Note the Cambridge faculty member who changed his name to "Dr Spectre"....
Who said the fenland hellhole wasn't a nest of subversives... ?
It is a fascinating article. The only bone of contention I would have is they big thing about "stolen" Facebook data, when what they did is not uncommon. Loads of apps / websites now have a sign up with Facebook or Google and if you do normally it has a thing saying that you are agreeing that Facebook can share x, y and z. Also it is possible to automatically data scrap websites.
Now obviously they said to Facebook they would only use this for academic use and allegedly they have not been truthful.
There is a wider issue with these systems allowing one site to share your data with another as part of the sign up process or because you use an app.
Facebook are getting mullered over this, mostly because it’s exposed exactly what they do and how they work. The user is the product. Specifically, the users’ personal data is the product.
If you aren't paying for the product, you are the product.
Yup. The way I usually explain it to naive parents is the other way around. Start with business school 101, who is the customer? The customer is someone who pays you money. Do you pay them money? No, so you can’t be the customer. So what are you? You are what they sell to their customers, those who give them money, the advertisers.
I suppose we can discount the possibility that 74% of voters actually want Putin as President?
I'm guessing Putin would win a competitive election, but he's not taking any chances. Mainly by preventing anyone who posed a threat from standing breathing.
Note the Cambridge faculty member who changed his name to "Dr Spectre"....
Who said the fenland hellhole wasn't a nest of subversives... ?
It is a fascinating article. The only bone of contention I would have is they big thing about "stolen" Facebook data, when what they did is not uncommon. Loads of apps / websites now have a sign up with Facebook or Google and if you do normally it has a thing saying that you are agreeing that Facebook can share x, y and z. Also it is possible to automatically data scrap websites.
Now obviously they said to Facebook they would only use this for academic use and allegedly they have not been truthful.
There is a wider issue with these systems allowing one site to share your data with another as part of the sign up process or because you use an app.
Facebook are getting mullered over this, mostly because it’s exposed exactly what they do and how they work. The user is the product. Specifically, the users’ personal data is the product.
If you aren't paying for the product, you are the product.
Yup. The way I usually explain it to naive parents is the other way around. Start with business school 101, who is the customer? The customer is someone who pays you money. Do you pay them money? No, so you can’t be the customer. So what are you? You are what they sell to their customers, those who give them money, the advertisers.
What I find a little scary is when I have spoken to research guys at Facebook, Google, etc many don't seem to think about the possibility for their latest clever academic break through being turned into a data collection mega machine.
Seen someone suggest Alonso worth a bet for the Le Mans victory at 4. I don't have an account with a bookie that offers that (not even a market on Ladbrokes), but thought I'd mention it.
Note the Cambridge faculty member who changed his name to "Dr Spectre"....
Who said the fenland hellhole wasn't a nest of subversives... ?
It is a fascinating article. The only bone of contention I would have is they big thing about "stolen" Facebook data, when what they did is not uncommon. Loads of apps / websites now have a sign up with Facebook or Google and if you do normally it has a thing saying that you are agreeing that Facebook can share x, y and z. Also it is possible to automatically data scrap websites.
Now obviously they said to Facebook they would only use this for academic use and allegedly they have not been truthful.
There is a wider issue with these systems allowing one site to share your data with another as part of the sign up process or because you use an app.
Facebook are getting mullered over this, mostly because it’s exposed exactly what they do and how they work. The user is the product. Specifically, the users’ personal data is the product.
If you aren't paying for the product, you are the product.
Yup. The way I usually explain it to naive parents is the other way around. Start with business school 101, who is the customer? The customer is someone who pays you money. Do you pay them money? No, so you can’t be the customer. So what are you? You are what they sell to their customers, those who give them money, the advertisers.
What I find a little scary is when I have spoken to research guys at Facebook, Google, etc many don't seem to think about the possibility for their latest clever academic break through being turned into a data collection mega machine.
