant
> prefects and telling the rest of us lower orders that we'd jolly well
> better do what we're told, or we'd get a damned good thrashing. It's an
> approach which is unlikely to play well with the British electorate.
> What with that and the obvious flaws (to put it mildly) in the
> governance of the EU, I can understand why so many people voted to
> leave. And, btw, I am appalled that some people are *still* maintaining
> that those who voted to leave are therefore in some way racist. Some
> may be, but ISTM that most people came to a rational judgement - just
> one which was different from mine.
>
> We'll just have to see how this all pans out. But I do think that
> parliament should be the body which decides on whether the exit deal is
> acceptable. I am very unhappy about leaving it unscrutinised to any
> other group.
>
>
but because of a whole mixture of issues. I was very uncertain right up
until I entered the voting venue. Uncertain after I voted. Went to bed
thinking the remain votes would carry the day but relatively happy to have
voted with integrity as far as I was able. Had the remainders carried the
day, I would have accepted it and not gone banging on about it. I might
have said: I told you so, if the outcomes proved to be negative. But my
guess is that this would have been difficult to support with evidence. I
voted for what I believe was in the interests of my grandchildren and
resent being told I didn't do this. To that accusation all I can say is:
harrrumph.
Vicky
Apr 20, 2017, 5:05:57 PM4/20/17
to
>On 19/04/2017 12:17, BrritSki wrote:
>>>
>>> I've seen stuff about a reversal of Brexit being possible.
>>
>> Anything's possible, but it is highly unlikely.
>
>It's not going to happen. I voted remain, albeit while holding my nose
>at a good deal of what I was voting to remain part of. I wish we
>weren't leaving the EU...but we are. I think going on about how we can
>>>
>>> I've seen stuff about a reversal of Brexit being possible.
>>
>> Anything's possible, but it is highly unlikely.
>
>It's not going to happen. I voted remain, albeit while holding my nose
>at a good deal of what I was voting to remain part of. I wish we
>change that, however much we dislike it, just makes us look silly
>because we can't. Whatever arguments are put forward about the process
>or what people really wanted, it's too bloody late, whether they have
>any merit or not.
>
>I think leaving the EU will be very bad for Britain and bad for general
>stability in Europe - but that's tough. I still don't like it (to put it
>mildly) but I just have to hope I'm wrong about the consequences and try
>to make sure that when we do leave, any damage is minimised.
>
>In the same way, I wish Donald Trump weren't President of the USA - but
>he is. However much some people may wish it were different, he will be
>there for four years, God help us all, and there's no point in
>daydreaming about him being indicted or anything else.
>
>or what people really wanted, it's too bloody late, whether they have
>any merit or not.
>
>I think leaving the EU will be very bad for Britain and bad for general
>stability in Europe - but that's tough. I still don't like it (to put it
>mildly) but I just have to hope I'm wrong about the consequences and try
>to make sure that when we do leave, any damage is minimised.
>
>In the same way, I wish Donald Trump weren't President of the USA - but
>he is. However much some people may wish it were different, he will be
>there for four years, God help us all, and there's no point in
>daydreaming about him being indicted or anything else.
>
>The sooner we get through the denial, anger, bargaining and depression
>stages, move on to acceptance and try to deal with what is really
>happening, the better, IMO.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/20/european-parliament-will-welcome-britain-back-if-voters-veto-brexit
>stages, move on to acceptance and try to deal with what is really
>happening, the better, IMO.
European parliament president Antonio Tajani says process could
easily be reversed if election brings in new British government
--
Vicky
Fenny
Apr 20, 2017, 5:06:14 PM4/20/17
to
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:33:45 GMT, Chris McMillan
<chris.m...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>And having been ward boundary changed, it makes no sense whatsoever to vote
>for an MP who needs to find time to attend to constituency matters within
>the jurisdiction of a neighbouring town, so in local and general elections
>you're dealing with apples and pears. I don't think it works, specially
>when your MP is also a Cabinet Minister!
Our constituency boundaries were due to change. Although it wouldn't
<chris.m...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>And having been ward boundary changed, it makes no sense whatsoever to vote
>for an MP who needs to find time to attend to constituency matters within
>the jurisdiction of a neighbouring town, so in local and general elections
>you're dealing with apples and pears. I don't think it works, specially
>when your MP is also a Cabinet Minister!
change the overall way the seat went, it would make a significant
difference to the area. Currently, the parliamentary boundaries
encompass pretty much the area of our local district council. The
change would move part of the district into a neighbouring
constituency for a town they have no dealing with and bring part of a
Warwickshire area into the currently Northamptonshire seat.
At least the early election will have to be with the current
boundaries, as the new ones have not yet been agreed.
--
Fenny
Fenny
Apr 20, 2017, 5:36:29 PM4/20/17
to
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 20:59:04 -0000 (UTC), Btms <po...@thetames.me.uk>
wrote:
>Quite. I did vote out; for reasons that had nothing to do with immigration
>but because of a whole mixture of issues. I was very uncertain right up
>until I entered the voting venue. Uncertain after I voted. Went to bed
>thinking the remain votes would carry the day but relatively happy to have
>voted with integrity as far as I was able. Had the remainders carried the
>day, I would have accepted it and not gone banging on about it. I might
>have said: I told you so, if the outcomes proved to be negative. But my
>guess is that this would have been difficult to support with evidence. I
>voted for what I believe was in the interests of my grandchildren and
>resent being told I didn't do this. To that accusation all I can say is:
>harrrumph.
Although I know my Elder Adorable Niece (tm) did vote (remain), she
reposted a lot of the whinging thing on FB about how the "Older
generation" have screwed over the young people and various people
saying "my parents must hate me". My only response was that if all
these 18 - 30 yr olds wanted to stay in the EU, they should have got
off their collective @rses and flippin' well voted to stay in. Blaming
those who did manage to get out and vote for a result they don't like
is a big no-no. If you don't vote, you don't get to dislike the
result.
I've just been talking to Ma. Younger Adorable Niece (tm) will be old
enough to vote this time round (she missed out by about 2 weeks for
the referendum). I hope she's registered (I can't imagine she won't
have) and whips all her chums in to getting out and voting.
<insert topical West Wing quote here>
--
Fenny
wrote:
>Quite. I did vote out; for reasons that had nothing to do with immigration
>but because of a whole mixture of issues. I was very uncertain right up
>until I entered the voting venue. Uncertain after I voted. Went to bed
>thinking the remain votes would carry the day but relatively happy to have
>voted with integrity as far as I was able. Had the remainders carried the
>day, I would have accepted it and not gone banging on about it. I might
>have said: I told you so, if the outcomes proved to be negative. But my
>guess is that this would have been difficult to support with evidence. I
>voted for what I believe was in the interests of my grandchildren and
>resent being told I didn't do this. To that accusation all I can say is:
>harrrumph.
reposted a lot of the whinging thing on FB about how the "Older
generation" have screwed over the young people and various people
saying "my parents must hate me". My only response was that if all
these 18 - 30 yr olds wanted to stay in the EU, they should have got
off their collective @rses and flippin' well voted to stay in. Blaming
those who did manage to get out and vote for a result they don't like
is a big no-no. If you don't vote, you don't get to dislike the
result.
