They may not buy into it quite yet but if a losers revote is confirmed then there will be a vast amount of publicity given to the fact that they have been ignored and that they are being told to go back and vote again because they got it wrong the first time. A month or so of that should bring things nicely to boiling point.
"losers revote" is a bit infantile, isn't it? Nice Leaver approach to the use of the apostrophe, mind. As for "nicely to boiling point," referring back to my suggestion of the possibility of racist violence, I will just invite readers of this site to consider what it says about you.
Losers' Revote is a far more accurate description than People's Vote. The losers want another chance because they didn't like the result of the first one. That is it.
And why would any violence be 'racist'? That is just you showing your own bigotry and ignorance once again. Anyone you disagree with must, by definition be a racist. You Remain fanatics never learn.
I wouldn't call it a loser's revoke. May's triggering of A50 is now a completely failed project - we need to reset things and then work out whether it's possible and worth trying to leave a second time.
I am damn sure you wouldn't be saying that if Remain had won and then the EU started causing problems for us. Then it would have been 'we had the vote that is it'.
Which way did I vote? Hint it wasn't for remain...
Apologies. But the point still stands even if it doesn't apply to you. A Remain vote would have 'settled the issue for our lifetimes' as we were told prior to the vote. And that would have been the case no matter how bad things got with the EU. Particularly with a 52:48 vote for Remain. It would have frightened the politicians too much for them to risk it again.
So what we have here is exactly as I called it - a losers' revote. And if we vote 'the right way' as far as they are concerned that will be it. Finished.
It really wouldn’t. If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we’d be talking about a second referendum, the Tories would have been led by a Brexiteer, and Farage would be eyeing a seat in Parliament.
Not a cat in hell's chance. Oh there would have been people moaning about it (Not me as I made a public vow on here that if Remain won I would not support a revote under any circumstances) but the same old voices would have made it clear that we ha the vote and that was it. At least for another 41 years.
They may not buy into it quite yet but if a losers revote is confirmed then there will be a vast amount of publicity given to the fact that they have been ignored and that they are being told to go back and vote again because they got it wrong the first time. A month or so of that should bring things nicely to boiling point.
"losers revote" is a bit infantile, isn't it? Nice Leaver approach to the use of the apostrophe, mind. As for "nicely to boiling point," referring back to my suggestion of the possibility of racist violence, I will just invite readers of this site to consider what it says about you.
Losers' Revote is a far more accurate description than People's Vote. The losers want another chance because they didn't like the result of the first one. That is it.
And why would any violence be 'racist'? That is just you showing your own bigotry and ignorance once again. Anyone you disagree with must, by definition be a racist. You Remain fanatics never learn.
I wouldn't call it a loser's revoke. May's triggering of A50 is now a completely failed project - we need to reset things and then work out whether it's possible and worth trying to leave a second time.
I am damn sure you wouldn't be saying that if Remain had won and then the EU started causing problems for us. Then it would have been 'we had the vote that is it'.
Which way did I vote? Hint it wasn't for remain...
Apologies. But the point still stands even if it doesn't apply to you. A Remain vote would have 'settled the issue for our lifetimes' as we were told prior to the vote. And that would have been the case no matter how bad things got with the EU. Particularly with a 52:48 vote for Remain. It would have frightened the politicians too much for them to risk it again.
So what we have here is exactly as I called it - a losers' revote. And if we vote 'the right way' as far as they are concerned that will be it. Finished.
It really wouldn’t. If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we’d be talking about a second referendum, the Tories would have been led by a Brexiteer, and Farage would be eyeing a seat in Parliament.
It's just about the only thing Osbourne was ever right about. A referendum was always going to result in the EU becoming the only topic of conversation in politics...
Further to my post on the previous thread about the problem facing some people starting before working age:
"An infant school has employed someone to change nappies because so many pupils are not toilet-trained, a councillor has said.
Chris Towe, Walsall Council's portfolio holder for education, said: "We are talking about five-year-olds here and it is not acceptable. ... Head teachers had also raised concerns that school starters could not use cutlery or dress themselves. ... Schools told him many pupils could not communicate or hold a pencil properly. "
And what does "remain" mean - does it mean no more EU laws or treaties without referendums - if no deal is a temporary status then so is remain.
Remain means the UK remaining a full member of the EU. There is a quite clear definition of EU membership.
Your regular reminder that (1) The concessions obtained by Cameron in 2016 will not subsist in the event of A50 revocation. Direct quote from EUCO 1/16: "It is understood that, should the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom be for it to leave the European Union, the set of arrangements referred to in paragraph 2 above will cease to exist." (2) Nobody voted for that sort of remain in the referendum. Not one. It wasn't on the ballot. (3) There are different sorts of remain. Who knew? Let's call them Premain and Cameremain, by the way. (4) Responding to a leave vote with a requirement to choose between a fairly remainy leave and an extreme remain would be, well courageous, Minister (5) Take away the vote and the fairly remainy leave option, and go straight to extremist remain? Go straight to a post-democratic country, do not collect £200, and may God have mercy on your soul.
We might end up with a Hobson’s choice: national humiliation and ostracism versus national absorption and oblivion.
David Cameron's arrogance has unleashed a dirty, horrible side of British politics. Those with traditionally European liberal values shouldn't give into violence and intimidation and those here frothing about the idea of it should tread carefully, I don't think you appreciate how dangerous this is.
England has gone crazy
Things seem quite peaceful here in the upstairs bar of The Victoria pub in Bayswater. Methinks you’re overreacting somewhat.
Maybe put your phone down and enjoy a pint with your mates then? Like a normal person?
Further to my post on the previous thread about the problem facing some people starting before working age:
"An infant school has employed someone to change nappies because so many pupils are not toilet-trained, a councillor has said.
Chris Towe, Walsall Council's portfolio holder for education, said: "We are talking about five-year-olds here and it is not acceptable. ... Head teachers had also raised concerns that school starters could not use cutlery or dress themselves. ... Schools told him many pupils could not communicate or hold a pencil properly. "
Such children can succeed: but the odds are stacked against them.
But how can we: *) help such children? *) help parents so we get fewer such children in the future?
Sorry to bring this back to the B-word but this is the sort of real problem the country should be focused on rather than spending the past 3 years obsessed with Europe.
They may not buy into it quite yet but if a losers revote is confirmed then there will be a vast amount of publicity given to the fact that they have been ignored and that they are being told to go back and vote again because they got it wrong the first time. A month or so of that should bring things nicely to boiling point.
"losers revote" is a bit infantile, isn't it? Nice Leaver approach to the use of the apostrophe, mind. As for "nicely to boiling point," referring back to my suggestion of the possibility of racist violence, I will just invite readers of this site to consider what it says about you.
Losers' Revote is
And why would any violence be 'racist'? That is just you showing your own bigotry and ignorance once again. Anyone you disagree with must, by definition be a racist. You Remain fanatics never learn.
I wouldn't call it a
I am damn sure you wouldn't be saying that if Remain had won and then the EU started causing problems for us. Then it would have been 'we had the vote that is it'.
Which way did I vote? Hint it wasn't for remain...
Apologies. But the point still stands even if it doesn't apply to you. A Remain vote would have 'settled the issue for our lifetimes' as we were told prior to the vote. And that would have been the case no matter how bad things got with the EU. Particularly with a 52:48 vote for Remain. It would have frightened the politicians too much for them to risk it again.
So what we have here is exactly as I called it - a losers' revote. And if we vote 'the right way' as far as they are concerned that will be it. Finished.
It really wouldn’t. If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we’d be talking about a second referendum, the Tories would have been led by a Brexiteer, and Farage would be eyeing a seat in Parliament.
Not a cat in hell's chance. Oh there would have been people moaning about it (Not me as I made a public vow on here that if Remain won I would not support a revote under any circumstances) but the same old voices would have made it clear that we ha the vote and that was it. At least for another 41 years.
You’re significantly underestimating the political significance of 16 million people voting Leave and losing. It would have made the Tories think that becoming the Brexit party would win them a landslide in a FPTP election.
Further to my post on the previous thread about the problem facing some people starting before working age:
"An infant school has employed someone to change nappies because so many pupils are not toilet-trained, a councillor has said.
Chris Towe, Walsall Council's portfolio holder for education, said: "We are talking about five-year-olds here and it is not acceptable. ... Head teachers had also raised concerns that school starters could not use cutlery or dress themselves. ... Schools told him many pupils could not communicate or hold a pencil properly. "
Such children can succeed: but the odds are stacked against them.
But how can we: *) help such children? *) help parents so we get fewer such children in the future?
Sorry to bring this back to the B-word but this is the sort of real problem the country should be focused on rather than spending the past 3 years obsessed with Europe.
I agree. Yet for many (4?) decades the functional innumeracy and illiteracy levels have remained at a fairly consistent level, with only minor variations. Whatever we do doesn't seem to help these children much.
The DUP seem to think "confidence and supply" means confidently supplying insults.
