|
|
Post by mercian on May 13, 2023 20:35:25 GMT
When the bank rate went up I noticed that all the news coverage that I saw was overwhelmingly negative, and about how mortgage rates would go up. I'm sure I've read that savers outnumber mortgage payers by a lot, and it's good news for them. So a net good. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 13, 2023 20:54:21 GMT
This supports your (and Cathcart's) version of events: the ITV coverage from around midnight on 2nd May 1997. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLMJ86mVCLcCrosby is shown as a Labour gain, at 14 mins, in the 10% swing column (as that is what was needed for a Lab gain). However, they do not report the actual figures, nor the 18% swing achieved. At 18 mins ITV go to Edgbaston for the live declaration. I have just been playing back the ITV 97 results programme , and it is indeed true that Crosby flashes up as a Labour gain circa 10 minutes before the Edgbaston declaration. ITV also had Portsmouth North as a gain ahead of Edgbaston. However, no figures at all were produced at that stage for the Crosby and Portsmouth North results which strongly suggests the network was simply relying on firm information from those counts - rather than any detailed data. To be fair to the BBC, the reporter at the Edgbaston count made it pretty clear 20 minutes or so before the result was announced that Labour had won there. Not pleasant to be reminded of the revolting Gisela Stuart who exhorted people to vote Tory in support of Johnson in 2019.
FWIW Cathcart has Portsmouth North third, after Edgbaston, so he is obviously not just following ITV. He then launches into a interesting digression by noting that the losing Tory MP in Portsmouth was none other that Peter Griffiths - the villain of the infamous racist Smethwick election campaign of 1964, which led to Harold Wilson describing him as "a parliamentary leper". |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 13, 2023 20:57:08 GMT
Basically people just need to imagine they're a pair of curtains and pull themselves together đ I visited a friend in hospital yesterday. Sadly, he's been suffering from depression for almost a year. He was more chatty yesterday than I've seen him for a long time, but I don't think it's a condition that any decent person would want to joke about. I've always found that if I'm a bit down I just go out and look up at the sky on a sunny day or go for as brisk a walk as I can manage. I believe that both of these have been proved to affect chemicals in the brain. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 13, 2023 21:08:44 GMT
... But now a second constitutional issue has raised its head. The Government has shown that it is willing to go directly against the will of parliament and use ministerial powers instead. For a long time thereâs been a tendency to legislate using these powers instead of the full parliamentary process. Itâs what we saw during Brexit and then, most alarmingly, under Covid. But now we have entered a dangerous new terrain. Theyâre not just being used to sideline parliament. Theyâre being used to disobey it. (MY EMPHASIS) I understand that a lot of EU legislation went through using Statutory instruments, so that's where the rot started. It's entirely our own government's fault of course, but the fact that they couldn't be trusted to debate EU legislation was one of the big factors in me wanting to Leave (and still do by the way). |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 13, 2023 21:10:25 GMT
wasn't rail underfunded before the sell off? Almost as if the plan was to get people to turn on nationalised industries to make them easier to sell? I do recall that argument from the time Pete, though I didnât check up on it. It did seem like the prices went up after privatisation though! Passenger numbers did too. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 13, 2023 21:21:21 GMT
This narrative of inevitability runs against all our learnt history; there was an age when we aspired to build a better world by democratic design, but now we wait for the corporations to tell us what is feasible. And, strangely, only what is profitable seems to be feasible. Does it? There is a temptation for anyone to believe the world they have lived in is how the world has always been. So we look back at the post WW2 era as a golden age of government intervention on behalf of people. Forgetting that governments faced with millions of citizens trained to kill and very pissed off at failings of government which created not just one but two world wars, decided it was a good moment to act in the common interest of the common man. Not forgetting russia and China and big chunks of lots of other places never had this democratic utopia at all. Possibly this was a rather exceptional period in history for an exceptionally lucky group of people. Which group of people? The elderly, who had lived through 2 World Wars? Parents, who had just fought in one, or children who played on bomb-sites? I had a classmate who died of diptheria and a neighbour who died of polio. TB was still quite a big thing. Not to mention growing up under the shadow of seemingly imminent nuclear war. Happy Days indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 13, 2023 21:23:02 GMT
Some evidenced speculation (videos showing the apparent incident) that the earlier reports of two Russian jets and two helicopters lost today were actually shot down in a single incident. The claims are that they were mounting an attack in the Bryansk region. This has led to speculation of improved Ukrainian air defence systems, and with news this evening of another Russian helicopter downed, with five aircraft lost overall, this has turned out to be a significantly bad day for Russian air forces.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 13, 2023 21:26:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by eor on May 13, 2023 21:35:53 GMT