I've just been talking to Ma. Younger Adorable Niece (tm) will be old
enough to vote this time round (she missed out by about 2 weeks for
the referendum). I hope she's registered (I can't imagine she won't
have) and whips all her chums in to getting out and voting.
<insert topical West Wing quote here>
--
Fenny
LFS
Apr 20, 2017, 6:14:27 PM4/20/17
to
On 20/04/2017 14:48, Anne B wrote:
> On 19/04/2017 21:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <elpndg...@mid.individual.net>, Sid Nuncius
>> Indeed. In Westminster elections, a significant number of voters - I
>> _suspect_ a majority - know little of their MP (and even less of other
>> candidates), so elect him/her by party ticket; they vote for a party.
>> (And, on the whole, the parties and media all collude in this.)
>
> What concerns me is that, as a voter, you have to choose between two, or
> sometimes three, party manifestos, each of which may contain things you
> don't agree with.
>
> Suppose party X's manifesto contains a long list of things you agree
> with but two things you strongly disagree with. Party Z lists slightly
> fewer things you agree with but more things you don't like. So you vote
> for Party X.
>
> Then Party X will say that they have a mandate to do the things you
> don't like or approve of, because you voted for them. This I find much
> more worrying than who is going to be PM.
>
> The only opportunity I have to tell politicians what I think is either
> by writing them a letter, or when they call to canvass my vote.
You can attend their surgeries.
> On 19/04/2017 21:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <elpndg...@mid.individual.net>, Sid Nuncius
>> Indeed. In Westminster elections, a significant number of voters - I
>> _suspect_ a majority - know little of their MP (and even less of other
>> candidates), so elect him/her by party ticket; they vote for a party.
>> (And, on the whole, the parties and media all collude in this.)
>
> What concerns me is that, as a voter, you have to choose between two, or
> sometimes three, party manifestos, each of which may contain things you
> don't agree with.
>
> Suppose party X's manifesto contains a long list of things you agree
> with but two things you strongly disagree with. Party Z lists slightly
> fewer things you agree with but more things you don't like. So you vote
> for Party X.
>
> Then Party X will say that they have a mandate to do the things you
> don't like or approve of, because you voted for them. This I find much
> more worrying than who is going to be PM.
>
> The only opportunity I have to tell politicians what I think is either
> by writing them a letter, or when they call to canvass my vote.
In
> practice haven't had a canvasser at my door in decades, and when I write
> a letter I get a bland non-committal reply.
>
> Basically, I only vote so that the chance of the party/parties I like
> least getting in is marginally reduced. But I don't really, seriously,
> believe that as a mere voter I have the slightest influence on what the
> politicians actually do.
>
> And I am pretty certain (a) that I am not alone and (b) that this is the
> reason for the voter apathy that so many people keep on wringing their
> hands about. An individual voter has **no** power at all, so what's the
> point?
>
obtained by the determined efforts of a dedicated group of people and I
should always exercise it.
I have always voted for individuals rather than parties and I make it my
business to find out about the candidates: waiting for anyone to knock
on my door is a waste of time in this area although I am expecting that
to change this time around. It is fairly impossible to find a candidate
whose views I am likely to endorse completely but it's not difficult to
assess how well a candidate understands local issues and how likely
he/she is to support and represent local constituents.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 20, 2017, 6:36:25 PM4/20/17
to
In message <Ud6dnb7w86WoZGrF...@brightview.co.uk>, Sam
Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes:
>On 19/04/2017 09:22, krw wrote:
>> On 19/04/2017 00:11, Fenny wrote; my response is lower down:
>>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:13:07 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you misspelled "Nicola Sturgeon". I had never envisaged
>>> anyone could be more irritating and obnoxious than Alex Salmond and
>>> there have been plenty of contenders for that title, none of whom hold
>>> a candle to Ms Sturgeon.
>>>
>> I consider Ms Sturgeon as portrayed by Tracey Ullman to be far from
>> irritating or obnoxious.
I do agree, there seems to be a strong inclination to attack the person
not the policies, which is lazy.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
... there were parts of Roman York that appear to be more ethnically mixed
than parts of modern York. - David Olusoga, RT 2016/11/5-11
Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes:
>On 19/04/2017 09:22, krw wrote:
>> On 19/04/2017 00:11, Fenny wrote; my response is lower down:
>>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:13:07 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/04/2017 19:15, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>>> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>>>>
>>>>> <head in hands>
>>>>>
>>>> Is there a "Put a stake through the heart of Brexit" Party standing?
>>>> On 18/04/2017 19:15, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>>> Not *another* round of electioneering! I can't bear it...
>>>>>
>>>>> <head in hands>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you misspelled "Nicola Sturgeon". I had never envisaged
>>> anyone could be more irritating and obnoxious than Alex Salmond and
>>> there have been plenty of contenders for that title, none of whom hold
>>> a candle to Ms Sturgeon.
>>>
>> I consider Ms Sturgeon as portrayed by Tracey Ullman to be far from
>> irritating or obnoxious.
>>
>I heard a number of (English) people express extreme personal hostility
>towards Ms Sturgeon. Her party has a certain view and aim and she
>articulates that. Why does she get so much more stick than others who
>do the same?
>
+1. Personally I like neither their aims nor the way she puts them, but
>I heard a number of (English) people express extreme personal hostility
>towards Ms Sturgeon. Her party has a certain view and aim and she
>articulates that. Why does she get so much more stick than others who
>do the same?
>
I do agree, there seems to be a strong inclination to attack the person
not the policies, which is lazy.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
... there were parts of Roman York that appear to be more ethnically mixed
than parts of modern York. - David Olusoga, RT 2016/11/5-11
Chris J Dixon
Apr 21, 2017, 3:49:44 AM4/21/17
to
Fenny wrote:
>Although I know my Elder Adorable Niece (tm) did vote (remain), she
>reposted a lot of the whinging thing on FB about how the "Older
>generation" have screwed over the young people and various people
>saying "my parents must hate me". My only response was that if all
>these 18 - 30 yr olds wanted to stay in the EU, they should have got
>off their collective @rses and flippin' well voted to stay in. Blaming
>those who did manage to get out and vote for a result they don't like
>is a big no-no. If you don't vote, you don't get to dislike the
>result.
Was there even any discussion about it needing more than a simple
>Although I know my Elder Adorable Niece (tm) did vote (remain), she
>reposted a lot of the whinging thing on FB about how the "Older
>generation" have screwed over the young people and various people
>saying "my parents must hate me". My only response was that if all
>these 18 - 30 yr olds wanted to stay in the EU, they should have got
>off their collective @rses and flippin' well voted to stay in. Blaming
>those who did manage to get out and vote for a result they don't like
>is a big no-no. If you don't vote, you don't get to dislike the
>result.
majority decision? ISTMT for something so critical there could
justifiably been a requirement for, say, 60% before any change
would be initiated.
Sadly that ship is already well up the creek.
Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
ch...@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Nick Odell
Apr 21, 2017, 4:51:06 AM4/21/17
to
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:49:45 +0100, Chris J Dixon <ch...@cdixon.me.uk>
wrote:
>Fenny wrote:
>
>>Although I know my Elder Adorable Niece (tm) did vote (remain), she
>>reposted a lot of the whinging thing on FB about how the "Older
>>generation" have screwed over the young people and various people
>>saying "my parents must hate me". My only response was that if all
>>these 18 - 30 yr olds wanted to stay in the EU, they should have got
>>off their collective @rses and flippin' well voted to stay in. Blaming
>>those who did manage to get out and vote for a result they don't like
>>is a big no-no. If you don't vote, you don't get to dislike the
>>result.
>
>Was there even any discussion about it needing more than a simple
>majority decision? ISTMT for something so critical there could
>justifiably been a requirement for, say, 60% before any change
>would be initiated.
Even the recent vote to change the fixed term parliament act required
a substantial majority to change the law but, no, TBTW never seemed to
have thought for a moment that Remain was going to lose and never
built in any safeguards. Personally, I thought Remain were going to
make a pretty hard slog of it when they couldn't find a chipper little
upbeat catch-phrase like "Brexit" to be known by.
>
>Sadly that ship is already well up the creek.
>
And which creek might that be?
Nick
wrote:
>Fenny wrote:
>
>>Although I know my Elder Adorable Niece (tm) did vote (remain), she
>>reposted a lot of the whinging thing on FB about how the "Older
>>generation" have screwed over the young people and various people
>>saying "my parents must hate me". My only response was that if all
>>these 18 - 30 yr olds wanted to stay in the EU, they should have got
>>off their collective @rses and flippin' well voted to stay in. Blaming
>>those who did manage to get out and vote for a result they don't like
>>is a big no-no. If you don't vote, you don't get to dislike the
>>result.
>
>Was there even any discussion about it needing more than a simple
>majority decision? ISTMT for something so critical there could
>justifiably been a requirement for, say, 60% before any change
>would be initiated.
a substantial majority to change the law but, no, TBTW never seemed to
have thought for a moment that Remain was going to lose and never
built in any safeguards. Personally, I thought Remain were going to
make a pretty hard slog of it when they couldn't find a chipper little
upbeat catch-phrase like "Brexit" to be known by.
>
>Sadly that ship is already well up the creek.
>
Nick
John Ashby
Apr 21, 2017, 4:56:52 AM4/21/17
to
On 21/04/17 08:49, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Fenny wrote:
>
>> Although I know my Elder Adorable Niece (tm) did vote (remain), she
>> reposted a lot of the whinging thing on FB about how the "Older
>> generation" have screwed over the young people and various people
>> saying "my parents must hate me". My only response was that if all
>> these 18 - 30 yr olds wanted to stay in the EU, they should have got
>> off their collective @rses and flippin' well voted to stay in. Blaming
>> those who did manage to get out and vote for a result they don't like
>> is a big no-no. If you don't vote, you don't get to dislike the
>> result.
>
> Was there even any discussion about it needing more than a simple
> majority decision? ISTMT for something so critical there could
> justifiably been a requirement for, say, 60% before any change
> would be initiated.
>
> Sadly that ship is already well up the creek.
>
> Chris
>
No, and what's worse is that there has been no recognition of the
> Fenny wrote:
>
>> Although I know my Elder Adorable Niece (tm) did vote (remain), she
>> reposted a lot of the whinging thing on FB about how the "Older
>> generation" have screwed over the young people and various people
>> saying "my parents must hate me". My only response was that if all
>> these 18 - 30 yr olds wanted to stay in the EU, they should have got
>> off their collective @rses and flippin' well voted to stay in. Blaming
>> those who did manage to get out and vote for a result they don't like
>> is a big no-no. If you don't vote, you don't get to dislike the
>> result.
>
> Was there even any discussion about it needing more than a simple
> majority decision? ISTMT for something so critical there could
> justifiably been a requirement for, say, 60% before any change
> would be initiated.
>
> Sadly that ship is already well up the creek.
>
> Chris
>
advisability of at least giving some concession to the large minority
that voted remain. Were the numbers reversed I'd have expected a
victorious Cameron to have gone to Brussels arguing that enough of
Britain were disillusioned with the EU that it needed to change. In the
same way I'd hoped that our politicians would be arguing that enough
people found the EU to be of value that we should be negotiating to keep
as many aspects of it as seemed sensible.
It was the same with the inconclusive 2010 General Election - the
country gave an extremely equivocal result but the government which
eventually formed claimed a mandate for all sorts of hard line policies
and the junior partners seemed unable to restrain the seniors as it was
hoped they would. The US style of winner takes all has infected UK
politics (or it might be the other way round, but my rose tinted
retrospectacles tell me there was more consensus building here in times
gone by (pre TINA).
john
Chris J Dixon
Apr 21, 2017, 5:14:15 AM4/21/17
to
>>Was there even any discussion about it needing more than a simple
>>majority decision? ISTMT for something so critical there could
>>justifiably been a requirement for, say, 60% before any change
>>would be initiated.
>
>Even the recent vote to change the fixed term parliament act required
>a substantial majority to change the law but, no, TBTW never seemed to
>have thought for a moment that Remain was going to lose and never
>built in any safeguards. Personally, I thought Remain were going to
>make a pretty hard slog of it when they couldn't find a chipper little
>upbeat catch-phrase like "Brexit" to be known by.
>>
>>Sadly that ship is already well up the creek.
>>
>And which creek might that be?
I think I might need to invoke excremental notation in order to
>>majority decision? ISTMT for something so critical there could
>>justifiably been a requirement for, say, 60% before any change
>>would be initiated.
>
>Even the recent vote to change the fixed term parliament act required
>a substantial majority to change the law but, no, TBTW never seemed to
>have thought for a moment that Remain was going to lose and never
>built in any safeguards. Personally, I thought Remain were going to
>make a pretty hard slog of it when they couldn't find a chipper little
>upbeat catch-phrase like "Brexit" to be known by.
>>
>>Sadly that ship is already well up the creek.
>>
>And which creek might that be?
convey the correct ordure of magnitude.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 21, 2017, 3:41:43 PM4/21/17
to
In message <elr5lg...@mid.individual.net>, BrritSki
<rtilbur...@gmail.com> writes:
>On 20/04/2017 00:30, krw wrote:
>> On 19/04/2017 19:08, Sid Nuncius wrote; my response is lower down:
>>> So, although we do not elect our PM in the way that the USA elects a
>>> President, for example, people generally think that when they vote,
>>> they know who, by implication, they are voting for as PM.
>>
>> And we have therefore known that in voting for parties led by prats such
>> as Blair and Cameron (and I am not sure which one was more left wing),
>> we could guess how they might misgovern.
>>
>> We had no such idea with Brown, Callaghan and Douglas-Home.
>>
>They could only govern according to the manifesto that their party was
>elected on, as Dodgy Phil found out when he tried to break the election
>promise on NI increases.
>
[Not snipped as not easy to.]
