I know that it's the 30th anniversary of the Falklands war and all, but this rabble rousing about the islands just seems bizarre. There just doesn't seem to be any real spark for the tensions and the ratcheting is a bit odd.
Go talk to an Argentinian about Las Malvinas sometime. For extra fun, call the islands by their real name. Said Argentinian will get very boring very quickly. There's always been more tension about it there than there is here.
It's like Kirchner and Cameron met up and decided to just have a nice distracting tiff or something!
...which makes it a useful drum to beat for Argentinian politicians who want to win elections. Problem being, when they actually get elected, they then have to try and make good on the rhetoric.
Like AManFromEarth I can't imagine anyone serious in the international community doing anything other than rolling their eyes. But it was a particularly pathetic display of UN pointlessness for Ban Ki Moon to plead with both parties to have a civil discussion, instead of just ignoring it or smacking Argentina down and telling them to stop trying to pick a fight. When your standard response to pretty much everything, regardless of situation, severity or culpability, is to say that both sides should just talk and play nice, one has to wonder what the point of the organisation is.
Essentially, what Argentina are doing now is only a marginally more credible version of North Korea kicking off about US / SK "imperialist aggression" just because they're conducting a routine annual exercise. That said, it is pretty amusing to claim we want to "militarise the conflict" by sending the Duke of Cambridge as "a conqueror" in, er, an unarmed emergency rescue helicopter.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
What a prick.
Seriously, until such time that the Falklanders say "Hey, we're kinda tired of being British, we're going to try out this other team for a while." The UK has every right to tell the world to kiss their ass.
That's what I don't get: You'd think Argentina would be having more success trying to persuade a few thousand people they'd be better off joining them than all these demands and embargos. If they persuaded the Islanders to join, then Britain wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
If Argentina was smart, they'd be doing what Brazil is with French Guiana and using their proximity to "mainland Europe" to play fast and lose with trade laws. Brazil's building a huge bridge between them and their neighbor - which is completely and totally a part of France and not a colony according to the French - and trading with France as a direct neighbor.
There are lots of friendship pacts and trade deals involved with this, and the investment in the region has increased to support the growing ties between France and its neighbor Brazil. It's a bit of scam, but both nations hope to benefit from it.
That's what I don't get: You'd think Argentina would be having more success trying to persuade a few thousand people they'd be better off joining them than all these demands and embargos. If they persuaded the Islanders to join, then Britain wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
"Would you like to abandon a stable parliamentary democracy with a seat on the Security Council and a thousand year tradition of freedom and the rule of law in order to join a completely different culture that doesn't even speak the same language and that collapses into a military dictatorship every generation or so (and risk seeing your children get 'disappeared' in their hundreds)? Oh by the way, you'll be abandoning a relatively stable currency and a triple A credit rating in return for a currency made of recycled toilet paper, but at least we'll promise to treat you as well as the other natives and not marginalise you in any way."
That's what I don't get: You'd think Argentina would be having more success trying to persuade a few thousand people they'd be better off joining them than all these demands and embargos. If they persuaded the Islanders to join, then Britain wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
"Would you like to abandon a stable parliamentary democracy with a seat on the Security Council and a thousand year tradition of freedom and the rule of law in order to join a completely different culture that doesn't even speak the same language and that collapses into a military dictatorship every generation or so (and risk seeing your children get 'disappeared' in their hundreds)? Oh by the way, you'll be abandoning a relatively stable currency and a triple A credit rating in return for a currency made of recycled toilet paper, but at least we'll promise to treat you as well as the other natives and not marginalise you in any way."
Did I say it would be instant? I think Philishere's approach was more what I was thinking, buttering them up.
That's what I don't get: You'd think Argentina would be having more success trying to persuade a few thousand people they'd be better off joining them than all these demands and embargos. If they persuaded the Islanders to join, then Britain wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
"Would you like to abandon a stable parliamentary democracy with a seat on the Security Council and a thousand year tradition of freedom and the rule of law in order to join a completely different culture that doesn't even speak the same language and that collapses into a military dictatorship every generation or so (and risk seeing your children get 'disappeared' in their hundreds)? Oh by the way, you'll be abandoning a relatively stable currency and a triple A credit rating in return for a currency made of recycled toilet paper, but at least we'll promise to treat you as well as the other natives and not marginalise you in any way."