When the bank rate went up I noticed that all the news coverage that I saw was overwhelmingly negative, and about how mortgage rates would go up. I'm sure I've read that savers outnumber mortgage payers by a lot, and it's good news for them. So a net good. It's not symmetrical tho - if rates are low, a lot of people get less extra money from the money they already have. If rates suddenly go high, a much smaller number of people lose their homes and some businesses go bust. So that naturally will get more headlines. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 13, 2023 21:35:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 13, 2023 22:02:07 GMT
When the bank rate went up I noticed that all the news coverage that I saw was overwhelmingly negative, and about how mortgage rates would go up. I'm sure I've read that savers outnumber mortgage payers by a lot, and it's good news for them. So a net good. It's not symmetrical tho - if rates are low, a lot of people get less extra money from the money they already have. If rates suddenly go high, a much smaller number of people lose their homes and some businesses go bust. So that naturally will get more headlines. Good point, but I have little sympathy for people or businesses who work so close to their limits. When I married my wife wanted to move from the house I was buying because it was on a rough council estate. We moved up the road and took out a new mortgage at 10%. I had worked out that we could just about afford 12%. This was the late 70s and interest rates were very volatile. In the event the rate went up to 14 or 15% and was taking well over half my take-home pay. My wife was a housewife but we never considered her taking a job. We just cut back on things. Turkey-neck soup was one of her specialities. The necks could be bought for a few pence at the market near closing time. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 13, 2023 22:34:21 GMT
... But now a second constitutional issue has raised its head. The Government has shown that it is willing to go directly against the will of parliament and use ministerial powers instead. For a long time thereâs been a tendency to legislate using these powers instead of the full parliamentary process. Itâs what we saw during Brexit and then, most alarmingly, under Covid. But now we have entered a dangerous new terrain. Theyâre not just being used to sideline parliament. Theyâre being used to disobey it. (MY EMPHASIS) I understand that a lot of EU legislation went through using Statutory instruments, so that's where the rot started. It's entirely our own government's fault of course, but the fact that they couldn't be trusted to debate EU legislation was one of the big factors in me wanting to Leave (and still do by the way). One hallmark of the british system of government is normally that government has the power to pass any legislation it wishes. So if you think about it, it would not normally have to resort to tricks like secondary legislation to get what it wants. Arguably what is exceptional about recent years is the massive revolt of tory MPs against their own government. That con are split into pro and anti Brexit factions, even though they all pretend to be on the brexit team. looked at like that, this is a sign of government weakness not strength. Its very unusual for a government not to have absolute control of the commons, and practical control of the lords. What might be interesting is whether the large number of con lords appointed by this government set about opposing a new labour government immediately. Seems highly likely, whatever conventions might once have applied re manifesto policies. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 13, 2023 22:41:36 GMT
... But now a second constitutional issue has raised its head. The Government has shown that it is willing to go directly against the will of parliament and use ministerial powers instead. For a long time thereâs been a tendency to legislate using these powers instead of the full parliamentary process. Itâs what we saw during Brexit and then, most alarmingly, under Covid. But now we have entered a dangerous new terrain. Theyâre not just being used to sideline parliament. Theyâre being used to disobey it. (MY EMPHASIS) I understand that a lot of EU legislation went through using Statutory instruments, so that's where the rot started. It's entirely our own government's fault of course, but the fact that they couldn't be trusted to debate EU legislation was one of the big factors in me wanting to Leave (and still do by the way). An enormous amount of UK legislation (and English legislation re devolved matters) also goes through using Statutory Instruments with no parliamentary say. The current government has been actively extending the power of ministers to do this in a range of significant areas. Are you similarly angry about that? |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 13, 2023 23:11:57 GMT