I don't think manifestos (or whatever the plural is) have any legal
standing; a sitting government can (with a few limitations) do whatever
it likes. It can get into trouble with a very blatant going against its
last manifesto, if enough MPs (of its own and other parties) think it is
a bad idea, as happened - we think - in the case you mention; however,
I've lived long enough to remember plenty of occasions on which a
sitting government _have_ gone against their own last manifesto -
sometimes even to general (public) approval. [Don't ask me for examples
though - my memory's not _that_ good!]
- "yoni", 2015-8-5
<rtilbur...@gmail.com> writes:
>On 20/04/2017 00:30, krw wrote:
>> On 19/04/2017 19:08, Sid Nuncius wrote; my response is lower down:
>>> So, although we do not elect our PM in the way that the USA elects a
>>> President, for example, people generally think that when they vote,
>>> they know who, by implication, they are voting for as PM.
>>
>> And we have therefore known that in voting for parties led by prats such
>> as Blair and Cameron (and I am not sure which one was more left wing),
>> we could guess how they might misgovern.
>>
>> We had no such idea with Brown, Callaghan and Douglas-Home.
>>
>They could only govern according to the manifesto that their party was
>elected on, as Dodgy Phil found out when he tried to break the election
>promise on NI increases.
>
[Not snipped as not easy to.]
I don't think manifestos (or whatever the plural is) have any legal
standing; a sitting government can (with a few limitations) do whatever
it likes. It can get into trouble with a very blatant going against its
last manifesto, if enough MPs (of its own and other parties) think it is
a bad idea, as happened - we think - in the case you mention; however,
I've lived long enough to remember plenty of occasions on which a
sitting government _have_ gone against their own last manifesto -
sometimes even to general (public) approval. [Don't ask me for examples
though - my memory's not _that_ good!]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
offensive speech is something to be protected, not celebrated.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
- "yoni", 2015-8-5
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 21, 2017, 3:53:46 PM4/21/17
to
In message <odae0u$o5d$1...@dont-email.me>, Anne B
<threel...@btinternet.com> writes:
[]
alternative to the above, i. e. what we currently have, representative
democracy, is government by many referendums. Which at first sometimes
seems attractive, but I don't think would work too well in Britain. (For
example, I think _many_ minorities would be less protected - gays,
people of colours [other than "white" {actually pink}], women [yes I
know not a minority but YKWIM], etc., would have far fewer rights had
all the changes over the last 50 years or so been subject to referenda.)
It (government involving many referenda) _does_ seem to work quite well
in _some_ countries - I think Switzerland has lots, and possibly one of
the Scandinavian countries. But the character of those countries is very
different to Britain, especially England.
[]
>believe that as a mere voter I have the slightest influence on what the
>politicians actually do.
>
>And I am pretty certain (a) that I am not alone and (b) that this is
>the reason for the voter apathy that so many people keep on wringing
>their hands about. An individual voter has **no** power at all, so
>what's the point?
>
>Anne B
>
I think (almost) any alternative to our there-is-no-post voting system
would _help_, if only by weakening the party structures (or at least
making parties more flexible where compromise would be advantageous).
But that's (IM sad O) unlikely to change in the near or medium future.
>
>
>
4
<threel...@btinternet.com> writes:
[]
>Suppose party X's manifesto contains a long list of things you agree
>with but two things you strongly disagree with. Party Z lists slightly
>fewer things you agree with but more things you don't like. So you vote
>for Party X.
>
>Then Party X will say that they have a mandate to do the things you
>don't like or approve of, because you voted for them. This I find much
>more worrying than who is going to be PM.
(Ignoring the question of how binding manifestos are:) The only
>with but two things you strongly disagree with. Party Z lists slightly
>fewer things you agree with but more things you don't like. So you vote
>for Party X.
>
>Then Party X will say that they have a mandate to do the things you
>don't like or approve of, because you voted for them. This I find much
>more worrying than who is going to be PM.
alternative to the above, i. e. what we currently have, representative
democracy, is government by many referendums. Which at first sometimes
seems attractive, but I don't think would work too well in Britain. (For
example, I think _many_ minorities would be less protected - gays,
people of colours [other than "white" {actually pink}], women [yes I
know not a minority but YKWIM], etc., would have far fewer rights had
all the changes over the last 50 years or so been subject to referenda.)
It (government involving many referenda) _does_ seem to work quite well
in _some_ countries - I think Switzerland has lots, and possibly one of
the Scandinavian countries. But the character of those countries is very
different to Britain, especially England.
[]
>Basically, I only vote so that the chance of the party/parties I like
>least getting in is marginally reduced. But I don't really, seriously,
So you vote against rather than for?
>least getting in is marginally reduced. But I don't really, seriously,
>believe that as a mere voter I have the slightest influence on what the
>politicians actually do.
>
>And I am pretty certain (a) that I am not alone and (b) that this is
>the reason for the voter apathy that so many people keep on wringing
>their hands about. An individual voter has **no** power at all, so
>what's the point?
>
>Anne B
>
would _help_, if only by weakening the party structures (or at least
making parties more flexible where compromise would be advantageous).
But that's (IM sad O) unlikely to change in the near or medium future.
>
>
>
4
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 21, 2017, 4:17:53 PM4/21/17
to
In message <elrhvl...@mid.individual.net>, LFS
<lauraDRA...@gmail.com> writes:
>On 20/04/2017 10:59, Steve Hague wrote:
>> On 20/04/2017 10:41, Sid Nuncius wrote:
[]
>>> because we can't. Whatever arguments are put forward about the process
>>> or what people really wanted, it's too bloody late, whether they have
>>> any merit or not.
Yes!
>>> stability in Europe - but that's tough. I still don't like it (to put it
and not good for the stability of _the EU_ - which _may_ mean for Europe
in general.
>>> mildly) but I just have to hope I'm wrong about the consequences and try
>>> to make sure that when we do leave, any damage is minimised.
>>>
>>> In the same way, I wish Donald Trump weren't President of the USA - but
>>> he is. However much some people may wish it were different, he will be
>>> there for four years, God help us all, and there's no point in
Good point; I suppose I still hadn't got round to thinking that the way
I have over Brexit, but you are right.
>>> daydreaming about him being indicted or anything else.
(I suppose it's possible, but I don't _think_ it's very likely.)
>>
>> I was going to vote remain right up till the day before the referendum,
>> then changed my mind, but I'm very uncomfortable with many of my fellow
>> travellers, and didn't vote that way for the same reasons as them. I
>> probably represent the nation really well. 48% of me wanted to vote
>> remain, 52% voted leave. I also live in a three way marginal
I too am very uncomfortable about fellow travellers - mainly those who
voted leave for reasons to do with immigration, which the media at least
(I sadly have no real way of knowing) have made out to be the main
reason for leave voting. (I so voted for reasons of autonomy - I would
say sovereignty, but that word has become tainted, by those who talk
about "British soil" and wave the flag and mention the Falklands and
such.) I too thought there was much good about the EU. (I must say it
hasn't been too evident since, but I do find that understandable.)
>> constituency, and have no party loyalties. Decisions, decisions.
