Having read the two links to ‘What constituencies…’ I am still none the wiser. So how can our wonderful, unbiased MPs expected to make a reasoned decision according to the wishes of their constituents if they don’t know who voted for what? Or doesn’t it matter?
True, but she has recently been saying that her aims are the single market and controls on immigration. I’m not sure there will be many more details other than that.
Vox Pop from their surgeries with added smattering of self interest.
Her position can best be summarised as
4 Likes
So just more of the ‘Who shouts loudest’ shit then
If they plan to make it through the next election it should be ‘Who votes’ rather than ‘Who shouts’. If politicians can’t align themselves with their electorate then they’re doomed aren’t they ? If they only know how to do one thing then it had better be’ work out what 51% of the voters want and give it to them’.
VB
This is the key point. Parliament will undoubtedly vote to invoke article 50, in the face of uncertain opposition and a three line whip. However, when we come back from the negotiations with a shitty stick, rather than the moon on it, it will be interesting to see the extent to which parliament can ratify or resist.
Not sure about the Lords though. I doubt that they will want to shove too many oars in, on the basis that we have an elected government trying to fulfil a democratic referendum - an unelected chamber is not really the place fer that challenge.
In the end they’ll have to ratify. The questions are a) whether they can shape the negotiating position in advance, with the aim of getting what they want (maybe finance passporting for the right, protection of workers for the left) and b) whether they can build a ‘Don’t blame me - I publicly fought against this’ defence when they’re eventually faced with having to vote for stuff their side don’t want.
VB
I’m just hoping for a political mobius loop of:
MP’s - "we won’t vote to invoke A50 until we know what the agreements are"
EU - “we won’t discuss the agreements until A50 is invoked”
1 Like
I’m hoping the Supreme Court throws out the appeal & they have to go begging at the ECJ.
4 Likes
Boris gets his wires crossed again…
There are some jobs I quite fancy. Then there are some like this
Left of centre, at the top, are the two input selector switches on an HMV 555 Stereoscope, which should look like this once it’s back together
My next task is to remove every resistor from the switches without damaging the switch tags or the fragile little polystyrene capacitors, then clean the switch contacts, then put new resistors in, then slide the whole assembly back into the chassis and reconnect the other ends of the resistors to the studs on the chassis, then reconnect all the grey screened leads back onto the selector switches. Without missing anything out or getting any of it mixed up.
I may be some time.
VB
2 Likes
That just looks like spaghetti with mini turds.
In the picture of how it should look, are the valves meant to be wonky?
Yes, to keep the chassis low and stylish they tilt the EL84s which are taller than all the other valves (there are 12 valves altogether IIRC, not counting the little scope tube). It could be argued that tilting them gives them slightly better cooling in the vertical convective air stream too.
VB
However, the fact that the current Conservative manifesto contains a promise to stay in the single market does make things rather more ambiguous. I know the Lords don’t tend to oppose legislation that stems from the elected party’s manifesto, but I don’t know what they do if they put forward legislation that opposes it.
1 Like
So, if greedy Phil coughs up all the money to the PPF that they want, the pensioners will not be any better off!
So how does that work then?
The PPF, which has taken over schemes for Woolworths, Peacocks and Monarch Airlines in the past few years, also caps pension benefits, which would limit payments to £32,276 a year for a 60-year-old. However, BHS is not thought to have any members in the staff scheme who would have a large enough pension to face a cap.
Under the PPF, pensioners lose more than 10% of their pension, and get no yearly increase…
If Phil pays up, that won’t change afaik…
Yeah but surely he should pay rather than the PPF? They should be able to claim from him, effectively.