I get the impression the whole Facebook thing was never for me, as I recall seeing a clip of Zuckerberg excitedly going on about the goal achieving some utopian level of interconnectivity and sharing information and other such stuff, and all I could think was 'That sounds terrifying!'.
Seen someone suggest Alonso worth a bet for the Le Mans victory at 4. I don't have an account with a bookie that offers that (not even a market on Ladbrokes), but thought I'd mention it.
Betting on a car to win a 24 hour race is like betting on a horse to win the Grand National. 4 is way too short.
Mr. kle4, reminds me, I must get around to reading EM Forster's The Machine Stops. It's a short story from about a century ago, or more, which accurately predicts instant messaging and other stuff.
Mr. Sandpit, fair enough. The line taken was that, on pace, there'd be only one other rival (reliability, of course, being a concern).
As an aside, Ladbrokes has put its season win markets (ie over/under a specific number for certain drivers) back up. Nothing too tempting.
Note the Cambridge faculty member who changed his name to "Dr Spectre"....
Who said the fenland hellhole wasn't a nest of subversives... ?
It is a fascinating article. The only bone of contention I would have is they big thing about "stolen" Facebook data, when what they did is not uncommon. Loads of apps / websites now have a sign up with Facebook or Google and if you do normally it has a thing saying that you are agreeing that Facebook can share x, y and z. Also it is possible to automatically data scrap websites.
Now obviously they said to Facebook they would only use this for academic use and allegedly they have not been truthful.
There is a wider issue with these systems allowing one site to share your data with another as part of the sign up process or because you use an app.
Facebook are getting mullered over this, mostly because it’s exposed exactly what they do and how they work. The user is the product. Specifically, the users’ personal data is the product.
If you aren't paying for the product, you are the product.
Yup. The way I usually explain it to naive parents is the other way around. Start with business school 101, who is the customer? The customer is someone who pays you money. Do you pay them money? No, so you can’t be the customer. So what are you? You are what they sell to their customers, those who give them money, the advertisers.
What I find a little scary is when I have spoken to research guys at Facebook, Google, etc many don't seem to think about the possibility for their latest clever academic break through being turned into a data collection mega machine.
I get the impression the whole Facebook thing was never for me, as I recall seeing a clip of Zuckerberg excitedly going on about the goal achieving some utopian level of interconnectivity and sharing information and other such stuff, and all I could think was 'That sounds terrifying!'.
People don't seem overly concerned that every photo you upload gets whacked through their ML systems, people id'ed and in places like the US auto-tagged. They can obviously now do that with objects and also increasingly able to do automatic visual context reasoning.
This new pro EU left/right party will be like a Russian space rocket.
You mean quite successful?
Blows up on the launch pad.
You could do with a better comparison then.
"For the past five years, the rockets have been our only means to resupply the International Space Station. Not bad for a rocket design that was nearly mothballed but has since gone on to make 784 flights, almost all of them successful." https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/29/50_years_soyuz/
Yes, it's a risky thing launching space rockets as I'm sure Mr Musk would agree, however the Russians don't have a bad reliability record as such things go.
Their recent record has been fairly lamentable.
Back in 2016 it stood at 15 rocket failures in six years, and they lost at least one last year. They have massive problems with corruption, poor management (often fed by the former), questionable quality control, and a myriad of other issues. This is despite their actual engineers, who are often quite brilliant.
Seen someone suggest Alonso worth a bet for the Le Mans victory at 4. I don't have an account with a bookie that offers that (not even a market on Ladbrokes), but thought I'd mention it.
Seen someone suggest Alonso worth a bet for the Le Mans victory at 4. I don't have an account with a bookie that offers that (not even a market on Ladbrokes), but thought I'd mention it.
Is he in a Porsche or Audi ?
Toyota. Audi pulled last season I think.
EDIT: Looks like Porsche have pulled out of LMP1 too. That said, given Toyota's record, I wouldn't be taking 4-1.