>
>Steve, I think you're the first person I've found who reflects my own
>ambivalence. I tried very hard to find objective evidence on either
>side without success. I voted Remain because of the obvious financial
>costs of the leaving process: the longer term benefits/cost of its
>consequences seem to me to be unquantifiable but there can be no doubt
>that the immediate and ongoing costs of untangling everything will be
There will certainly be high administrative costs. I think they could be
made not _that_ high if we make most things "carry on as we were, but
call them British/English laws" - which in most cases, is actually
already the case; however, in a lot of cases, there will be sufficient
people wanting to tweak that it won't happen like that. (Actually I
think it will for a majority of legislation, simply because of the
volume of it there is, but still.)
>very high. I don't think the UK can afford this at a time when public
>service provision is so depleted and market solutions are so clearly
>inadequate.
I agree with what you say there. (I'm not sure why market solutions, if
by that you mean private rather than public, have much to do with EU
versus UK, but I certainly agree that privatisation - for want of a
better word - has little advantage and plenty of disadvantage.)
[]
<lauraDRA...@gmail.com> writes:
>On 20/04/2017 10:59, Steve Hague wrote:
>> On 20/04/2017 10:41, Sid Nuncius wrote:
[]
>>> It's not going to happen. I voted remain, albeit while holding my nose
>>> at a good deal of what I was voting to remain part of. I wish we
>>> weren't leaving the EU...but we are. I think going on about how we can
>>> change that, however much we dislike it, just makes us look silly
+1 indeed.
>>> at a good deal of what I was voting to remain part of. I wish we
>>> weren't leaving the EU...but we are. I think going on about how we can
>>> change that, however much we dislike it, just makes us look silly
>>> because we can't. Whatever arguments are put forward about the process
>>> or what people really wanted, it's too bloody late, whether they have
>>> any merit or not.
>>>
>>> I think leaving the EU will be very bad for Britain and bad for general
I think it will be _expensive_ for Britain for quite a few years,
>>> I think leaving the EU will be very bad for Britain and bad for general
>>> stability in Europe - but that's tough. I still don't like it (to put it
in general.
>>> mildly) but I just have to hope I'm wrong about the consequences and try
>>> to make sure that when we do leave, any damage is minimised.
>>>
>>> In the same way, I wish Donald Trump weren't President of the USA - but
>>> he is. However much some people may wish it were different, he will be
>>> there for four years, God help us all, and there's no point in
I have over Brexit, but you are right.
>>> daydreaming about him being indicted or anything else.
>>>
>>> The sooner we get through the denial, anger, bargaining and depression
>>> stages, move on to acceptance and try to deal with what is really
>>> happening, the better, IMO.
Yes again.
>>> The sooner we get through the denial, anger, bargaining and depression
>>> stages, move on to acceptance and try to deal with what is really
>>> happening, the better, IMO.
>>
>> I was going to vote remain right up till the day before the referendum,
>> then changed my mind, but I'm very uncomfortable with many of my fellow
>> travellers, and didn't vote that way for the same reasons as them. I
>> probably represent the nation really well. 48% of me wanted to vote
>> remain, 52% voted leave. I also live in a three way marginal
I too am very uncomfortable about fellow travellers - mainly those who
voted leave for reasons to do with immigration, which the media at least
(I sadly have no real way of knowing) have made out to be the main
reason for leave voting. (I so voted for reasons of autonomy - I would
say sovereignty, but that word has become tainted, by those who talk
about "British soil" and wave the flag and mention the Falklands and
such.) I too thought there was much good about the EU. (I must say it
hasn't been too evident since, but I do find that understandable.)
>> constituency, and have no party loyalties. Decisions, decisions.
>
>Steve, I think you're the first person I've found who reflects my own
>ambivalence. I tried very hard to find objective evidence on either
>side without success. I voted Remain because of the obvious financial
>costs of the leaving process: the longer term benefits/cost of its
>consequences seem to me to be unquantifiable but there can be no doubt
>that the immediate and ongoing costs of untangling everything will be
There will certainly be high administrative costs. I think they could be
made not _that_ high if we make most things "carry on as we were, but
call them British/English laws" - which in most cases, is actually
already the case; however, in a lot of cases, there will be sufficient
people wanting to tweak that it won't happen like that. (Actually I
think it will for a majority of legislation, simply because of the
volume of it there is, but still.)
>very high. I don't think the UK can afford this at a time when public
>service provision is so depleted and market solutions are so clearly
>inadequate.
I agree with what you say there. (I'm not sure why market solutions, if
by that you mean private rather than public, have much to do with EU
versus UK, but I certainly agree that privatisation - for want of a
better word - has little advantage and plenty of disadvantage.)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Sarcasm: Barbed ire
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
John Ashby
Apr 21, 2017, 4:21:49 PM4/21/17
to
On 21/04/17 20:41, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> I don't think manifestos (or whatever the plural is) have any legal
> standing; a sitting government can (with a few limitations) do whatever
> it likes. It can get into trouble with a very blatant going against its
> last manifesto, if enough MPs (of its own and other parties) think it is
> a bad idea, as happened
There is a constitutional understanding that the House of Lords will not
> I don't think manifestos (or whatever the plural is) have any legal
> standing; a sitting government can (with a few limitations) do whatever
> it likes. It can get into trouble with a very blatant going against its
> last manifesto, if enough MPs (of its own and other parties) think it is
> a bad idea, as happened
9finally) oppose a measure that was in the governing party's manifesto,
but could vote down a measure introduced ab initio.
john
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 21, 2017, 4:23:53 PM4/21/17
to
In message <odakp2$vrc$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, krw <k...@whitnet.uk> writes:
>On 20/04/2017 16:35, Sid Nuncius wrote; my response is lower down:
>> The Remain campaign was a pathetic, ill-judged disaster,
>
>As I drove around a part of Wales recently I was struck by the signs
>telling me that the new infrastructure is EU funded. Yet did anyone
>point at all this when asking us to remain (or leave)? And remind me
>how much do the Welsh value all that spending?
>
The argument put by Leave - though IMO surprisingly little aired, and
>On 20/04/2017 16:35, Sid Nuncius wrote; my response is lower down:
>> The Remain campaign was a pathetic, ill-judged disaster,
>
>As I drove around a part of Wales recently I was struck by the signs
>telling me that the new infrastructure is EU funded. Yet did anyone
>point at all this when asking us to remain (or leave)? And remind me
>how much do the Welsh value all that spending?
>
certainly not very competently - was that such funding would continue,
but come from Britain rather than the EU: in other words, rather than us
(and other EU members) paying into central pots, which then paid for
projects in various parts of the EU (including here), we'd just cut both
pipes of money, and splice them to each other at the channel
(metaphorically).
The concern, of course, is that there would always be people who want to
_vary_ who gets what: Welsh infrastructure projects, for example, might
be deemed (by whom? of course) less deserving than something else. (Of
course, they might be deemed _more_ deserving and thus actually get
more; however, I think _most_ things will get less, because of fewer
funds being available as we go forward [which I think would have
happened anyway, for the same reason; same also applying to EU-funded
projects in the rest of EU. Within the UK, things might be slightly
_worse_ in the short term because of the undeniable extra costs of
administering Brexit].)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 21, 2017, 4:25:57 PM4/21/17
to
In message <oddpev$9kd$1...@dont-email.me>, John Ashby
I was thinking more the other way round: when a _government_ decides
_not_ to do something that _was_ in its last manifesto, it isn't
_always_ seen as a Bad Thing - sometimes even a Good Thing, if
circumstances have changed.