I'm left sittig here with a large question mark over my head. I get that brexiteers want laws and regulations to be passed by parliament in Westminster exclsively. That's not difficult to understand. I may be a remainer, but, I get it. I also understand that now we have left, parliament can amend and change any of the EU laws and regulations at will to suit ourselves (or more accurately, to suit/match the policies of whatever government is in power at the time. So far, so good. The bit I don't understand is this... For any given legislation, on whatever issue, surely the aim would be to amend or replace it with better legislation. Surley simply scrapping several thousand of these without putting anything - not even their opposites - in their place does not achieve this? Take a ficticious example of a regulation about the amount of meat in sausages - and assume that, for the sake of argument, it has to be a minimum of 40%. Some may highlight health and say that we should up the minimum to 50% so that we are not eating as much other stuff added. Others, however, may be concerned about poverty/cost of living and say that the minimum needs to be reduced to 30% so that those on the breadline can buy cheapers, lower end sausages. Whatever gets decided would be decided by scrutiny and debate. In parliament. The very thing that brexiteers say they want. The same would surely apply to all EU rules and regulations that ministers thought needed changing. Again, simply scrapping the lot at an arbitary date does not achieve this. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 13, 2023 23:26:02 GMT
Mrs Nat insisted that I watch the Eurovision results with her. As politics becomes more of a marketing exercise, I can see Election Night Specials becoming a choreographed spectacle in a similar way.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 14, 2023 2:45:08 GMT
I understand that a lot of EU legislation went through using Statutory instruments, so that's where the rot started. It's entirely our own government's fault of course, but the fact that they couldn't be trusted to debate EU legislation was one of the big factors in me wanting to Leave (and still do by the way). An enormous amount of UK legislation (and English legislation re devolved matters) also goes through using Statutory Instruments with no parliamentary say. The current government has been actively extending the power of ministers to do this in a range of significant areas. Are you similarly angry about that? Similarly but not quite so much, because at least it's not foreigners foisting their weird rules on us. If the House of Commons kept normal working hours and had only 4 weeks holiday like everyone else they'd be able to debate a lot more stuff. All that crap about them having to be in their constituencies some of the time to see their constituents - most of that stuff is done by minions at the taxpayers expense. There might be a few good constituency MPs but not many. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blipâŚ
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 14, 2023 4:59:56 GMT
Some news from the Telegraph you might find interesting:
Keir Starmer to give millions of EU nationals the vote
Labour leader accused of wanting to rig general elections by letting migrants who live in UK and pay tax have a say
âSir Keir Starmer will hand the vote to millions of EU citizens if Labour wins the next general election, the Telegraph can reveal.
Under manifesto plans for the biggest expansion of the franchise in almost a century, Sir Keir will launch a âpackage of proposalsâ including votes for settled migrants and 16 and 17-year-olds.
The move could force the Conservatives out of London altogether and unseat Boris Johnson if he stands again for Parliament in 2029.
However, the Labour leader faces accusations of trying to ârig the outcomeâ of a future election and âlaying the groundwork for a referendum to rejoin the EUâ.
Under the proposals, migrants who live permanently in the UK and pay tax will be able to vote in general elections for the first time.
It is expected to affect around 3.4 million EU nationals in Britain, who have already fulfilled those requirements to achieve âsettled statusâ. A further 2.6 million have already been granted âpre-settledâ status and could be given voting rights in the future.
Labour would also expand the franchise to include 1.4 million 16 and 17-year-olds, increasing the size of the electorate by more than eight per cent in total.
Prof Sir John Curtice, the polling expert, said that migrants and young people were more likely to be Labour supporters.
Home Office data show migrants with settled status are heavily concentrated in large cities and the south of England.
âThe presumption we all have, rightly or wrongly, is that theyâre more likely to be opposed to Brexit, and therefore less likely to vote for the Conservative Party,â he said.â
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blipâŚ
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 14, 2023 5:01:52 GMT
âHe added that the policy âmight help contribute to the downfall of Borisâ in his west London constituency, which has a large migrant population, if he is still an MP after the next election.
An analysis by the Telegraph suggests senior Conservative MPs who may also be under threat include Bob Blackman, the executive secretary of the 1922 Committee, and Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former party leader.
âŚ
Amid speculation about the prospect of a coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats, if Labour cannot secure a majority at the next election, Sir Keir rejected suggestions he would reform Britainâs electoral system to benefit smaller parties.
âWeâre going to have priorities coming into government, clear priorities. They are going to be the missions and Iâm afraid voting reform is not one of the priorities,â he said.â
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on May 14, 2023 5:32:45 GMT
Best of luck to Kemal Kilicdaroglu today, polls show he may beat ErdoÄan in the Turkish elections today
Unfortunately not convinced there won't be some skulduggery from ErdoÄan
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 14, 2023 5:50:15 GMT
Congratulations to Swedish performer Loreen on winning Eurovision , she becomes the second performer ever to win twice and it means the show will return to Sweden on the 50th anniversary of Abba's win.
And well done to the British entrance who showed that the aberration of last year with a pretty decent song well sung wasn't repeated and we have been restored to our appropriate position of the bottom two.