Seen someone suggest Alonso worth a bet for the Le Mans victory at 4. I don't have an account with a bookie that offers that (not even a market on Ladbrokes), but thought I'd mention it.
Is he in a Porsche or Audi ?
Toyota. Audi pulled last season I think.
And Porsche have pulled out this season, leaving only the three Toyotas in the fastest LMP1 category. They’re about as reliable as Alonso’s Honda F1 car been for the last few seasons though.
Ha Ha , next we will have the dupes in the NE of Scotland who voted Tory whinging that it is the SNP's fault. The dummies have reaped what they sowed, you have to wonder how many times people can be shafted before they get the picture, or maybe they just like whinging.
Mr. kle4, reminds me, I must get around to reading EM Forster's The Machine Stops. It's a short story from about a century ago, or more, which accurately predicts instant messaging and other stuff.
Mr. Sandpit, fair enough. The line taken was that, on pace, there'd be only one other rival (reliability, of course, being a concern).
As an aside, Ladbrokes has put its season win markets (ie over/under a specific number for certain drivers) back up. Nothing too tempting.
I read that as a kid, could probably do with re-reading now.
Seems like a poor concession by the UK. Norway has control of its fisheries.
"immediate"
Yes but the transition period is equivalent to Norway status.
No it isn’t - it’s the full status quo minus political representation. Norway isn’t in the customs union or many other parts of the EU that we will retain during transition.
I imagine Ed feels that Corbyn's critics have acted in a reckless and provocative manner and that both sides need to set aside the rhetoric and get around the negotiating table to stop this happening again.
I imagine Ed feels that Corbyn's critics have acted in a reckless and provocative manner and that both sides need to set aside the rhetoric and get around the negotiating table to stop this happening again.
The idea the rhetoric we have seen has been something that needs someone to go 'way, hold back, let us be calm and measured here'' is utterly ridiculous. It suggests that everyone accepts that Russia was probably behind this, but we wouldn't be slinging harsh words at each other in that situation. There has been a distinct lack of overreaction, making Corbyn's claiming of a halo as the only one trying to be calm and measured ridiculous. One minister has made a stupid comment and MPs expressed outrage, I'm sure that was what pushed Russia over the edge to stop the, cooperating, if only we'd said 'We think you attacked us, or were negligent with a chemical weapon' in a nicer way, we wouldn't be facing the terrifying prospect of... diplomat expulsions, harsh words and maybe some sanctions.
As I said, utterly ridiculous. The claim that Corbyn (and now Miliband) alone of all people were remaining calm and not rushing to judgement, is insulting to everyone else. And what a nonsense quote as well - so it was wrong of May to say it was highly likely to be Russia and talk about taking action, but Corbyn waiting an extra day or so to do so shows his remarkable statesmanship by comparison?
I imagine Ed feels that Corbyn's critics have acted in a reckless and provocative manner and that both sides need to set aside the rhetoric and get around the negotiating table to stop this happening again.
You can say that again.
Yes, that was intended as an anti-Ed gag but looked at in print, it reads rather sensibly.
I was not concerned about an Ed M premiership, which I had thought was coming in 2015, but on foreign affairs he lost a lot of respect from me over Syria. Not what happened with the vote, but what he would much later claim had happened. He talked about how he had stopped us getting involved as though that were his aim. when the Labour amendment had been to delay things, not to simply prevent action (it supported military action subject to additional conditions). In essence he was trying to secure votes from the non-intervention crowd by pretending his actions had been other than they were.
Seems like a poor concession by the UK. Norway has control of its fisheries.
They need us more than we need them, don’t forget.
Are you saying the fisheries issue is a red herring?
Because it looks to me as though Gove has literally been done like a Kipper.
Edit - you will understand of course I am very sad that Michael Gove has been made to look like an idiot. This is such an unfortunate occurrence (because taking control over our fishing grounds from the Spanish mafia would be a definite positive from Brexit) that I have put aside all my personal feelings about the useless sellout Minister for Agriculture.