_not_ to do something that _was_ in its last manifesto, it isn't
_always_ seen as a Bad Thing - sometimes even a Good Thing, if
circumstances have changed.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Sarcasm: Barbed ire
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Steve Hague
Apr 22, 2017, 4:35:21 AM4/22/17
to
?
>>
> The argument put by Leave - though IMO surprisingly little aired, and
> certainly not very competently - was that such funding would continue,
> but come from Britain rather than the EU: in other words, rather than us
> (and other EU members) paying into central pots, which then paid for
> projects in various parts of the EU (including here), we'd just cut both
> pipes of money, and splice them to each other at the channel
> (metaphorically).
>
> The concern, of course, is that there would always be people who want to
> _vary_ who gets what: Welsh infrastructure projects, for example, might
> be deemed (by whom? of course) less deserving than something else. (Of
> course, they might be deemed _more_ deserving and thus actually get
> more; however, I think _most_ things will get less, because of fewer
> funds being available as we go forward [which I think would have
> happened anyway, for the same reason; same also applying to EU-funded
> projects in the rest of EU. Within the UK, things might be slightly
> _worse_ in the short term because of the undeniable extra costs of
> administering Brexit].)
It's my considered opinion that things will get pretty dire immediately
>>
> The argument put by Leave - though IMO surprisingly little aired, and
> certainly not very competently - was that such funding would continue,
> but come from Britain rather than the EU: in other words, rather than us
> (and other EU members) paying into central pots, which then paid for
> projects in various parts of the EU (including here), we'd just cut both
> pipes of money, and splice them to each other at the channel
> (metaphorically).
>
> The concern, of course, is that there would always be people who want to
> _vary_ who gets what: Welsh infrastructure projects, for example, might
> be deemed (by whom? of course) less deserving than something else. (Of
> course, they might be deemed _more_ deserving and thus actually get
> more; however, I think _most_ things will get less, because of fewer
> funds being available as we go forward [which I think would have
> happened anyway, for the same reason; same also applying to EU-funded
> projects in the rest of EU. Within the UK, things might be slightly
> _worse_ in the short term because of the undeniable extra costs of
> administering Brexit].)
post Brexit, but in the long term we will be better off, possibly not in
my lifetime.
Steve
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 22, 2017, 9:09:32 AM4/22/17
to
In message <odf4k7$c38$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Steve Hague
<steveh...@gmail.com> writes:
[]
immediately post Brexit*, in terms of being more expensive - though I
wouldn't have gone so far as dire; and I think the time to better off,
or at least to the same, will be around three to ten years, which I
certainly hope is _within_ _my_ lifetime.
*Should Brexit be capitalised? Probably, as it derives from Britain
which should; I'm just constantly aware of the inclination to add more
capitals than are really necessary, everywhere.
<steveh...@gmail.com> writes:
[]
>It's my considered opinion that things will get pretty dire immediately
>post Brexit, but in the long term we will be better off, possibly not
>in my lifetime.
>Steve
>
I suppose I'm a bit of an optimist. _I_ too think things will get worse
>post Brexit, but in the long term we will be better off, possibly not
>in my lifetime.
>Steve
>
immediately post Brexit*, in terms of being more expensive - though I
wouldn't have gone so far as dire; and I think the time to better off,
or at least to the same, will be around three to ten years, which I
certainly hope is _within_ _my_ lifetime.
*Should Brexit be capitalised? Probably, as it derives from Britain
which should; I'm just constantly aware of the inclination to add more
capitals than are really necessary, everywhere.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Don't play "stupid" with me... I'm better at it.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Btms
Apr 22, 2017, 9:30:47 AM4/22/17
to
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <odf4k7$c38$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Steve Hague
> <steveh...@gmail.com> writes:
> []
>> It's my considered opinion that things will get pretty dire immediately
>> post Brexit, but in the long term we will be better off, possibly not
>> in my lifetime.
>> Steve
>>
> I suppose I'm a bit of an optimist. _I_ too think things will get worse
> immediately post Brexit*, in terms of being more expensive - though I
> wouldn't have gone so far as dire; and I think the time to better off,
> or at least to the same, will be around three to ten years, which I
> certainly hope is _within_ _my_ lifetime.
>
> *Should Brexit be capitalised? Probably, as it derives from Britain
> which should; I'm just constantly aware of the inclination to add more
> capitals than are really necessary, everywhere.
But things got more expensive when we joined Europe. I am not suggesting
> In message <odf4k7$c38$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Steve Hague
> <steveh...@gmail.com> writes:
> []
>> It's my considered opinion that things will get pretty dire immediately
>> post Brexit, but in the long term we will be better off, possibly not
>> in my lifetime.
>> Steve
>>
> I suppose I'm a bit of an optimist. _I_ too think things will get worse
> immediately post Brexit*, in terms of being more expensive - though I
> wouldn't have gone so far as dire; and I think the time to better off,
> or at least to the same, will be around three to ten years, which I
> certainly hope is _within_ _my_ lifetime.
>
> *Should Brexit be capitalised? Probably, as it derives from Britain
> which should; I'm just constantly aware of the inclination to add more
> capitals than are really necessary, everywhere.
a reversal but it just seems to me ordinary folk seem to pay regardless.
Just listening to A. answers from Truro. Gist was why did Cornwall voted
exit when Cornwall benefits so hugely from Europe. It doesn't feel like
that in Cornwall. Money is spent there but locals don't experience much
benefit. Anecdotally, many small businesses* report closing because the
requirements of functioning in accordance with EC rules and making it
financially viable is not possible. Fisherman say they can often only land
80 fish a day. If I fish for sea bass off the rocks, I am only allowed
three (never caught any actually).
The B&B trade is drying up because of the European rules that demand hotel
style hospitality. But plenty of work for inspectors to check. And so it
goes on. Not saying it is all wrong but many Cornish folk feel got at and
little from the money. Oddly, it all looks very different to me in
Scotland. The EC benefits are very observable in the Highlands.
*farmers may be paid not to farm and maybe they will suffer.
Peter Percival
Apr 22, 2017, 10:02:21 AM4/22/17
to
Btms wrote:
> But things got more expensive when we joined Europe.
What is this Europe that we joined, and when did we join it?
> But things got more expensive when we joined Europe.
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
krw
Apr 22, 2017, 10:32:54 AM4/22/17
to
On 22/04/2017 14:27, Btms wrote; my response is lower down:
> But things got more expensive when we joined Europe.
Things got more expensive when we decimalised. Not sure that is a
> But things got more expensive when we joined Europe.
reason for reversal.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
tiny.cc/KRWpics
Btms
Apr 22, 2017, 11:13:20 AM4/22/17
to
Peter Percival <peterxp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Btms wrote:
>
>> But things got more expensive when we joined Europe.
>
> What is this Europe that we joined, and when did we join it?