Part of the reason the EU have been able to push this so strongly (although it’s worth noting they’d have attempted to do so in any event) is because they knew May was in a weak position.
If she’d a majority of 100 following GE2017 then No Deal would have been a proper come-and-have-a-go-if-you-think-you’re-hard-enough threat, rather than just rhetoric.
Remain/soft Brexit or further referenda would have been totally off the table. In the event of No Deal, the UK would have had the votes to take radical measures to undercut the EU and boost the economy.
David Cameron's arrogance has unleashed a dirty, horrible side of British politics. Those with traditionally European liberal values shouldn't give into violence and intimidation and those here frothing about the idea of it should tread carefully, I don't think you appreciate how dangerous this is.
England has gone crazy
Things seem quite peaceful here in the upstairs bar of The Victoria pub in Bayswater. Methinks you’re overreacting somewhat.
Maybe put your phone down and enjoy a pint with your mates then? Like a normal person?
Just flown in from Derry. Mates 100 miles away. Hic.
They may not buy into it quite yet but if a losers revote is confirmed then there will be a vast amount of publicity given to the fact that they have been ignored and that they are being told to go back and vote again because they got it wrong the first time. A month or so of that should bring things nicely to boiling point.
"losers revote" is a bit infantile, isn't it? Nice Leaver approach to the use of the apostrophe, mind. As for "nicely to boiling point," referring back to my suggestion of the possibility of racist violence, I will just invite readers of this site to consider what it says about you.
Losers' Revote is a far more accurate description than People's Vote. The losers want another chance because they didn't like the result of the first one. That is it.
And why would any violence be 'racist'? That is just you showing your own bigotry and ignorance once again. Anyone you disagree with must, by definition be a racist. You Remain fanatics never learn.
I called you racist because the scenario you approvingly called "things coming nicely to the boil" was of the EDL kicking German dogs to death. But if you think that is not racist, let's not quibble about it. You seem to be happy with non-racist violence. Most people aren't.
I am not a remain fanatic. I have spent a lot of the last two years here vociferously objecting to the claim that all leavers were either motivated by xenophobia or cynically prepared to ride on the coat tails of xenophobes. Turns out I was wrong about that. And I have never prior to this year advocated, or thought desirable, a further referendum. So your claims of "fanatic" "sore loser" and so on have no traction whatever.
That is because you have no shame. The labels apply. You just refuse to see it.
It says here I have posted 6,500 odd times since December 2016. Go ahead and find evidence of Euro fanaticism in any of them. And i mean that - If you are going to make chains of ignorance and bigotry you need to make them good. "I have better things to do with my time" arguments don't actually cut it.
Further to my post on the previous thread about the problem facing some people starting before working age:
"An infant school has employed someone to change nappies because so many pupils are not toilet-trained, a councillor has said.
Chris Towe, Walsall Council's portfolio holder for education, said: "We are talking about five-year-olds here and it is not acceptable. ... Head teachers had also raised concerns that school starters could not use cutlery or dress themselves. ... Schools told him many pupils could not communicate or hold a pencil properly. "
They may not buy into it quite yet but if a losers revote is confirmed then there will be a vast amount of publicity given to the fact that they have been ignored and that they are being told to go back and vote again because they got it wrong the first time. A month or so of that should bring things nicely to boiling point.
"losers revote" is a bit inat it says about you.
Losers' Revote is
And why would any violence be 'racist'? That is just you showing your own bigotry and ignorance once again. Anyone you disagree with must, by definition be a racist. You Remain fanatics never learn.
I wouldn't call it a
I am damn sure you wouldn't be saying that if Remain had won and then the EU started causing problems for us. Then it would have been 'we had the vote that is it'.
Which way did I vote? Hint it wasn't for remain...
Apologies. But the point still stands even if it doesn't apply to you. A Remain vote would have 'settled the issue for our lifetimes' as we were told prior to the vote. And that would have been the case no matter how bad things got with the EU. Particularly with a 52:48 vote for Remain. It would have frightened the politicians too much for them to risk it again.
So what we have here is exactly as I called it - a losers' revote. And if we vote 'the right way' as far as they are concerned that will be it. Finished.
It really wouldn’t. If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we’d be talking about a second referendum, the Tories would have been led by a Brexiteer, and Farage would be eyeing a seat in Parliament.
Not a cat in hell's chance. Oh there would have been people moaning about it (Not me as I made a public vow on here that if Remain won I would not support a revote under any circumstances) but the same old voices would have made it clear that we ha the vote and that was it. At least for another 41 years.
You’re significantly underestimating the political significance of 16 million people voting Leave and losing. It would have made the Tories think that becoming the Brexit party would win them a landslide in a FPTP election.
At least if we can escape this fiasco enough people should remember what a disaster it has been for long enough to put a lid on any repetition during our lifetime.
David Cameron's arrogance has unleashed a dirty, horrible side of British politics. Those with traditionally European liberal values shouldn't give into violence and intimidation and those here frothing about the idea of it should tread carefully, I don't think you appreciate how dangerous this is.
England has gone crazy
Joining Scotland.
Scotland is fine , we want to remain in EU and no xenophobia or foreigner hating up here thank you, it is an English disease.
They may not buy into it quite yet but if a losers revote is confirmed then there will be a vast amount of publicity given to the fact that they have been ignored and that they are being told to go back and vote again because they got it wrong the first time. A month or so of that should bring things nicely to boiling point.
"losers revote" is a bit infantile, isn't it? Nice Leaver approach to the use of the apostrophe, mind. As for "nicely to boiling point," referring back to my suggestion of the possibility of racist violence, I will just invite readers of this site to consider what it says about you.
Losers' Revote is a far more accurate description than People's Vote. The losers want another chance because they didn't like the result of the first one. That is it.
And why would any violence be 'racist'? That is just you showing your own bigotry and ignorance once again. Anyone you disagree with must, by definition be a racist. You Remain fanatics never learn.
I wouldn't call it a loser's revoke. May's triggering of A50 is now a completely failed project - we need to reset things and then work out whether it's possible and worth trying to leave a second time.
I am damn sure you wouldn't be saying that if Remain had won and then the EU started causing problems for us. Then it would have been 'we had the vote that is it'.
Which way did I vote? Hint it wasn't for remain...
So what we have here is exactly as I called it - a losers' revote. And if we vote 'the right way' as far as they are concerned that will be it. Finished.
It really wouldn’t. If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we’d be talking about a second referendum, the Tories would have been led by a Brexiteer, and Farage would be eyeing a seat in Parliament.
It's just about the only thing Osbourne was ever right about. A referendum was always going to result in the EU becoming the only topic of conversation in politics...
But, the manifesto he entered Government in at the GE2010 promised the Conservatives would “not let matters rest there” (on the Lisbon Treaty) subsequently firmed up in the Bloomberg speech of 2013. So Conservative voters were inclined to take him at his word to settle the issue and stop it becoming so.
Having said that there’s no doubt in my mind that George Osborne was perfectly happy with the Lisbon Treaty and would probably have been relaxed about us joining the euro as well.
The DUP seem to think "confidence and supply" means confidently supplying insults.
Part of the reason the EU have been able to push this so strongly (although it’s worth noting they’d have attempted to do so in any event) is because they knew May was in a weak position.
If she’d a majority of 100 following GE2017 then No Deal would have been a proper come-and-have-a-go-if-you-think-you’re-hard-enough threat, rather than just rhetoric.
Remain/soft Brexit or further referenda would have been totally off the table. In the event of No Deal, the UK would have had the votes to take radical measures to undercut the EU and boost the economy.
Which is precisely why the Will of the People was to deprive May of that sort of dictatorial majority.
Further to my post on the previous thread about the problem facing some people starting before working age:
"An infant school has employed someone to change nappies because so many pupils are not toilet-trained, a councillor has said.
Chris Towe, Walsall Council's portfolio holder for education, said: "We are talking about five-year-olds here and it is not acceptable. ... Head teachers had also raised concerns that school starters could not use cutlery or dress themselves. ... Schools told him many pupils could not communicate or hold a pencil properly. "
IME, and in my area, SureStart is of more use to anxious middle-class parents such as ourselves than the parents who could really do with its help. Based on anecdotal evidence of the parents I met whilst attending, and those who did not attend. That might be different in an inner-city area, though. The same with bells on for the brilliant NCT.
They may not buy into it quite yet but if a losers revote is confirmed then there will be a vast amount of publicity given to the fact that they have been ignored and that they are being told to go back and vote again because they got it wrong the first time. A month or so of that should bring things nicely to boiling point.
"losers revote" is a bit infantile, isn't it? Nice Leaver approach to the use of the apostrophe, mind. As for "nicely to boiling point," referring back to my suggestion of the possibility of racist violence, I will just invite readers of this site to consider what it says about you.
Losers' Revote is a far more accurate description than People's Vote. The losers want another chance because they didn't like the result of the first one. That is it.
