peterms

At least he's consistent in his lying, give him credit for that. Imagine the tortuous mental gymnastics we'd be performing to comprehend his answer if he said he did lie.

If a programme notes that someone has not turned up and doesn't empty-chair them, that is tantamount to accepting the position and moving on. The point of empty-chairing is to give a constant visual reminder that there was a legitimate expectation that someone would be there, and they have chosen not to be. That's why they don't like being empty-chaired. Which in turn is why it's worth doing it, for something like a leaders' debate.

Two choices. Fill them in and return them - electoral fraud, I expect. Don't fill them in, disenfranchise yourself. I don't think there's time to get a replacement sent out, is there?

New book on Labour and antisemitism, free download here.

Agree with your point about civil service rules, I think the point being made was that the media are reporting it, but 3 weeks after it happened, as though they were unaware.

It's not politically possible to sell it off wholesale, which is why they have adopted the approach of creeping privatisation, requiring elements to be tendered and awarding contracts to private firms, while keeping the main NHS underfunded, overstretched and demotivated, in order to reduce the public support it has and weaken opposition to further privatisation. This for example shows the pace it's happening at. Leading Tories are on record as wanting to privatise it - for example, both Letwin and Hunt have written pamphlets arguing for that. It's not yet possible for that to be formal tory policy. When they are plainly working towards that incrementally, I hardly think that the claim that they want to open it up further to private firms needs any more substantiation.

Going back to TTIP, what was happening was that secret discussions were taking place, including about proposals to give corporations the power to win damages against governments for pursuing policies which led to them making lower profits. Agreeing to such a proposal is a very fundamental betrayal of the interests of the country, in the service of multinational corporations. It is only by knowing about such things before they happen that we stand any chance at all of preventing them. The fine detail of negotiations may properly be kept confidential. Things like whether our government is proposing to open up the NHS to the US, cannot and must not be confidential, and we should reject any claim to the contrary.

An important point he is making, perhaps implicitly rather than spelling it out, is that their analysis should be taken alongside that of others but routinely isn't; and that the conclusions the media report are therefore lacking in an important dimension, but media audiences won't necessariy appreciate this.

Also see Simon Wren-Lewis here on the IFS work, making similar points to others: they don't do macro, and this is a weakness.

Hmm. Typo or not typo? Intriguing.

So you're saying that he has broken the law by circulating to the media something which is in the public domain? Surely not. But that's a side issue. The point is of course that we should know what the regime is planning by way of handing over our assets and our rights, and not be cowed by bluster about official secrets.

Not the beeb, but a senior msm hack. Who are we to question what we may and may not see, of the chunterings of our superiors? Says the "Chairman" of the lobby. What a supine, craven cowardly press we have, genuflecting to the powerful, mocking the powerless, grubbing up justifications for every oppressive measure you can imagine, and drafting some more in reserve.

Yes, I recall him saying something similar.

I assumed it meant already registered in the place they were trying to register, rather than the legitimate dual registration you mention. Either way, it should suppress the new registration excitement factor by 30-35%.

I think they didn't do too well on this last time and have presumably tried to make adjustments to the model to account for this. The adjustments are I assume based on theory? I read 3m+ applications to register, about a third of whom were in fact already registered. A big number. Haven't yet seen a poll where they explicitly state they have modelled for how many old tories have died Since they have a high likelihood of voting (before dying, I mean), this is a pretty crucial factor.

Just put a tenner on Labour getting most seats. Also bought a lottery ticket. Surely one or the other must pay out?

Quite a few lefties regard the continual focus on personal identity and remembering preferred pronouns as a diversion from the bigger issues. But I must admit the thought of you trapped in a room with a group of youngsters trying to discuss these things with you, makes me smile.

The opposite. The NHS has long depended on workers from overseas, dating back to when Enoch Powell's Ministry of Health was recruiting hospital staff from India, Pakistan and the Caribbean. Some info here, which predates the recent self-inflicted staff shortages caused by making EU national feel unwanted.

A tactical voting site has updated its previous recommendations, having corrected for the withdrawal of Brexit candidates from lots of seats. For Kensington, they say For lots of others, the previous recommendation to vote Libdem has become a recommendation to vote Labour.