>
A popular euphemism m'lud. 😜
> Btms wrote:
>
>> But things got more expensive when we joined Europe.
>
> What is this Europe that we joined, and when did we join it?
>
Btms
Apr 22, 2017, 11:17:55 AM4/22/17
to
krw <k...@whitnet.uk> wrote:
> On 22/04/2017 14:27, Btms wrote; my response is lower down:
>> But things got more expensive when we joined Europe.
>
> Things got more expensive when we decimalised. Not sure that is a
> reason for reversal.
>
>
>
I think there was a time many would have disagreed. However, I was living
> On 22/04/2017 14:27, Btms wrote; my response is lower down:
>> But things got more expensive when we joined Europe.
>
> Things got more expensive when we decimalised. Not sure that is a
> reason for reversal.
>
>
>
in Penang back then, so t a bit of a whoosh moment. Main shock on return
to UK was the price of prawns 😍 and the loss of Rolls Royce.
Fenny
Apr 22, 2017, 4:05:48 PM4/22/17
to
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 13:27:36 -0000 (UTC), Btms <po...@thetames.me.uk>
wrote:
>The B&B trade is drying up
Is this freeing up housing stock for the locals?
--
Fenny
wrote:
>The B&B trade is drying up
--
Fenny
Btms
Apr 22, 2017, 4:26:35 PM4/22/17
to
Sam Plusnet
Apr 22, 2017, 7:56:58 PM4/22/17
to
Are you sure you packed it?
--
Sam Plusnet
Anne B
Apr 23, 2017, 3:31:31 AM4/23/17
to
On 21/04/2017 20:52, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <odae0u$o5d$1...@dont-email.me>, Anne B
> In message <odae0u$o5d$1...@dont-email.me>, Anne B
>> Basically, I only vote so that the chance of the party/parties I like
>> least getting in is marginally reduced.
>
>> least getting in is marginally reduced.
>
> So you vote against rather than for?
That's not what I said. I don't vote because I think I have any choice
about policies, or that my vote counts in the least. I only bother to
vote at all, really, because not voting is tantamount to endorsing the
other lot (or, in this part of the country, all the other lots). Also
because it's my democratic duty and because if I didn't vote I wouldn't
be entitled to complain about the government/council.
Having made the decision to vote, I then pick the party with whose
manifesto I am most in agreement.
This does not, however, mean that I agree with everything in that
manifesto, and I resent being told that because I voted for the 99
things I do agree with, I also voted for the 1 I object to.
Anne B
Sid Nuncius
Apr 24, 2017, 2:49:51 AM4/24/17
to
On 23/04/2017 08:31, Anne B wrote:
> Having made the decision to vote, I then pick the party with whose
> manifesto I am most in agreement.
>
> This does not, however, mean that I agree with everything in that
> manifesto, and I resent being told that because I voted for the 99
> things I do agree with, I also voted for the 1 I object to.
I agree. that is always a problem, and one which politicians exploit.
> Having made the decision to vote, I then pick the party with whose
> manifesto I am most in agreement.
>
> This does not, however, mean that I agree with everything in that
> manifesto, and I resent being told that because I voted for the 99
> things I do agree with, I also voted for the 1 I object to.
However, I once heard (I think) Ed Koch, former mayor of New York quoted
as saying, "If you agree with me on seven issues out of twelve, then
back me. If you agree with me on twelve issues out of twelve, see a
psychiatrist." It's simplistic and overstated, of course, but there's
truth in it. People seldom agree on everything and in a democracy we
have to put up with some things we don't like - but at least we're able
to say that we don;t like them and try to get them changed.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Serena Blanchflower
Apr 24, 2017, 5:12:44 AM4/24/17
to
On 20/04/2017 10:41, Sid Nuncius wrote:
> On 19/04/2017 12:17, BrritSki wrote:
>>>
>>> I've seen stuff about a reversal of Brexit being possible.
>>
>> Anything's possible, but it is highly unlikely.
>
> It's not going to happen. I voted remain, albeit while holding my nose
> at a good deal of what I was voting to remain part of. I wish we
> weren't leaving the EU...but we are. I think going on about how we can
> change that, however much we dislike it, just makes us look silly
> It's not going to happen. I voted remain, albeit while holding my nose
> at a good deal of what I was voting to remain part of. I wish we
> weren't leaving the EU...but we are. I think going on about how we can
> change that, however much we dislike it, just makes us look silly
> because we can't. Whatever arguments are put forward about the process
> or what people really wanted, it's too bloody late, whether they have
> any merit or not.
>
> or what people really wanted, it's too bloody late, whether they have
> any merit or not.
>
> I think leaving the EU will be very bad for Britain and bad for general
> stability in Europe - but that's tough. I still don't like it (to put it
> mildly) but I just have to hope I'm wrong about the consequences and try
> to make sure that when we do leave, any damage is minimised.
>
> In the same way, I wish Donald Trump weren't President of the USA - but
> he is. However much some people may wish it were different, he will be
> there for four years, God help us all, and there's no point in
> to make sure that when we do leave, any damage is minimised.
>
> In the same way, I wish Donald Trump weren't President of the USA - but
> he is. However much some people may wish it were different, he will be
> there for four years, God help us all, and there's no point in
> daydreaming about him being indicted or anything else.
>
>
> The sooner we get through the denial, anger, bargaining and depression
> stages, move on to acceptance and try to deal with what is really
> happening, the better, IMO.
>
<languid wave>
> stages, move on to acceptance and try to deal with what is really
> happening, the better, IMO.
>
My sig-quote was chosen for me by TB but does seem rather apposite...
--
Best wishes, Serena
We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.
(Martin Luther King Jr.)
Penny
Sep 14, 2021, 7:16:58 AM9/14/21
to
This is not an entry to the follow-up to the oldest thread.
I recently managed to mess up my Agent-on-a-stick so it no longer preserves
unread or Kept messages. Having failed to sort this out by playing with
settings I thought I'd create a new one from an old copy, plainly made
around the time I upgraded this PC to Win10. I'm hoping this one is not
similarly corrupt (I think I have another if it is).
Anyway, I met this and it reminded me...
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:05:47 +0100, Fenny <um...@removethis.onetel.net>
scrawled in the dust...
I recently read an 'open letter to Airbnb' (google will find it with those
terms) it's written from an American viewpoint but is possibly even more
pertinent on our little island.
The original idea of people renting rooms in their home on a temporary
basis - as many B&Bs used to do before they were persuaded to turn into
mini hotels - with a single booking website, seemed like a good one.
Now, there are holiday companies out-bidding locals and buying up homes in
order to let them on Airbnb, thereby pushing up house prices for people who
need to live in the area full time.
The suggestion is, Airbnb should put a limit on the number of nights per
year a host can let their room(s).
I read this shortly after D#2, who does want us to have a meet up for our
usual NotXmas (not held last year), but for health and Covid reasons feels
a hotel is out of the question, announced she had booked a house on Airbnb.
It's a new-build on a housing estate in Telford (to save me from a long
drive).
I was already wary of this booking. The 'host' says it sleeps 9 but I
notice from the photos there are just 6 chairs around the dining table
which doesn't look big enough for more. I may take a camping table and
folding stools.