And why would any violence be 'racist'? That is just you showing your own bigotry and ignorance once again. Anyone you disagree with must, by definition be a racist. You Remain fanatics never learn.
I wouldn't call it a loser's revoke. May's triggering of A50 is now a completely failed project - we need to reset things and then work out whether it's possible and worth trying to leave a second time.
I am damn sure you wouldn't be saying that if Remain had won and then the EU started causing problems for us. Then it would have been 'we had the vote that is it'.
Which way did I vote? Hint it wasn't for remain...
Apologies. But the point still stands even if it doesn't apply to you. A Remain vote would have 'settled the issue for our lifetimes' as we were told prior to the vote. And that would have been the case no matter how bad things got with the EU. Particularly with a 52:48 vote for Remain. It would have frightened the politicians too much for them to risk it again.
So what we have here is exactly as I called it - a losers' revote. And if we vote 'the right way' as far as they are concerned that will be it. Finished.
It really wouldn’t. If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we’d be talking about a second referendum, the Tories would have been led by a Brexiteer, and Farage would be eyeing a seat in Parliament.
Without a commitment to a referendum the Tories would have probably lost office in GE2015 and Farage won his seat then.
This was coming regardless. The delta between EU aspirations and the UK political culture had simply grown too great for it to be ignored or sidelined any longer.
The DUP seem to think "confidence and supply" means confidently supplying insults.
Part of the reason the EU have been able to push this so strongly (although it’s worth noting they’d have attempted to do so in any event) is because they knew May was in a weak position.
If she’d a majority of 100 following GE2017 then No Deal would have been a proper come-and-have-a-go-if-you-think-you’re-hard-enough threat, rather than just rhetoric.
Remain/soft Brexit or further referenda would have been totally off the table. In the event of No Deal, the UK would have had the votes to take radical measures to undercut the EU and boost the economy.
But by electing a hung parliament the British people showed that they had no wish to pursue an aggressive anti-EU agenda. The Tories failed to learn that lesson and everything that has happened since flows from that.
They may not buy into it quite yet but if a losers revote is confirmed then there will be a vast amount of publicity given to the fact that they have been ignored and that they are being told to go back and vote again because they got it wrong the first time. A month or so of that should bring things nicely to boiling point.
"losers revote" is a bit infantile, isn't it? Nice Leaver approach to the use of the apostrophe, mind. As for "nicely to boiling point," referring back to my suggestion of the possibility of racist violence, I will just invite readers of this site to consider what it says about you.
Losers' Revote is a far more accurate description than People's Vote. The losers want another chance because they didn't like the result of the first one. That is it.
And why would any violence be 'racist'? That is just you showing your own bigotry and ignorance once again. Anyone you disagree with must, by definition be a racist. You Remain fanatics never learn.
I called you racist because the scenario you approvingly called "things coming nicely to the boil" was of the EDL kicking German dogs to death. But if you think that is not racist, let's not quibble about it. You seem to be happy with non-racist violence. Most people aren't.
I am not a remain fanatic. I have spent a lot of the last two years here vociferously objecting to the claim that all leavers were either motivated by xenophobia or cynically prepared to ride on the coat tails of xenophobes. Turns out I was wrong about that. And I have never prior to this year advocated, or thought desirable, a further referendum. So your claims of "fanatic" "sore loser" and so on have no traction whatever.
That is because you have no shame. The labels apply. You just refuse to see it.
It says here I have posted 6,500 odd times since December 2016. Go ahead and find evidence of Euro fanaticism in any of them. And i mean that - If you are going to make chains of ignorance and bigotry you need to make them good. "I have better things to do with my time" arguments don't actually cut it.
Every post from you these days exudes bigotry. You scorn those who voted Leave these days, even those who wanted to try and take into account the Remain vote and craft Brexit accordingly.
They may not buy into it quite yet but if a losers revote is confirmed then there will be a vast amount of publicity given to the fact that they have been ignored and that they are being told to go back and vote again because they got it wrong the first time. A month or so of that should bring things nicely to boiling point.
"losers revote" is a bit infantile, isn't it? Nice Leaver approach to the use of the apostrophe, mind. As for "nicely to boiling point," referring back to my suggestion of the possibility of racist violence, I will just invite readers of this site to consider what it says about you.
Losers' Revote is a far more accurate description than People's Vote. The losers want another chance because they didn't like the result of the first one. That is it.
And why would any violence be 'racist'? That is just you showing your own bigotry and ignorance once again. Anyone you disagree with must, by definition be a racist. You Remain fanatics never learn.
I wouldn't call it a loser's revoke. May's triggering of A50 is now a completely failed project - we need to reset things and then work out whether it's possible and worth trying to leave a second time.
I am damn sure you wouldn't be saying that if Remain had won and then the EU started causing problems for us. Then it would have been 'we had the vote that is it'.
Which way did I vote? Hint it wasn't for remain...
Apologies. But the point still stands even if it doesn't apply to you. A Remain vote would have 'settled the issue for our lifetimes' as we were told prior to the vote. And that would have been the case no matter how bad things got with the EU. Particularly with a 52:48 vote for Remain. It would have frightened the politicians too much for them to risk it again.
So what we have here is exactly as I called it - a losers' revote. And if we vote 'the right way' as far as they are concerned that will be it. Finished.
It really wouldn’t. If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we’d be talking about a second referendum, the Tories would have been led by a Brexiteer, and Farage would be eyeing a seat in Parliament.
Without a commitment to a referendum the Tories would have probably lost office in GE2015 and Farage won his seat then.
This was coming regardless. The delta between EU aspirations and the UK political culture had simply grown too great for it to be ignored or sidelined any longer.
Without a commitment to a referendum the Tories would have probably lost office in GE2015 and Farage won his seat then.
This was coming regardless. The delta between EU aspirations and the UK political culture had simply grown too great for it to be ignored or sidelined any longer.
I pretty much agree with that, aside from I'd change 'EU aspirations' to 'fear of EU aspirations'.
They may not buy into it quite yet but if a losers revote is confirmed then there will be a vast amount of publicity given to the fact that they have been ignored and that they are being told to go back and vote again because they got it wrong the first time. A month or so of that should bring things nicely to boiling point.
"losers revote" is a bit infantile, isn't it? Nice Leaver approach to the use of the apostrophe, mind. As for "nicely to boiling point," referring back to my suggestion of the possibility of racist violence, I will just invite readers of this site to consider what it says about you.
Losers' Revote is a far more accurate description than People's Vote. The losers want another chance because they didn't like the result of the first one. That is it.
And why would any violence be 'racist'? That is just you showing your own bigotry and ignorance once again. Anyone you disagree with must, by definition be a racist. You Remain fanatics never learn.
I wouldn't call it a loser's revoke. May's triggering of A50 is now a completely failed project - we need to reset things and then work out whether it's possible and worth trying to leave a second time.
I am damn sure you wouldn't be saying that if Remain had won and then the EU started causing problems for us. Then it would have been 'we had the vote that is it'.
Which way did I vote? Hint it wasn't for remain...
Apologies. But the point still stand will be it. Finished.
It really wouldn’t. If it had been 52-48 to Remain, we’d be talking about a second referendum, the Tories would have been led by a Brexiteer, and Farage would be eyeing a seat in Parliament.
Without a commitment to a referendum the Tories would have probably lost office in GE2015 and Farage won his seat then.
This was coming regardless. The delta between EU aspirations and the UK political culture had simply grown too great for it to be ignored or sidelined any longer.
I think without the EU referendum commitment Cameron would not have won a Tory majority but he would have had enough seats to continue the Coalition with Clegg and the LDs who would also have held more seats in the South West and Cameron would probably still be PM today
The DUP seem to think "confidence and supply" means confidently supplying insults.
Part of the reason the EU have been able to push this so strongly (although it’s worth noting they’d have attempted to do so in any event) is because they knew May was in a weak position.
If she’d a majority of 100 following GE2017 then No Deal would have been a proper come-and-have-a-go-if-you-think-you’re-hard-enough threat, rather than just rhetoric.
Remain/soft Brexit or further referenda would have been totally off the table. In the event of No Deal, the UK would have had the votes to take radical measures to undercut the EU and boost the economy.
But by electing a hung parliament the British people showed that they had no wish to pursue an aggressive anti-EU agenda. The Tories failed to learn that lesson and everything that has happened since flows from that.
Nah. Corbyn had very effectively neutralised Brexit as an issue with his promise to abide by the referendum result. If people had wanted to send a message about Brexit they would have voted for the Lib Dems.
The DUP seem to think "confidence and supply" means confidently supplying insults.
Part of the reason the EU have been able to push this so strongly (although it’s worth noting they’d have attempted to do so in any event) is because they knew May was in a weak position.
If she’d a majority of 100 following GE2017 then No Deal would have been a proper come-and-have-a-go-if-you-think-you’re-hard-enough threat, rather than just rhetoric.