Is there any way of betting against an SPD style breakaway?
I think this is total nonsense and it will never happen, the Labour MP's involved know that they will be politically destroyed. Its not like people in Crewe or Barnsley are crying out for a new centrist party.
I was not concerned about an Ed M premiership, which I had thought was coming in 2015, but on foreign affairs he lost a lot of respect from me over Syria. Not what happened with the vote, but what he would much later claim had happened. He talked about how he had stopped us getting involved as though that were his aim. when the Labour amendment had been to delay things, not to simply prevent action (it supported military action subject to additional conditions). In essence he was trying to secure votes from the non-intervention crowd by pretending his actions had been other than they were.
It's about the one significant thing he achieved as LotO. Syrian blood on his hands for a temporary victory over the government.
Note the Cambridge faculty member who changed his name to "Dr Spectre"....
Who said the fenland hellhole wasn't a nest of subversives... ?
It is a fascinating article. The only bone of contention I would have is they big thing about "stolen" Facebook data, when what they did is not uncommon. Loads of apps / websites now have a sign up with Facebook or Google and if you do normally it has a thing saying that you are agreeing that Facebook can share x, y and z. Also it is possible to automatically data scrap websites.
Now obviously they said to Facebook they would only use this for academic use and allegedly they have not been truthful.
There is a wider issue with these systems allowing one site to share your data with another as part of the sign up process or because you use an app.
Yes, "stealing" is probably the wrong term - we need new ones. Misappropriated would be closer ... and they certainly drove a coach and horses through the Data Protection laws. And US election laws. All sorts of criminal charges are, at the very least, conceivable.
I was not concerned about an Ed M premiership, which I had thought was coming in 2015, but on foreign affairs he lost a lot of respect from me over Syria. Not what happened with the vote, but what he would much later claim had happened. He talked about how he had stopped us getting involved as though that were his aim. when the Labour amendment had been to delay things, not to simply prevent action (it supported military action subject to additional conditions). In essence he was trying to secure votes from the non-intervention crowd by pretending his actions had been other than they were.
It's about the one significant thing he achieved as LotO. Syrian blood on his hands for a temporary victory over the government.
The thing is though, it's not even that aspect of it really - people will have had very different views, and if his genuine position was 'we should stop this' I could respect that, but that was not the purpose of his amendment, but he would later try to claim credit about the unintended outcome of his amendment, when it lost but so did the government's motion. It's misrepresenting what his actions were.
I was not concerned about an Ed M premiership, which I had thought was coming in 2015, but on foreign affairs he lost a lot of respect from me over Syria. Not what happened with the vote, but what he would much later claim had happened. He talked about how he had stopped us getting involved as though that were his aim. when the Labour amendment had been to delay things, not to simply prevent action (it supported military action subject to additional conditions). In essence he was trying to secure votes from the non-intervention crowd by pretending his actions had been other than they were.
It's about the one significant thing he achieved as LotO. Syrian blood on his hands for a temporary victory over the government.
Talking of fishing
What blood? Putin has managed to defeat ISIS singlehandedly hasn't he?
How on earth have the recent interventions improved matters in Iraq/Libya?
Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
I was not concerned about an Ed M premiership, which I had thought was coming in 2015, but on foreign affairs he lost a lot of respect from me over Syria. Not what happened with the vote, but what he would much later claim had happened. He talked about how he had stopped us getting involved as though that were his aim. when the Labour amendment had been to delay things, not to simply prevent action (it supported military action subject to additional conditions). In essence he was trying to secure votes from the non-intervention crowd by pretending his actions had been other than they were.
It's about the one significant thing he achieved as LotO. Syrian blood on his hands for a temporary victory over the government.
Talking of fishing
What blood? Putin has managed to defeat ISIS singlehandedly hasn't he?
How on earth have the recent interventions improved matters in Iraq/Libya?
In all honesty we'll never know the counterfactual but my gutfeel is that our staying out gave ISIS the chance to get a foothold and the moderate rebels time to run out of steam.