Did I say it would be instant? I think Philishere's approach was more what I was thinking, buttering them up.
They pretty explicitly don't want the people, just the land.
That's what I don't get: You'd think Argentina would be having more success trying to persuade a few thousand people they'd be better off joining them than all these demands and embargos. If they persuaded the Islanders to join, then Britain wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
"Would you like to abandon a stable parliamentary democracy with a seat on the Security Council and a thousand year tradition of freedom and the rule of law in order to join a completely different culture that doesn't even speak the same language and that collapses into a military dictatorship every generation or so (and risk seeing your children get 'disappeared' in their hundreds)? Oh by the way, you'll be abandoning a relatively stable currency and a triple A credit rating in return for a currency made of recycled toilet paper, but at least we'll promise to treat you as well as the other natives and not marginalise you in any way."
Did I say it would be instant? I think Philishere's approach was more what I was thinking, buttering them up.
I think Brazil's approach is different in that Brazil doesn't want to own the French territory. It wants to capitalize on the French insistence that this slice of South American jungle is actually part of mainland Europe, allowing them to piggyback on a whole host of trade regulations and laws aimed at encouraging trade between Europe and its actual neighbors.
That's what I don't get: You'd think Argentina would be having more success trying to persuade a few thousand people they'd be better off joining them than all these demands and embargos. If they persuaded the Islanders to join, then Britain wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
"Would you like to abandon a stable parliamentary democracy with a seat on the Security Council and a thousand year tradition of freedom and the rule of law in order to join a completely different culture that doesn't even speak the same language and that collapses into a military dictatorship every generation or so (and risk seeing your children get 'disappeared' in their hundreds)? Oh by the way, you'll be abandoning a relatively stable currency and a triple A credit rating in return for a currency made of recycled toilet paper, but at least we'll promise to treat you as well as the other natives and not marginalise you in any way."
Did I say it would be instant? I think Philishere's approach was more what I was thinking, buttering them up.
They pretty explicitly don't want the people, just the land.
My belief is that any attempt to procure one without the other is bad, and it annoys me that I've seen so few non-British sources make reference to the existing population. Even if Argentina is totally right as to the original seizure, why should the Islanders be punished for something they never did?
That's what I don't get: You'd think Argentina would be having more success trying to persuade a few thousand people they'd be better off joining them than all these demands and embargos. If they persuaded the Islanders to join, then Britain wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Absolutely. I mean The Falklands Islands pretty much govern themselves anyway (Westminster has control over foreign affairs and military deployment) so it wouldn't be a massive issue to let them have independence. But the UK is in the enviable position where a large oil field has been found and the Islanders themselves have said they wish to remain part of the UK.
The new oil field is probably why Argentina has decided to saber rattle again.
If Argentina was smart, they'd be doing what Brazil is with French Guiana and using their proximity to "mainland Europe" to play fast and lose with trade laws. Brazil's building a huge bridge between them and their neighbor - which is completely and totally a part of France and not a colony according to the French - and trading with France as a direct neighbor.
Well, it is, they send MPs to the French parliment, the governing structure is pretty straight forward - they are French citizens.
It's a very different situation for the mess of Crown Dependecies and Overseas Territories that the United Kingdom has.
If Argentina was smart, they'd be doing what Brazil is with French Guiana and using their proximity to "mainland Europe" to play fast and lose with trade laws. Brazil's building a huge bridge between them and their neighbor - which is completely and totally a part of France and not a colony according to the French - and trading with France as a direct neighbor.
Well, it is, they send MPs to the French parliment, the governing structure is pretty straight forward - they are French citizens.
It's a very different situation for the mess of Crown Dependecies and Overseas Territories that the United Kingdom has.