Remain/soft Brexit or further referenda would have been totally off the table. In the event of No Deal, the UK would have had the votes to take radical measures to undercut the EU and boost the economy.
But by electing a hung parliament the British people showed that they had no wish to pursue an aggressive anti-EU agenda. The Tories failed to learn that lesson and everything that has happened since flows from that.
One problem adding to the whole Parliamentary Brexit deadlock talks between May and Corbyn is not so much the hardening of their red lines rather than compromising, it is in fact the hardening of the red lines of both Conservative and Labour future leadership contenders both in and outside the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet. I imagine that both May and Corbyn's team have been inundated with messages from these various individuals with their clear red lines/resignation threats?
But outside the Labour Shadow Cabinet, just look at the balancing act of future Labour hopefuls like Lisa Nandy or Yvette Cooper. Both in strong Leave constituencies, but who will require the far more strongly remain Labour membership to vote for them in a leadership contest. Surely they must all now be hoping that if Brexit is delayed or stopped, then there will be a Labour Leadership contest followed by a GE much further down the road in the future?
It’s the inverse of what’s happening with some Conservative MPs trying to guard against their right flank for a similar future contest.
Both parties are putting personal and party political aspirations above country, and want May to own and fall for the solution. Not them.
The DUP seem to think "confidence and supply" means confidently supplying insults.
Part of the reason the EU have been able to push this so strongly (although it’s worth noting they’d have attempted to do so in any event) is because they knew May was in a weak position.
If she’d a majority of 100 following GE2017 then No Deal would have been a proper come-and-have-a-go-if-you-think-you’re-hard-enough threat, rather than just rhetoric.
Remain/soft Brexit or further referenda would have been totally off the table. In the event of No Deal, the UK would have had the votes to take radical measures to undercut the EU and boost the economy.
But by electing a hung parliament the British people showed that they had no wish to pursue an aggressive anti-EU agenda. The Tories failed to learn that lesson and everything that has happened since flows from that.
Nah. Corbyn had very effectively neutralised Brexit as an issue with his promise to abide by the referendum result. If people had wanted to send a message about Brexit they would have voted for the Lib Dems.
My canvassing in 2017 says otherwise. Labour gained many many votes in London because people knew it would pursue a softer Brexit than the Tories.
I am not asking them to vote for No Deal at all. I have constantly said they should vote for Theresa May's deal.
What I am saying is that having a referendum where the options are Remain or one version of Leave disenfranchises voters who want to leave but don't like that version. The other versions aren't simply No Deal.
Ratifying the withdrawal agreement isn't "one version of Leave". It's the only version of Leave. The alternative is agreeing the same terms in chaotic circumstances. It would be dishonest to present it to people as an alternative.
... and I'm suggesting that we are only at this stage thanks to a stitch up by the political elite, which the original vote was raging against.
Deal vs Remain is ludicrous. Nothing can surprise me now, the MPs are lower than the lowest of creatures, but it is demonstrably unfair.
It doesn't disenfranchise them. It asks them to choose which of the two available options they want. Only one policy can be implemented, so it can't be a pick-and-mix offer.
One of the options got 48% last time, the other might only get half of the 52% that won, and you call that a straight up heat?! As Alan Johnson, a Remainer, said, the public would see it as crooked.
It's not worth discussing, we will have to agree to disagree
What option do you think would get the support of all the 52%?
Leave
May's deal does that... but the ERG nutcases won't accept it.
That's why Parliament shouldn't have got a vote on it.
What % of the country do you think would have been crying foul play if. after we voted to Leave, PM Cameron or May or whoever it was, negotiated a deal with the EU, cabinet agreed it, and we left?
OK, it's a reasonable view, I'll give you that.
Unfortunately, we cannot turn the clock back and Parliament does have a say. So how do you suggest we move forward from here.
Well, its difficult to say, Parliament have stitched us up.
I am not asking them to vote for No Deal at all. I have constantly said they should vote for Theresa May's deal.
What I am saying is that having a referendum where the options are Remain or one version of Leave disenfranchises voters who want to leave but don't like that version. The other versions aren't simply No Deal.
Ratifying the withdrawal agreement isn't "one version of Leave". It's the only version of Leave. The alternative is agreeing the same terms in chaotic circumstances. It would be dishonest to present it to people as an alternative.
... and I'm suggesting that we are only at this stage thanks to a stitch up by the political elite, which the original vote was raging against.
Deal vs Remain is ludicrous. Nothing can surprise me now, the MPs are lower than the lowest of creatures, but it is demonstrably unfair.
It doesn't disenfranchise them. It asks them to choose which of the two available options they want. Only one policy can be implemented, so it can't be a pick-and-mix offer.
One of the options got 48% last time, the other might only get half of the 52% that won, and you call that a straight up heat?! As Alan Johnson, a Remainer, said, the public would see it as crooked.
It's not worth discussing, we will have to agree to disagree
What option do you think would get the support of all the 52%?
Leave
May's deal does that... but the ERG nutcases won't accept it.
That's why Parliament shouldn't have got a vote on it.
What % of the country do you think would have been crying foul play if. after we voted to Leave, PM Cameron or May or whoever it was, negotiated a deal with the EU, cabinet agreed it, and we left?
OK, it's a reasonable view, I'll give you that.
Unfortunately, we cannot turn the clock back and Parliament does have a say. So how do you suggest we move forward from here.
Well, its difficult to say, Parliament have stitched us up.
A General Election perhaps?
It would get my vote. But not the required 2/3rd HoC majority unfortunately.
Among Gantz (Netanyahu's challenger and potential victor, at least on a most votes basis) policies is to prioritise English in primary schools. I must admit I failed to udnerstand the significance the first time I read that.
They may not buy into it quite yet but if a losers revote is confirmed then there will be a vast amount of publicity given to the fact that they have been ignored and that they are being told to go back and vote again because they got it wrong the first time. A month or so of that should bring things nicely to boiling point.
"losers revote" is a bit infantile, isn't it? Nice Leaver approach to the use of the apostrophe, mind. As for "nicely to boiling point," referring back to my suggestion of the possibility of racist violence, I will just invite readers of this site to consider what it says about you.
Losers' Revote is a far more accurate description than People's Vote. The losers want another chance because they didn't like the result of the first one. That is it.
And why would any violence be 'racist'? That is just you showing your own bigotry and ignorance once again. Anyone you disagree with must, by definition be a racist. You Remain fanatics never learn.
I called you racist because the scenario you approvingly called "things coming nicely to the boil" was of the EDL kicking German dogs to death. But if you think that is not racist, let's not quibble about it. You seem to be happy with non-racist violence. Most people aren't.
I am not a remain fanatic. I have spent a lot of the last two years here vociferously objecting to the claim that all leavers were either motivated by xenophobia or cynically prepared to ride on the coat tails of xenophobes. Turns out I was wrong about that. And I have never prior to this year advocated, or thought desirable, a further referendum. So your claims of "fanatic" "sore loser" and so on have no traction whatever.
That is because you have no shame. The labels apply. You just refuse to see it.
It says here I have posted 6,500 odd times since December 2016. Go ahead and find evidence of Euro fanaticism in any of them. And i mean that - If you are going to make chains of ignorance and bigotry you need to make them good. "I have better things to do with my time" arguments don't actually cut it.
Every post from you these days exudes bigotry. You scorn those who voted Leave these days, even those who wanted to try and take into account the Remain vote and craft Brexit accordingly.
Again, that is just wrong. I thought a soft and tolerable brexit was achievable in 2016 and I don't scorn anyone else who thought so. From where we are now, it isn't.
Among Gantz (Netanyahu's challenger and potential victor, at least on a most votes basis) policies is to prioritise English in primary schools. I must admit I failed to udnerstand the significance the first time I read that.
Off topic, I’m not sure based on today’s figures that May could pass a Tory-Labour Deal even if she stitched one up with Corbyn.
I could see it falling short of 300 votes.
What are you on about? Today's motion won by 420 to 110, a majority of 310. Close.
That was just for an extension, something all Remainers can unite around. And the Government numbers were utterly appalling for May: she got 130 of her MPs backing her, 97 against and over 100 abstentions.
Any deal she does with Labour won’t include a referendum (that will be a triple-thick red line for her, and Corbyn doesn’t want it either) so Labour won’t be fully behind that either. They could have 80-100 rebels on it. The SNP/LDs and TIGers also wouldn’t. Other Tories would vote it down all over again.
So.. think of a scenario where 140 Tories and 150 Labour MPs back a new Deal, and no-one else.
May would be relying on mass Tory abstentions to pass it on less than 300 votes, which would be optimistic, or it falls in which case I think we have her resignation.
The DUP seem to think "confidence and supply" means confidently supplying insults.
Part of the reason the EU have been able to push this so strongly (although it’s worth noting they’d have attempted to do so in any event) is because they knew May was in a weak position.
If she’d a majority of 100 following GE2017 then No Deal would have been a proper come-and-have-a-go-if-you-think-you’re-hard-enough threat, rather than just rhetoric.