Although I didn't want to leave the EU, one positive of leaving is that we can finally get rid of the Spanish criminal scum fishermen who pay as much attention to EU law as a French Minister for Agriculture, and who have done untold harm to our fishing stocks.
We must take what positives we can and that is a significant one.
Seems like a poor concession by the UK. Norway has control of its fisheries.
"immediate"
Yes but the transition period is equivalent to Norway status.
No it isn’t - it’s the full status quo minus political representation. Norway isn’t in the customs union or many other parts of the EU that we will retain during transition.
Ok, a good point. That does make the concession much more reasonable. It's important we get control back with the final deal though.
Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
So 66.7% of voters or 50.1% of the electorate should be needed to, say, endorse continued political integration with 27 other countries? Ok.
Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
So 66.7% of voters or 50.1% of the electorate should be needed to, say, endorse continued political integration with 27 other countries? Ok.
Rejoining once we have left, yes. Also approving any Brexit deal in the event the Government feels it appropriate (or necessary) to hold one.
Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
Hard to see how that would be justified, given it was not required for SindyRef or EURef. I don't think it a terrible idea, but on what basis would a change be necessary in future? And 'made the wrong decision before' is not one I think will prove compelling.
Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
62.5% of people didn't vote to leave. 65.5% of people didn't vote to remain. It's the 28% of people who didn't vote twice who we should be suspicious of...
Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
Hard to see how that would be justified, given it was not required for SindyRef or EURef. I don't think it a terrible idea, but on what basis would a change be necessary in future? And 'made the wrong decision before' is not one I think will prove compelling.
It does not seem unreasonable to me that constitutional referenda should require the support of an absolute majority of electors to pass. Constitutional changes are difficult to reverse and have an effect on future generations.
Hypothetical examples might be if we were to vote on abolishing the monarchy, rejoiing the EU, joining the US as the 51st state (unlikely but who knows). And yes I would include any further independence or AV referenda.
Any future government would be wise to stipulate such criteria imo.
Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
Hard to see how that would be justified, given it was not required for SindyRef or EURef. I don't think it a terrible idea, but on what basis would a change be necessary in future? And 'made the wrong decision before' is not one I think will prove compelling.
It does not seem unreasonable to me that constitutional referenda should require the support of an absolute majority of electors to pass. Constitutional changes are difficult to reverse and have an effect on future generations.
Hypothetical examples might be if we were to vote on abolishing the monarchy, rejoiing the EU, joining the US as the 51st state (unlikely but who knows). And yes I would include any further independence or AV referenda.
Any future government would be wise to stipulate such criteria imo.
My point was not that they are an inherently bad idea - I said I don't think it is a terrible idea - but that having decided this seismic change did not require it, it is far harder to argue future examples should require it. An argument could still be made, and perhaps one, but Sindy and EUref will always be there to say 'actually, maybe you don't need such a barrier'/
Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
Hard to see how that would be justified, given it was not required for SindyRef or EURef. I don't think it a terrible idea, but on what basis would a change be necessary in future? And 'made the wrong decision before' is not one I think will prove compelling.
It does not seem unreasonable to me that constitutional referenda should require the support of an absolute majority of electors to pass. Constitutional changes are difficult to reverse and have an effect on future generations.
Hypothetical examples might be if we were to vote on abolishing the monarchy, rejoiing the EU, joining the US as the 51st state (unlikely but who knows). And yes I would include any further independence or AV referenda.
Any future government would be wise to stipulate such criteria imo.
My point was not that they are an inherently bad idea - I said I don't think it is a terrible idea - but that having decided this seismic change did not require it, it is far harder to argue future examples should require it. An argument could still be made, and perhaps one, but Sindy and EUref will always be there to say 'actually, maybe you don't need such a barrier'/
Yes I agree the precident is there. Then again there was a precedent of hanging people convicted of murder. We managed to overcome that one. Any government proposing a constitutional referendum on any topic in its manifesto could make the absolute majority qualification perfectly clear.
Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
The 1979 compromise - 40% of the eligible electorate - was a more sensible one. It meant without a high turnout a very clear margin was needed. Indeed, that might have given us the best of all worlds in this referendum - a clear warning to the EU that they were behaving like a bunch of idiots, while still keeping us in.
That said, anyone who didn't vote and claims they now want to stay is as far as I am concerned in a hard Cheddar situation. They had their chance. If they had come out and voted Remain, Remain might have won. They didn't and we lost. Their mistake.
I doubt an "independent fisheries policy" will be substantially different in practice from the Common Fisheries Policy, which probably isn't that bad anyway. Mr Lamont appears to have bought into the idea fishermen have that Brexit will be transformative and will see a huge boost in employment in fishing. There's no objective reason to believe that, but fishermen are optimists by nature.
Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
The 1979 compromise - 40% of the eligible electorate - was a more sensible one. It meant without a high turnout a very clear margin was needed. Indeed, that might have given us the best of all worlds in this referendum - a clear warning to the EU that they were behaving like a bunch of idiots, while still keeping us in.
That said, anyone who didn't vote and claims they now want to stay is as far as I am concerned in a hard Cheddar situation. They had their chance. If they had come out and voted Remain, Remain might have won. They didn't and we lost. Their mistake.
Yes it's history now, we are where we are. I just think the onus in future should be on those who want to change the status quo to get out and vote.
I doubt an "independent fisheries policy" will be substantially different in practice from the Common Fisheries Policy, which probably isn't that bad anyway. Mr Lamont appears to have bought into the idea fishermen have that Brexit will be transformative and will see a huge boost in employment in fishing. There's no objective reason to believe that, but fishermen are optimists by nature.
Or it could be merely political cover for voting against the deal. We’re now at a point where the government can have an Article 50 deal on the table whenever it wants so the choreography for a second referendum or exit strategy can begin.
Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
Hard to see how that would be justified, given it was not required for SindyRef or EURef. I don't think it a terrible idea, but on what basis would a change be necessary in future? And 'made the wrong decision before' is not one I think will prove compelling.
It does not seem unreasonable to me that constitutional referenda should require the support of an absolute majority of electors to pass. Constitutional changes are difficult to reverse and have an effect on future generations.
Hypothetical examples might be if we were to vote on abolishing the monarchy, rejoiing the EU, joining the US as the 51st state (unlikely but who knows). And yes I would include any further independence or AV referenda.
Any future government would be wise to stipulate such criteria imo.
My point was not that they are an inherently bad idea - I said I don't think it is a terrible idea - but that having decided this seismic change did not require it, it is far harder to argue future examples should require it. An argument could still be made, and perhaps one, but Sindy and EUref will always be there to say 'actually, maybe you don't need such a barrier'/
Yes I agree the precident is there. Then again there was a precedent of hanging people convicted of murder. We managed to overcome that one. Any government proposing a constitutional referendum on any topic in its manifesto could make the absolute majority qualification perfectly clear.
Yes, but this isn't a case of values changing, it is a technical point only. How could we possibly, in a political sense, justify not accepting a Sindy Ref victory on, say 53% Yes, given the votes we have had in recent years? I think it would be much much harder to win the argument than you think.
Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
The 1979 compromise - 40% of the eligible electorate - was a more sensible one. It meant without a high turnout a very clear margin was needed. Indeed, that might have given us the best of all worlds in this referendum - a clear warning to the EU that they were behaving like a bunch of idiots, while still keeping us in.
That said, anyone who didn't vote and claims they now want to stay is as far as I am concerned in a hard Cheddar situation. They had their chance. If they had come out and voted Remain, Remain might have won. They didn't and we lost. Their mistake.
Despite everything Putin is only getting around 43% of the electorate when you take turnout into account.
37.5% of the electorate was enough to land us in the mess that is Brexit.