The benefit of staying in an hotel, to my mind, is that nobody has to cook,
and it is usually possible to find places to eat which suit everyone.*
Covid has changed this as none of us really fancy eating out inside - by
the end of next month it would be unpleasant to eat outside.
*D#2's family has the most extreme dietary requirements and she will have
to be the cook, if only to police the possibilities of cross-contamination.
in the kitchen.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
I recently managed to mess up my Agent-on-a-stick so it no longer preserves
unread or Kept messages. Having failed to sort this out by playing with
settings I thought I'd create a new one from an old copy, plainly made
around the time I upgraded this PC to Win10. I'm hoping this one is not
similarly corrupt (I think I have another if it is).
Anyway, I met this and it reminded me...
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:05:47 +0100, Fenny <um...@removethis.onetel.net>
scrawled in the dust...
terms) it's written from an American viewpoint but is possibly even more
pertinent on our little island.
The original idea of people renting rooms in their home on a temporary
basis - as many B&Bs used to do before they were persuaded to turn into
mini hotels - with a single booking website, seemed like a good one.
Now, there are holiday companies out-bidding locals and buying up homes in
order to let them on Airbnb, thereby pushing up house prices for people who
need to live in the area full time.
The suggestion is, Airbnb should put a limit on the number of nights per
year a host can let their room(s).
I read this shortly after D#2, who does want us to have a meet up for our
usual NotXmas (not held last year), but for health and Covid reasons feels
a hotel is out of the question, announced she had booked a house on Airbnb.
It's a new-build on a housing estate in Telford (to save me from a long
drive).
I was already wary of this booking. The 'host' says it sleeps 9 but I
notice from the photos there are just 6 chairs around the dining table
which doesn't look big enough for more. I may take a camping table and
folding stools.
The benefit of staying in an hotel, to my mind, is that nobody has to cook,
and it is usually possible to find places to eat which suit everyone.*
Covid has changed this as none of us really fancy eating out inside - by
the end of next month it would be unpleasant to eat outside.
*D#2's family has the most extreme dietary requirements and she will have
to be the cook, if only to police the possibilities of cross-contamination.
in the kitchen.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Chris
Sep 14, 2021, 12:04:24 PM9/14/21
to
Casterbridge”. :)
Hope you manage to sort this out.
Sincerely Chris
Nick Odell
Sep 14, 2021, 2:07:00 PM9/14/21
to
On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 12:16:55 +0100, Penny <sp...@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
wrote:
I don't necessarily think that it is up to AirB'n'B to impose
arbitrary limits but I do think it is their job to enforce the limits
imposed by local laws. Many places around the world - Berlin and
Vancouver come immediately to mind - have very strict rules but
property owners either ignore them or cheat.
I won't use AirB'n'B anywhere because whilst they have the resources
to know about local laws and block unlawful lets, they don't. And it's
not my job to have to pore over legislation in multiple destinations
and languages to find out whether the product or service I am being
offered is lawful where I'm being offered it. Yes, I know we all buy
the odd thing of dubious provenance but not many of them have the
potential to be the direct cause of the homeless people I have to step
over when walking in the street in those places.
As for Agent-on-a-Stick: when I had my Agent upset a little while ago
I eventually found that replacing AGENT.INI did the trick. If you
hadn't launched it since the problem arose it would have been possible
to replace it by renaming the agentini.bak that lurks in the same
folder. IIRC, completely deleting the agent.ini files and their
variants (or renaming them in case you decide you might want them back
again) will force Agent to create a new, default AGENT.INI. If you
would like me to email you my currently working agent.ini file in
order to try a transplant, just let me know.
Nick
wrote:
arbitrary limits but I do think it is their job to enforce the limits
imposed by local laws. Many places around the world - Berlin and
Vancouver come immediately to mind - have very strict rules but
property owners either ignore them or cheat.
I won't use AirB'n'B anywhere because whilst they have the resources
to know about local laws and block unlawful lets, they don't. And it's
not my job to have to pore over legislation in multiple destinations
and languages to find out whether the product or service I am being
offered is lawful where I'm being offered it. Yes, I know we all buy
the odd thing of dubious provenance but not many of them have the
potential to be the direct cause of the homeless people I have to step
over when walking in the street in those places.
As for Agent-on-a-Stick: when I had my Agent upset a little while ago
I eventually found that replacing AGENT.INI did the trick. If you
hadn't launched it since the problem arose it would have been possible
to replace it by renaming the agentini.bak that lurks in the same
folder. IIRC, completely deleting the agent.ini files and their
variants (or renaming them in case you decide you might want them back
again) will force Agent to create a new, default AGENT.INI. If you
would like me to email you my currently working agent.ini file in
order to try a transplant, just let me know.
Nick
Penny
Sep 15, 2021, 5:46:21 AM9/15/21
to
On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 19:06:57 +0100, Nick Odell
<ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com> scrawled in the dust...
>On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 12:16:55 +0100, Penny <sp...@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
>wrote:
>
>>This is not an entry to the follow-up to the oldest thread.
>>I recently managed to mess up my Agent-on-a-stick so it no longer preserves
>>unread or Kept messages. Having failed to sort this out by playing with
>>settings I thought I'd create a new one from an old copy, plainly made
>>around the time I upgraded this PC to Win10. I'm hoping this one is not
>>similarly corrupt (I think I have another if it is).
[...]
last had a problem with Agent.
This version seems to be working OK... I just need to reorganise the
short-cut bar so I don't hit the wrong buttons.
<ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com> scrawled in the dust...
>On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 12:16:55 +0100, Penny <sp...@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
>wrote:
>
>>This is not an entry to the follow-up to the oldest thread.
>>I recently managed to mess up my Agent-on-a-stick so it no longer preserves
>>unread or Kept messages. Having failed to sort this out by playing with
>>settings I thought I'd create a new one from an old copy, plainly made
>>around the time I upgraded this PC to Win10. I'm hoping this one is not
>>similarly corrupt (I think I have another if it is).
>As for Agent-on-a-Stick: when I had my Agent upset a little while ago
>I eventually found that replacing AGENT.INI did the trick. If you
>hadn't launched it since the problem arose it would have been possible
>to replace it by renaming the agentini.bak that lurks in the same
>folder. IIRC, completely deleting the agent.ini files and their
>variants (or renaming them in case you decide you might want them back
>again) will force Agent to create a new, default AGENT.INI. If you
>would like me to email you my currently working agent.ini file in
>order to try a transplant, just let me know.
Thanks, Nick, I'd forgotten about the ini file - it's many years since I
>I eventually found that replacing AGENT.INI did the trick. If you
>hadn't launched it since the problem arose it would have been possible
>to replace it by renaming the agentini.bak that lurks in the same
>folder. IIRC, completely deleting the agent.ini files and their
>variants (or renaming them in case you decide you might want them back
>again) will force Agent to create a new, default AGENT.INI. If you
>would like me to email you my currently working agent.ini file in
>order to try a transplant, just let me know.
last had a problem with Agent.
This version seems to be working OK... I just need to reorganise the
short-cut bar so I don't hit the wrong buttons.
0 new messages