Remain/soft Brexit or further referenda would have been totally off the table. In the event of No Deal, the UK would have had the votes to take radical measures to undercut the EU and boost the economy.
But by electing a hung parliament the British people showed that they had no wish to pursue an aggressive anti-EU agenda. The Tories failed to learn that lesson and everything that has happened since flows from that.
Nah. Corbyn had very effectively neutralised Brexit as an issue with his promise to abide by the referendum result. If people had wanted to send a message about Brexit they would have voted for the Lib Dems.
If he’d kept his commitment to Brexit very ambiguous in GE2017, he wouldn’t have deprived May of her majority.
The DUP seem to think "confidence and supply" means confidently supplying insults.
Part of the reason the EU have been able to push this so strongly (although it’s worth noting they’d have attempted to do so in any event) is because they knew May was in a weak position.
If she’d a majority of 100 following GE2017 then No Deal would have been a proper come-and-have-a-go-if-you-think-you’re-hard-enough threat, rather than just rhetoric.
Remain/soft Brexit or further referenda would have been totally off the table. In the event of No Deal, the UK would have had the votes to take radical measures to undercut the EU and boost the economy.
But by electing a hung parliament the British people showed that they had no wish to pursue an aggressive anti-EU agenda. The Tories failed to learn that lesson and everything that has happened since flows from that.
Nah. Corbyn had very effectively neutralised Brexit as an issue with his promise to abide by the referendum result. If people had wanted to send a message about Brexit they would have voted for the Lib Dems.
My canvassing in 2017 says otherwise. Labour gained many many votes in London because people knew it would pursue a softer Brexit than the Tories.
I am pretty sure you can't take one small part of the country - particularly one that was so out of line on Brexit with the rest of the country - and project that nationally. I also know many people who voted for Corbyn because May was just bloody useless and they thought the issue of Brexit was settled. I couldn't bring myself to go as far as voting for Corbyn but I sure as hell wouldn't vote for May. That 20% lead didn't evaporate because people suddenly decided to change their vote based on Brexit. It evaporated because May ran such a bloody awful campaign and alienated a huge mass of her core support over the dementia tax.
The DUP seem to think "confidence and supply" means confidently supplying insults.
Part of the reason the EU have been able to push this so strongly (although it’s worth noting they’d have attempted to do so in any event) is because they knew May was in a weak position.
If she’d a majority of 100 following GE2017 then No Deal would have been a proper come-and-have-a-go-if-you-think-you’re-hard-enough threat, rather than just rhetoric.
Remain/soft Brexit or further referenda would have been totally off the table. In the event of No Deal, the UK would have had the votes to take radical measures to undercut the EU and boost the economy.
But by electing a hung parliament the British people showed that they had no wish to pursue an aggressive anti-EU agenda. The Tories failed to learn that lesson and everything that has happened since flows from that.
Nah. Corbyn had very effectively neutralised Brexit as an issue with his promise to abide by the referendum result. If people had wanted to send a message about Brexit they would have voted for the Lib Dems.
My canvassing in 2017 says otherwise. Labour gained many many votes in London because people knew it would pursue a softer Brexit than the Tories.
I agree as a Labour voter I expected a softer Brexit . May ignored the result and carried on as if her view had gained a majority .
Led By Donkeys are projecting Nigel Fucking Farage's words on the side of the Euro Parliament building tonight
Where is there money coming from?
crowd funding. I have chucked em a few quid for all the LOLz they have given me.
Having a quick look at the crowd funding amounts, there are some large one off donations e.g. £10k. I wonder if the same people e.g. Pimlico Plumber bloke, who back "Mr Stop Brexit" are also backing this.
They may not buy into it quite yet but if a losers revote is confirmed then there will be a vast amount of publicity given to the fact that they have been ignored and that they are being told to go back and vote again because they got it wrong the first time. A month or so of that should bring things nicely to boiling point.
"losers revote" is a bit infantile, isn't it? Nice Leaver approach to the use of the apostrophe, mind. As for "nicely to boiling point," referring back to my suggestion of the possibility of racist violence, I will just invite readers of this site to consider what it says about you.
Losers' Revote is a far more accurate description than People's Vote. The losers want another chance because they didn't like the result of the first one. That is it.
And why would any violence be 'racist'? That is just you showing your own bigotry and ignorance once again. Anyone you disagree with must, by definition be a racist. You Remain fanatics never learn.
I wouldn't call it a loser's revoke. May's triggering of A50 is now a completely failed project - we need to reset things and then work out whether it's possible and worth trying to leave a second time.
I am damn sure you wouldn't be saying that if Remain had won and then the EU started causing problems for us. Then it would have been 'we had the vote that is it'.
Which way did I vote? Hint it wasn't for remain...
Apologies. But the point still stand will be it. Finished.
Without a commitment to a referendum the Tories would have probably lost office in GE2015 and Farage won his seat then.
This was coming regardless. The delta between EU aspirations and the UK political culture had simply grown too great for it to be ignored or sidelined any longer.
I think without the EU referendum commitment Cameron would not have won a Tory majority but he would have had enough seats to continue the Coalition with Clegg and the LDs who would also have held more seats in the South West and Cameron would probably still be PM today
That’s possible but it’d have been a very shaky administration. UKIP would have continued to grow, the LDs would be very sore and he wouldn’t have lasted very long in office. Certainly not a full four years. The voluntary party would have been hollowed out and virtually on strike by now.
The DUP seem to think "confidence and supply" means confidently supplying insults.
Part of the reason the EU have been able to push this so strongly (although it’s worth noting they’d have attempted to do so in any event) is because they knew May was in a weak position.
If she’d a majority of 100 following GE2017 then No Deal would have been a proper come-and-have-a-go-if-you-think-you’re-hard-enough threat, rather than just rhetoric.
Remain/soft Brexit or further referenda would have been totally off the table. In the event of No Deal, the UK would have had the votes to take radical measures to undercut the EU and boost the economy.
But by electing a hung parliament the British people showed that they had no wish to pursue an aggressive anti-EU agenda. The Tories failed to learn that lesson and everything that has happened since flows from that.
Nah. Corbyn had very effectively neutralised Brexit as an issue with his promise to abide by the referendum result. If people had wanted to send a message about Brexit they would have voted for the Lib Dems.
My colleague picked up his epilim on time as usual today, having been thoroughly fucking unimpressed with the Graun's ongoing campaign to tell him he won't be able to get it. Sanofi statement from last month:
...Due to temporary disruption in the production of valproate at a Sanofi manufacturing site outside of the UK, stock levels for some treatments of valproate may be lower than usual. Sanofi is managing the situation carefully and working to ensure continued supply of valproate across all markets, including the UK. There are 17 different valproate-based treatments, ranging from tablets of different strengths and coatings through to granules and liquid preparations. We have notified the Department of Health & Social Care about the disruption of supply of valproate.
This temporary disruption in supply of some valproate-based treatments is not related to Brexit. Change from 100 tablet packs ... etc
Without a commitment to a referendum the Tories would have probably lost office in GE2015 and Farage won his seat then.
This was coming regardless. The delta between EU aspirations and the UK political culture had simply grown too great for it to be ignored or sidelined any longer.
I pretty much agree with that, aside from I'd change 'EU aspirations' to 'fear of EU aspirations'.
A referendum was inevitable.
The EU aspirations on further federalisation are on the table today and very real.
Ideas like a European Army were dismissed as a ‘dangerous fantasy’ during the referendum.
That was just for an extension, something all Remainers can unite around. And the Government numbers were utterly appalling for May: she got 130 of her MPs backing her, 97 against and over 100 abstentions.
Yeah ..... but that vote was meaningless, and a foregone conclusion to boot.
Certainly can imagine huge rebellions on both Lab/Con sides, but it's really hard to imagine a vote failing when both leaderships are whipping for it.
Off topic, I’m not sure based on today’s figures that May could pass a Tory-Labour Deal even if she stitched one up with Corbyn.
I could see it falling short of 300 votes.
What are you on about? Today's motion won by 420 to 110, a majority of 310. Close.
That was just for an extension, something all Remainers can unite around. And the Government numbers were utterly appalling for May: she got 130 of her MPs backing her, 97 against and over 100 abstentions.
Any deal she does with Labour won’t include a referendum (that will be a triple-thick red line for her, and Corbyn doesn’t want it either) so Labour won’t be fully behind that either. They could have 80-100 rebels on it. The SNP/LDs and TIGers also wouldn’t. Other Tories would vote it down all over again.
So.. think of a scenario where 140 Tories and 150 Labour MPs back a new Deal, and no-one else.
May would be relying on mass Tory abstentions to pass it on less than 300 votes, which would be optimistic, or it falls in which case I think we have her resignation.
Labour won't do a deal with May. She cannot deliver her own cabinet, still less her MPs, she has said she is quitting, and even if she wasn't the level of trust in her is zero. She has nothing to offer.