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then. )
I see your 37.5% amd raise you only 34.5% of the electorate supported continued EU membership.
I just hope for future constitional referenda we have either a 2/3 majority of actual voters or an absolute majority of the electorate for the matter to pass.
Arbitrary super-majority thresholds in non-legally binding (aka 'advisory) referendums don't make logical sense.
They are a useful safeguard if the government can arbitrarily convert the referendum from non-binding to binding ("This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.") before it takes place.
Comments
What it is to have friends in high places, huh?
One mouse, one elephant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UFIQamKbjg
I didn't want to sound silly.
Mr. Sandpit, fair enough. The line taken was that, on pace, there'd be only one other rival (reliability, of course, being a concern).
As an aside, Ladbrokes has put its season win markets (ie over/under a specific number for certain drivers) back up. Nothing too tempting.
EDIT: Looks like Porsche have pulled out of LMP1 too. That said, given Toyota's record, I wouldn't be taking 4-1.
Would "Renew" shut up shop if this party became a reality?
I can see it happening IF there are aggressive deselections
They’re about as reliable as Alonso’s Honda F1 car been for the last few seasons though.
North of Islington - all the same place.
https://twitter.com/Gulay_Pole/status/975232062532870147
(only kidding!)
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/975415275142213632
As I said, utterly ridiculous. The claim that Corbyn (and now Miliband) alone of all people were remaining calm and not rushing to judgement, is insulting to everyone else. And what a nonsense quote as well - so it was wrong of May to say it was highly likely to be Russia and talk about taking action, but Corbyn waiting an extra day or so to do so shows his remarkable statesmanship by comparison?
Because it looks to me as though Gove has literally been done like a Kipper.
Edit - you will understand of course I am very sad that Michael Gove has been made to look like an idiot. This is such an unfortunate occurrence (because taking control over our fishing grounds from the Spanish mafia would be a definite positive from Brexit) that I have put aside all my personal feelings about the
useless selloutMinister for Agriculture.And no, I am still far too ill to get my coat.
I think this is total nonsense and it will never happen, the Labour MP's involved know that they will be politically destroyed. Its not like people in Crewe or Barnsley are crying out for a new centrist party.
Misappropriated would be closer ... and they certainly drove a coach and horses through the Data Protection laws. And US election laws.
All sorts of criminal charges are, at the very least, conceivable.
https://twitter.com/john2win/status/975445262813532161?s=21
Also retweeted by a second Scottish Conservative MP.
Exactly the same as today - including ££ contributions - but with no political representation.
The very opposite of taking back control.
Quite humiliating if one stops to think about it.
https://twitter.com/ruthdavidsonmsp/status/975462585473650689?s=21
https://twitter.com/AidanKerrTweets/status/975449399441715200
What blood? Putin has managed to defeat ISIS singlehandedly hasn't he?
How on earth have the recent interventions improved matters in Iraq/Libya?
(Putin has clearly learnt how to do these things better since then.
How do you reply?
Although I didn't want to leave the EU, one positive of leaving is that we can finally get rid of the Spanish
criminal scumfishermen who pay as much attention to EU law as a French Minister for Agriculture, and who have done untold harm to our fishing stocks.We must take what positives we can and that is a significant one.
Hypothetical examples might be if we were to vote on abolishing the monarchy, rejoiing the EU, joining the US as the 51st state (unlikely but who knows). And yes I would include any further independence or AV referenda.
Any future government would be wise to stipulate such criteria imo.
That said, anyone who didn't vote and claims they now want to stay is as far as I am concerned in a hard Cheddar situation. They had their chance. If they had come out and voted Remain, Remain might have won. They didn't and we lost. Their mistake.
Zhironovsky (Lib Dem) in third place on 6.2% so should keep deposit....
Via RT election night coverage.
Nothing will ever be sufficient for less.
3.2% v. 3.8%
Must be some sort of conspiracy.
Although isn't Zhironovsky somehwat different to Old Vince ?