Disappointing that the entry didn't actually finish last but next year's entry of "things can only get better" sung by Jacob Rees Mogg and Nigel Farage should do the trick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 6:15:26 GMT
Best of luck to Kemal Kilicdaroglu today, polls show he may beat ErdoÄan in the Turkish elections today Unfortunately not convinced there won't be some skulduggery from ErdoÄan Very important election. |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on May 14, 2023 6:47:43 GMT
I understand that a lot of EU legislation went through using Statutory instruments, so that's where the rot started. It's entirely our own government's fault of course, but the fact that they couldn't be trusted to debate EU legislation was one of the big factors in me wanting to Leave (and still do by the way). An enormous amount of UK legislation (and English legislation re devolved matters) also goes through using Statutory Instruments with no parliamentary say. The current government has been actively extending the power of ministers to do this in a range of significant areas. Are you similarly angry about that? Statutory Instruments are subject to Parliamentary approval though either affirmative (there has to be a vote) or negative ( there is a vote if the SI is challenged) resolution. I think what has changed is the greater use of SI's and for more politically significant issues rather than secondary mainly technical matters. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 14, 2023 7:28:37 GMT
It's a shame to see Starmer rule out fair voting but not a particular surprise the leadership of the Labour party, when it comes down to it is just as sanguine about governing with minority electoral support while pretending it's a majority as the Tories.This doesn't necessarily apply to its members.
That being said extending the franchise is a positive.
Given that it's core to our beliefs that the U.K.should have a fair voting system it pretty much rules out any formal coalition,which was unlikely any way.Unless of course Starmer did another about face which wouldn't exactly be a surprise.
The lib dems now are an avowedly anti Tory party,it's one of the reasons I'm a member, we aren't equidistant between Labour and the conservatives in many ways we are more progressive than Labour, voting records of lib dems in the lords reflect this where Labour sometimes abstained the lib dems will vote against but most of the time we agree and are united against the Tories.
I hope that Liberal Democrat influence can put Labour on the right track towards fair voting in our UK wide and English elections and moving back economically and culturally to the centre of European life.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 14, 2023 8:20:27 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 14, 2023 8:41:25 GMT
pjw1961interesting I had a pop up advert about having an accident that wasn't my fault before the recitation commenced then Jenkyns had one which was definitely hers. Thanks for that now seen can't be unseen or unheard!
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 14, 2023 8:53:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on May 14, 2023 9:04:40 GMT
Mercian: "Similarly but not quite so much, because at least it's not foreigners foisting their weird rules on us."
Could you provide an example of a "weird rule" which the UK government voted against but which we nevertheless had to accept because of the votes of foreigners?
Badenoch says 1,000 EU regulations have now been deleted so if you're correct in your assertion, you should have no trouble finding some which meet your dual criteria of weirdness and imposition against UK government votes.
(Of course, the reality is that in any co-operative venture, in order to work for members' mutual benefit, there has to be a realistic level of give and take, or the thing can't work at all).
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 14, 2023 9:09:28 GMT
An enormous amount of UK legislation (and English legislation re devolved matters) also goes through using Statutory Instruments with no parliamentary say. The current government has been actively extending the power of ministers to do this in a range of significant areas. Are you similarly angry about that? Similarly but not quite so much, because at least it's not foreigners foisting their weird rules on us. If the House of Commons kept normal working hours and had only 4 weeks holiday like everyone else they'd be able to debate a lot more stuff. All that crap about them having to be in their constituencies some of the time to see their constituents - most of that stuff is done by minions at the taxpayers expense. There might be a few good constituency MPs but not many.    Those of us of working age get the weird and delusional rules of the retired English exceptionalists foisted on us now. Nothing 'weirder' and harder to understand than that for me. But of course the marker of your generation is believing you can foist your attitudes and mores on the rest of us. Not for much longer sonny, not for much longer. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 14, 2023 9:11:47 GMT
Lindsay Hoyle being shite as usual as speaker. After the election it will definitely be for services to the regime arise Baron Lindsay of Pratts Bottom. youtu.be/MUFjdkNKLlA |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 14, 2023 9:15:33 GMT
The bit I don't understand is this... For any given legislation, on whatever issue, surely the aim would be to amend or replace it with better legislation.Surley simply scrapping several thousand of these without putting anything - not even their opposites - in their place does not achieve this? I think the aim of hard leave right now is to make it as difficult as possible for the Uk to rejoin the EU. So make every possible difficulty they can which would delay rejoining. Make bad foreign trade deals. Rip up as much legislation as possible which will need to be reinstated. Because they know we will rejoin, and they even know that once the balance of advantage moves to rejoin then even the conservative party itself will support rejoining. Its hard to think of Rees-Mogg as a Russian agent because of his patrician background. Yet some of the best Russian moles have been exactly this sort of person. His actions very clearly harm the UK. Sunak is leading a mixed bag of people some of whom just want power, some are secret remainers, some like RM just seem to want to destroy the UK. Johnson was chosen as leader because they could see they needed to become a hard leave party to win an election. Its no longer enough, in fact it is turning to a big disadvantage. And so the party is pulling apart.
Although there may be a recovery in the economy by latest time for an election, there may not be a party to fight it.
|
|