The DUP seem to think "confidence and supply" means confidently supplying insults.
Part of the reason the EU have been able to push this so strongly (although it’s worth noting they’d have attempted to do so in any event) is because they knew May was in a weak position.
If she’d a majority of 100 following GE2017 then No Deal would have been a proper come-and-have-a-go-if-you-think-you’re-hard-enough threat, rather than just rhetoric.
Remain/soft Brexit or further referenda would have been totally off the table. In the event of No Deal, the UK would have had the votes to take radical measures to undercut the EU and boost the economy.
But by electing a hung parliament the British people showed that they had no wish to pursue an aggressive anti-EU agenda. The Tories failed to learn that lesson and everything that has happened since flows from that.
Nah. Corbyn had very effectively neutralised Brexit as an issue with his promise to abide by the referendum result. If people had wanted to send a message about Brexit they would have voted for the Lib Dems.
My canvassing in 2017 says otherwise. Labour gained many many votes in London because people knew it would pursue a softer Brexit than the Tories.
I agree as a Labour voter I expected a softer Brexit . May ignored the result and carried on as if her view had gained a majority .
Yet as she now tries to pursue that softer Brexit, the majority of her party members and voters and large numbers of her MPs are furious.
If May is to get a softer Brexit through it will be with most of her party wanting No Deal now, if Corbyn is to back a softer Brexit too it will be in the face of most of his party wanting EUref2 or revoke.
Indeed Comres today has 2017 Labour voters equally split 45% for a Deal plus Customs Union and delay to Brexit, 45% opposed
No, there was an episode where the bald guy with wire-frame glasses (Julius?) made a bhaji-based gnomiic analogy, and iirc stated that he wasn't going to be left with the "pissy bhaji"
No, there was an episode where the bald guy with wire-frame glasses (Julius?) made a bhaji-based gnomiic analogy, and iirc stated that he wasn't going to be left with the "pissy bhaji"
Right now he looks like the real deal. I’ve decided not to bet against him at anything approaching current odds. He’s going to shorten a lot more yet, I think.
They may not buy into it quite yet but if a losers revote is confirmed then there will be a vast amount of publicity given to the fact that they have been ignored and that they are being told to go back and vote again because they got it wrong the first time. A month or so of that should bring things nicely to boiling point.
"losers revote" is a bit infantile, isn't it? Nice Leaver approach to the use of the apostrophe, mind. As for "nicely to boiling point," referring back to my suggestion of the possibility of racist violence, I will just invite readers of this site to consider what it says about you.
Losers' Revote is a far more accurate description than People's Vote. The losers want another chance because they didn't like the result of the first one. That is it.
And why would any violence be 'racist'? That is just you showing your own bigotry and ignorance once again. Anyone you disagree with must, by definition be a racist. You Remain fanatics never learn.
I wouldn't call it a loser's revoke. May's triggering of A50 is now a completely failed project - we need to reset things and then work out whether it's possible and worth trying to leave a second time.
I am damn sure you wouldn't be saying that if Remain had won and then the EU started causing problems for us. Then it would have been 'we had the vote that is it'.
Which way did I vote? Hint it wasn't for remain...
Apologies. But the point still stand will be it. Finished.
Without a commitment to a referendum the Tories would have probably lost office in GE2015 and Farage won his seat then.
This was coming regardless. The delta between EU aspirations and the UK political culture had simply grown too great for it to be ignored or sidelined any longer.
I thinky
That’s possible but it’d have been a very shaky administration. UKIP would have continued to grow, the LDs would be very sore and he wouldn’t have lasted very long in office. Certainly not a full four years. The voluntary party would have been hollowed out and virtually on strike by now.
The next Tory leader couldn’t have ignored it.
It would have been like the CDU in Germany, UKIP would have grown as the AfD has grown, the LDs would have been hit further like the SPD but it would have continued as no alternative had a majority
No, there was an episode where the bald guy with wire-frame glasses (Julius?) made a bhaji-based gnomiic analogy, and iirc stated that he wasn't going to be left with the "pissy bhaji"
Off topic, I’m not sure based on today’s figures that May could pass a Tory-Labour Deal even if she stitched one up with Corbyn.
I could see it falling short of 300 votes.
What are you on about? Today's motion won by 420 to 110, a majority of 310. Close.
That was just for an extension, something all Remainers can unite around. And the Government numbers were utterly appalling for May: she got 130 of her MPs backing her, 97 against and over 100 abstentions.
Any deal she does with Labour won’t include a referendum (that will be a triple-thick red line for her, and Corbyn doesn’t want it either) so Labour won’t be fully behind that either. They could have 80-100 rebels on it. The SNP/LDs and TIGers also wouldn’t. Other Tories would vote it down all over again.
So.. think of a scenario where 140 Tories and 150 Labour MPs back a new Deal, and no-one else.
May would be relying on mass Tory abstentions to pass it on less than 300 votes, which would be optimistic, or it falls in which case I think we have her resignation.
Ironically Comres has SNP, LD and Green and Scottish voters happiest with a Customs Union Deal but still more of them support revoke or EUref2
Right now he looks like the real deal. I’ve decided not to bet against him at anything approaching current odds. He’s going to shorten a lot more yet, I think.
Biden would be wise not to wait much longer, if he is running. The narrative is running away from him, at least in the media (who love an underdog kid).
Right now he looks like the real deal. I’ve decided not to bet against him at anything approaching current odds. He’s going to shorten a lot more yet, I think.
Biden would be wise not to wait much longer, if he is running. The narrative is running away from him, at least in the media (who love an underdog kid).
Right now he looks like the real deal. I’ve decided not to bet against him at anything approaching current odds. He’s going to shorten a lot more yet, I think.
My colleague picked up his epilim on time as usual today, having been thoroughly fucking unimpressed with the Graun's ongoing campaign to tell him he won't be able to get it. Sanofi statement from last month:
...Due to temporary disruption in the production of valproate at a Sanofi manufacturing site outside of the UK, stock levels for some treatments of valproate may be lower than usual. Sanofi is managing the situation carefully and working to ensure continued supply of valproate across all markets, including the UK. There are 17 different valproate-based treatments, ranging from tablets of different strengths and coatings through to granules and liquid preparations. We have notified the Department of Health & Social Care about the disruption of supply of valproate.
This temporary disruption in supply of some valproate-based treatments is not related to Brexit. Change from 100 tablet packs ... etc
From the sounds of it, stockpiling organisation is greater in the larger parts of the NHS, namely hospitals, so I wonder if local pharmacies are suffering precisely because of the stockpiling.
That there are serious global supply issues elsewhere is true. For example, I'm aware that some 35-40% of Indian pharma manufacturing capacity has been on shutdown due to FDA compliance issues over the last 3-5 years, and the average such shutdown lasts a number of months.
As with the car sector, Brexit is an additive problem, not the only problem.
Among Gantz (Netanyahu's challenger and potential victor, at least on a most votes basis) policies is to prioritise English in primary schools. I must admit I failed to udnerstand the significance the first time I read that.
Me too - what is the significance?
Oooh, oooh, sir, sir, I think I can get this. Following the foundation of the State of Israel, Golda Meir mandated that government should be done in the medium of Hebrew. This was a canny move, as it acted as a unifier (and parenthetically explains why El Al has Hebrew script on its livery). But Hebrew is not often spoken by Arabs who live in Israel and some Jewish immigrants are not as fluent as they would have been in years past. So an emphasis on English (instead of Hebrew) is politically loaded. Am I right, am I right? Or have I fucked up yet again?
Further to my post on the previous thread about the problem facing some people starting before working age:
"An infant school has employed someone to change nappies because so many pupils are not toilet-trained, a councillor has said.
Chris Towe, Walsall Council's portfolio holder for education, said: "We are talking about five-year-olds here and it is not acceptable. ... Head teachers had also raised concerns that school starters could not use cutlery or dress themselves. ... Schools told him many pupils could not communicate or hold a pencil properly. "
Such children can succeed: but the odds are stacked against them.
But how can we: *) help such children? *) help parents so we get fewer such children in the future?
This is a really worrying development, and one that as a Mum of three now grown up kids I still find incredible. Back when my children were pre school, these were all really key development milestones for most parents pre-school. Getting your children toilet trained in preparation for going to playgroup/nursery. Also helping your children to learn to dress themselves and the basics like writing their name, painting, drawing and colouring in and recognising their colours and simple single figure adding up in preparation for going to school? I also remember being aware that it was important to prepare them for navigating the school dining room.
But I do wonder if sending children off to school at age 4 is simple too young for some children, not everyone develops at the same stage at that age. Up here in Scotland back then, children tended to be nearer five years old, with often the nursery advising parents around Christmas time/early spring just before registration if they felt our children were ready for school that year or if they would benefit from another year at nursery in preparation. I remember a good friend who had moved down South phoning me very upset as her child's P1 teacher had told her that her child was not where they should be at that stage in the class and realising that at the exact same age all my children were still in nursery rather than school as was the norm up here?
Another worry is that many children are growing up pre-school using digital devices to do many of the basics that before required them to learn using a pencil, colouring pencils or a paint brush, and therefore without so much hands on adult input in the home as a result when it comes to communication?
Right now he looks like the real deal. I’ve decided not to bet against him at anything approaching current odds. He’s going to shorten a lot more yet, I think.
Further to my post on the previous thread about the problem facing some people starting before working age:
"An infant school has employed someone to change nappies because so many pupils are not toilet-trained, a councillor has said.
Chris Towe, Walsall Council's portfolio holder for education, said: "We are talking about five-year-olds here and it is not acceptable. ... Head teachers had also raised concerns that school starters could not use cutlery or dress themselves. ... Schools told him many pupils could not communicate or hold a pencil properly. "
Such children can succeed: but the odds are stacked against them.
But how can we: *) help such children? *) help parents so we get fewer such children in the future?
Sorry to bring this back to the B-word but this is the sort of real problem the country should be focused on rather than spending the past 3 years obsessed with Europe.
I agree. Yet for many (4?) decades the functional innumeracy and illiteracy levels have remained at a fairly consistent level, with only minor variations. Whatever we do doesn't seem to help these children much.
We have a welfare and housing benefit system that doesn’t disincentive poorer people from having more kids they can’t personally support and high house prices which makes it impossible for those on average and above average wages to buy a big enough home for a small family and support them. This is a huge issue in London and the south east but extending elsewhere.
What is the best way to stop child poverty - get the middle classes to have more kids and the welfare classes fewer?
Right now he looks like the real deal. I’ve decided not to bet against him at anything approaching current odds. He’s going to shorten a lot more yet, I think.
Personally if Buttigieg comes across as a bit of a Blairite, well, I could get behind that personally.
Is Blairism really going to win over Democratic primary voters whose poster girl is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the moment, or indeed shift the swing voters in the rustbelt away from Trump? Indeed in policy terms at least that would suggest Buttigieg is Hillary 2.0
Further to my post on the previous thread about the problem facing some people starting before working age:
"An infant school has employed someone to change nappies because so many pupils are not toilet-trained, a councillor has said.
Chris Towe, Walsall Council's portfolio holder for education, said: "We are talking about five-year-olds here and it is not acceptable. ... Head teachers had also raised concerns that school starters could not use cutlery or dress themselves. ... Schools told him many pupils could not communicate or hold a pencil properly. "
Such children can succeed: but the odds are stacked against them.
But how can we: *) help such children? *) help parents so we get fewer such children in the future?
Sorry to bring this back to the B-word but this is the sort of real problem the country should be focused on rather than spending the past 3 years obsessed with Europe.
Right now he looks like the real deal. I’ve decided not to bet against him at anything approaching current odds. He’s going to shorten a lot more yet, I think.
Biden would be wise not to wait much longer, if he is running. The narrative is running away from him, at least in the media (who love an underdog kid).
Biden would be wise to wait indefinitely and sneak away quietly whilst he still has a reputation, instead of pissing away hundreds of millions of dollars in a Presidential campaign inevitably derailed by many, many pictures and YouTubes of him being Gropey McHandsy.
The DUP seem to think "confidence and supply" means confidently supplying insults.
Part of the reason the EU have been able to push this so strongly (although it’s worth noting they’d have attempted to do so in any event) is because they knew May was in a weak position.
If she’d a majority of 100 following GE2017 then No Deal would have been a proper come-and-have-a-go-if-you-think-you’re-hard-enough threat, rather than just rhetoric.
Remain/soft Brexit or further referenda would have been totally off the table. In the event of No Deal, the UK would have had the votes to take radical measures to undercut the EU and boost the economy.
But by electing a hung parliament the British people showed that they had no wish to pursue an aggressive anti-EU agenda. The Tories failed to learn that lesson and everything that has happened since flows from that.
Nah. Corbyn had very effectively neutralised Brexit as an issue with his promise to abide by the referendum result. If people had wanted to send a message about Brexit they would have voted for the Lib Dems.
My canvassing in 2017 says otherwise. Labour gained many many votes in London because people knew it would pursue a softer Brexit than the Tories.
I am pretty sure you can't take one small part of the country - particularly one that was so out of line on Brexit with the rest of the country - and project that nationally. I also know many people who voted for Corbyn because May was just bloody useless and they thought the issue of Brexit was settled. I couldn't bring myself to go as far as voting for Corbyn but I sure as hell wouldn't vote for May. That 20% lead didn't evaporate because people suddenly decided to change their vote based on Brexit. It evaporated because May ran such a bloody awful campaign and alienated a huge mass of her core support over the dementia tax.
May still won over 42% of the vote. What you have to explain is why the electorate polarised, driving up Corbyn way beyond what could have been expected otherwise.
Right now he looks like the real deal. I’ve decided not to bet against him at anything approaching current odds. He’s going to shorten a lot more yet, I think.
Personally if Buttigieg comes across as a bit of a Blairite, well, I could get behind that personally.
Is Blairism really going to win over Democratic primary voters whose poster girl is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the moment, or indeed shift the swing voters in the rustbelt away from Trump? Indeed in policy terms at least that would suggest Buttigieg is Hillary 2.0
imho Biden is the one who can beat Trump. No one else comes close.
But Buttigieg is very exciting and a class act. I am betting he will be Dem nominee. At very least I will be able to lay off after he wipes the floor in the first debate.
Right now he looks like the real deal. I’ve decided not to bet against him at anything approaching current odds. He’s going to shorten a lot more yet, I think.
Personally if Buttigieg comes across as a bit of a Blairite, well, I could get behind that personally.
Is Blairism really going to win over Democratic primary voters whose poster girl is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the moment, or indeed shift the swing voters in the rustbelt away from Trump? Indeed in policy terms at least that would suggest Buttigieg is Hillary 2.0
imho Biden is the one who can beat Trump. No one else comes close.
But Buttigieg is very exciting and a class act. I am betting he will be Dem nominee. At very least I will be able to lay off after he wipes the floor in the first debate.
Biden I agree is the best Democratic hope to beat Trump even now.
Buttigieg I think will be a Democratic John Kasich, a good bet for the general maybe but not able to win the nomination in such polarised times, Sanders is still the likeliest choice there
Right now he looks like the real deal. I’ve decided not to bet against him at anything approaching current odds. He’s going to shorten a lot more yet, I think.
Biden would be wise not to wait much longer, if he is running. The narrative is running away from him, at least in the media (who love an underdog kid).
Biden would be wise to wait indefinitely and sneak away quietly whilst he still has a reputation, instead of pissing away hundreds of millions of dollars in a Presidential campaign inevitably derailed by many, many pictures and YouTubes of him being Gropey McHandsy.
Well, I did say "if he is running". I have no idea whether he will. But he is the one Trump fears and for all his grade one insanity, Trump understands who to fear.
Right now he looks like the real deal. I’ve decided not to bet against him at anything approaching current odds. He’s going to shorten a lot more yet, I think.
Personally if Buttigieg comes across as a bit of a Blairite, well, I could get behind that personally.
Is Blairism really going to win over Democratic primary voters whose poster girl is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the moment, or indeed shift the swing voters in the rustbelt away from Trump? Indeed in policy terms at least that would suggest Buttigieg is Hillary 2.0
imho Biden is the one who can beat Trump. No one else comes close.
But Buttigieg is very exciting and a class act. I am betting he will be Dem nominee. At very least I will be able to lay off after he wipes the floor in the first debate.
Biden I agree is the best Democratic hope to beat Trump even now.
Buttigieg I think will be a Democratic John Kasich, a good bet for the general maybe but not able to win the nomination in such polarised times, Sanders is still the likeliest choice there
Oh God, tell me the Dems aren't going to go for Sanders.
They do that, they lose and we have four more years of orangeness.
One problem adding to the whole Parliamentary Brexit deadlock talks between May and Corbyn is not so much the hardening of their red lines rather than compromising, it is in fact the hardening of the red lines of both Conservative and Labour future leadership contenders both in and outside the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet. I imagine that both May and Corbyn's team have been inundated with messages from these various individuals with their clear red lines/resignation threats?
But outside the Labour Shadow Cabinet, just look at the balancing act of future Labour hopefuls like Lisa Nandy or Yvette Cooper. Both in strong Leave constituencies, but who will require the far more strongly remain Labour membership to vote for them in a leadership contest. Surely they must all now be hoping that if Brexit is delayed or stopped, then there will be a Labour Leadership contest followed by a GE much further down the road in the future?
It’s the inverse of what’s happening with some Conservative MPs trying to guard against their right flank for a similar future contest.
Both parties are putting personal and party political aspirations above country, and want May to own and fall for the solution. Not them.
Agreed, hence their outrage when May gave that speech to the nation politely pointing out their part in the current Parliamentary deadlock. I should have added that not only are MPs across the HoC's united in their desire not to have a GE, they are also united in their desire that one politician, Theresa May should take the blame for Brexit rather than lay any blame at their door or the EU's. But its not looking like that from outside the Westminster bubble.
Re: children and potty training. My Mum's memory isn't perfect, but she does reckon kids average 6-12 months behind the situation some years ago. Lots of thoughts on this even for the middle classes - busy lives, wanting it perfect first time, cosseting and not risk taking with accidents. The main one though imho, is that nappies are just too damn good: that dry feeling wasn't given us simply for comfort and niceness, the kids have far less idea of what is going on than with a sodden Terry nappy. Good marketing, bad child development.
As with food, take responsibility, but let's increase awareness of externalities that are working against this so we can better take back that control.
Ratifying the withdrawal agreement isn't "one version of Leave". It's the only version of Leave. The alternative is agreeing the same terms in chaotic circumstances. It would be dishonest to present it to people as an alternative.
... and I'm suggesting that we are only at this stage thanks to a stitch up by the political elite, which the original vote was raging against.
Deal vs Remain is ludicrous. Nothing can surprise me now, the MPs are lower than the lowest of creatures, but it is demonstrably unfair.
It doesn't disenfranchise them. It asks them to choose which of the two available options they want. Only one policy can be implemented, so it can't be a pick-and-mix offer.
One of the options got 48% last time, the other might only get half of the 52% that won, and you call that a straight up heat?! As Alan Johnson, a Remainer, said, the public would see it as crooked.
It's not worth discussing, we will have to agree to disagree
What option do you think would get the support of all the 52%?
Leave
May's deal does that... but the ERG nutcases won't accept it.
That's why Parliament shouldn't have got a vote on it.
What % of the country do you think would have been crying foul play if. after we voted to Leave, PM Cameron or May or whoever it was, negotiated a deal with the EU, cabinet agreed it, and we left?
OK, it's a reasonable view, I'll give you that.
Unfortunately, we cannot turn the clock back and Parliament does have a say. So how do you suggest we move forward from here.
Well, its difficult to say, Parliament have stitched us up.
A General Election perhaps?
It would get my vote. But not the required 2/3rd HoC majority unfortunately.
I have been convinced that a GE is the only answer to sort out out this Parliamentary Brexit deadlock since the second time the Withdrawal agreement was voted down, a view that has only strengthened on the back of events in Parliament since then.
Biden I agree is the best Democratic hope to beat Trump even now.
Buttigieg I think will be a Democratic John Kasich, a good bet for the general maybe but not able to win the nomination in such polarised times, Sanders is still the likeliest choice there
I agree about Buttigieg and think he's a bit of a European candidate - pleasant and reasonable, but not really a heavyweight in US terms, and too centrist for the Democrats. That said, Sanders is doing OK but Biden is still well ahead in most polls.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/09/brexit-medicine-shortages-pharmacies-england
David Lidington suggested the Government will lose control and Parliament and the Speaker will effectively take over
Cleverly and Grayling argued UK is ready for no deal
We're fucked...
"An infant school has employed someone to change nappies because so many pupils are not toilet-trained, a councillor has said.
Chris Towe, Walsall Council's portfolio holder for education, said: "We are talking about five-year-olds here and it is not acceptable.
...
Head teachers had also raised concerns that school starters could not use cutlery or dress themselves.
...
Schools told him many pupils could not communicate or hold a pencil properly.
"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47867342
Such children can succeed: but the odds are stacked against them.
But how can we:
*) help such children?
*) help parents so we get fewer such children in the future?
Maybe put your phone down and enjoy a pint with your mates then? Like a normal person?
I could see it falling short of 300 votes.
Grayling saying we're ready for No Deal inspires confidence.
If she’d a majority of 100 following GE2017 then No Deal would have been a proper come-and-have-a-go-if-you-think-you’re-hard-enough threat, rather than just rhetoric.
Remain/soft Brexit or further referenda would have been totally off the table. In the event of No Deal, the UK would have had the votes to take radical measures to undercut the EU and boost the economy.
Reversing the cuts to Sure Start Centres wouldn't be a bad place to start.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/05/1000-sure-start-childrens-centres-may-have-shut-since-2010
Siobhan McFadyen.
Daily Express.
It's more an academic study than tabloid journalism, really.
This is the official German page listing those drugs which are suffering an ongoing shortage - in many cases for several years.
http://lieferengpass.bfarm.de/ords/f?p=30274:2:1374125620636::NO:::
Having said that there’s no doubt in my mind that George Osborne was perfectly happy with the Lisbon Treaty and would probably have been relaxed about us joining the euro as well.
I am a fan of the somewhat controversial Troubled Families programme.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/790402/Troubled_Families_Programme_annual_report_2018-19.pdf
https://www.lgcplus.com/services/children/evaluation-reveals-net-financial-benefit-of-troubled-families/7028268.article
This was coming regardless. The delta between EU aspirations and the UK political culture had simply grown too great for it to be ignored or sidelined any longer.
A referendum was inevitable.
Both parties are putting personal and party political aspirations above country, and want May to own and fall for the solution. Not them.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1115659042838523904?s=20
A General Election perhaps?
Any deal she does with Labour won’t include a referendum (that will be a triple-thick red line for her, and Corbyn doesn’t want it either) so Labour won’t be fully behind that either. They could have 80-100 rebels on it. The SNP/LDs and TIGers also wouldn’t. Other Tories would vote it down all over again.
So.. think of a scenario where 140 Tories and 150 Labour MPs back a new Deal, and no-one else.
May would be relying on mass Tory abstentions to pass it on less than 300 votes, which would be optimistic, or it falls in which case I think we have her resignation.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1115648494562422785
The next Tory leader couldn’t have ignored it.
It is why I dislike tw@tter so much, it gets cluttered up with this crap.
Yep
...Due to temporary disruption in the production of valproate at a Sanofi manufacturing site outside of the UK, stock levels for some treatments of valproate may be lower than usual. Sanofi is managing the situation carefully and working to ensure continued supply of valproate across all markets, including the UK. There are 17 different valproate-based treatments, ranging from tablets of different strengths and coatings through to granules and liquid preparations. We have notified the Department of Health & Social Care about the disruption of supply of valproate.
This temporary disruption in supply of some valproate-based treatments is not related to Brexit. Change from 100 tablet packs ... etc
The EU aspirations on further federalisation are on the table today and very real.
Ideas like a European Army were dismissed as a ‘dangerous fantasy’ during the referendum.
Not really the same thing as May trying to convince backbench Tories to go for the Labour customs union compromise.
He’ll probably quite like that.
Certainly can imagine huge rebellions on both Lab/Con sides, but it's really hard to imagine a vote failing when both leaderships are whipping for it.
Buttigieg:
https://www.msnbc.com/11th-hour/watch/buttigieg-breaks-through-the-political-noise-1482651203945
If May is to get a softer Brexit through it will be with most of her party wanting No Deal now, if Corbyn is to back a softer Brexit too it will be in the face of most of his party wanting EUref2 or revoke.
Indeed Comres today has 2017 Labour voters equally split 45% for a Deal plus Customs Union and delay to Brexit, 45% opposed
https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/the-telegraph-voting-intention-and-brexit-poll-april-2019/
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1115723151026151424
Personally if Buttigieg comes across as a bit of a Blairite, well, I could get behind that personally.
That there are serious global supply issues elsewhere is true. For example, I'm aware that some 35-40% of Indian pharma manufacturing capacity has been on shutdown due to FDA compliance issues over the last 3-5 years, and the average such shutdown lasts a number of months.
As with the car sector, Brexit is an additive problem, not the only problem.
But I do wonder if sending children off to school at age 4 is simple too young for some children, not everyone develops at the same stage at that age. Up here in Scotland back then, children tended to be nearer five years old, with often the nursery advising parents around Christmas time/early spring just before registration if they felt our children were ready for school that year or if they would benefit from another year at nursery in preparation. I remember a good friend who had moved down South phoning me very upset as her child's P1 teacher had told her that her child was not where they should be at that stage in the class and realising that at the exact same age all my children were still in nursery rather than school as was the norm up here?
Another worry is that many children are growing up pre-school using digital devices to do many of the basics that before required them to learn using a pencil, colouring pencils or a paint brush, and therefore without so much hands on adult input in the home as a result when it comes to communication?
What is the best way to stop child poverty - get the middle classes to have more kids and the welfare classes fewer?
Or we can just carry on and wonder why?
But Buttigieg is very exciting and a class act. I am betting he will be Dem nominee. At very least I will be able to lay off after he wipes the floor in the first debate.
Buttigieg I think will be a Democratic John Kasich, a good bet for the general maybe but not able to win the nomination in such polarised times, Sanders is still the likeliest choice there
They do that, they lose and we have four more years of orangeness.
As with food, take responsibility, but let's increase awareness of externalities that are working against this so we can better take back that control.