Can the citizens of French Guiana migrate just move to France if they feel like it? From the photos I've seen, it's a very undeveloped and impoverish tract of land. I suspect it's one of those colonial situations where the residents are completely and totally French citizens, just much less so than the French citizens in France.
The European powers like to play the "You are a full citizen, but you can't actually migrate to your home country" thing with their colonies. For all its faults, the U.S. at least allows anyone from Puerto Rico and Guam to move to New York if they can afford the airfare and rent.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
That's what I don't get: You'd think Argentina would be having more success trying to persuade a few thousand people they'd be better off joining them than all these demands and embargos. If they persuaded the Islanders to join, then Britain wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Absolutely. I mean The Falklands Islands pretty much govern themselves anyway (Westminster has control over foreign affairs and military deployment) so it wouldn't be a massive issue to let them have independence. But the UK is in the enviable position where a large oil field has been found and the Islanders themselves have said they wish to remain part of the UK.
The new oil field is probably why Argentina has decided to saber rattle again.
The most important thing about the Falklands is that the Falklanders want to be British. There is no legitimate Falkland Independence Party. Argentina has zero ground here. This would be like Russia demanding Alaska back or China making a claim on the Hawaiian Islands or Guam.
If Argentina was smart, they'd be doing what Brazil is with French Guiana and using their proximity to "mainland Europe" to play fast and lose with trade laws. Brazil's building a huge bridge between them and their neighbor - which is completely and totally a part of France and not a colony according to the French - and trading with France as a direct neighbor.
Well, it is, they send MPs to the French parliment, the governing structure is pretty straight forward - they are French citizens.
It's a very different situation for the mess of Crown Dependecies and Overseas Territories that the United Kingdom has.
Can the citizens of French Guiana migrate just move to France if they feel like it? From the photos I've seen, it's a very undeveloped and impoverish tract of land. I suspect it's one of those colonial situations where the residents are completely and totally French citizens, just much less so than the French citizens in France.
The European powers like to play the "You are a full citizen, but you can't actually migrate to your home country" thing with their colonies. For all its faults, the U.S. at least allows anyone from Puerto Rico and Guam to move to New York if they can afford the airfare and rent.
They are totally French citizens and can move to any part of France just like any other French citizen.
I just LOVE how Sean Penn was trying to promote 'dialogue' as if it were going to be an even handed affair when he shows his blatant bias by using the Argentine name. You know, the name that the bloody inhabitants of the island don't even use!
I just LOVE how Sean Penn was trying to promote 'dialogue' as if it were going to be an even handed affair when he shows his blatant bias by using the Argentine name. You know, the name that the bloody inhabitants of the island don't even use!
The biggest dipshit.
Oh but he's so cool and edgy standing up against the big evil British Empire for the poor oppressed underdogs.
What an enormous twat. And the joke is not even the Argentines would care about that rock if they didn't think there was a fortune in oil sitting off it.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I just LOVE how Sean Penn was trying to promote 'dialogue' as if it were going to be an even handed affair when he shows his blatant bias by using the Argentine name. You know, the name that the bloody inhabitants of the island don't even use!
The biggest dipshit.
Oh but he's so cool and edgy standing up against the big evil British Empire for the poor oppressed underdogs.
What an enormous twat. And the joke is not even the Argentines would care about that rock if they didn't think there was a fortune in oil sitting off it.
I think it's hilarious that everyone keeps telling Britain to forget it's outdated colonial ambitions when it's Argentina that is being colonialist here.
I just LOVE how Sean Penn was trying to promote 'dialogue' as if it were going to be an even handed affair when he shows his blatant bias by using the Argentine name. You know, the name that the bloody inhabitants of the island don't even use!
The biggest dipshit.
Oh but he's so cool and edgy standing up against the big evil British Empire for the poor oppressed underdogs.
What an enormous twat. And the joke is not even the Argentines would care about that rock if they didn't think there was a fortune in oil sitting off it.
I think it's hilarious that everyone keeps telling Britain to forget it's outdated colonial ambitions when it's Argentina that is being colonialist here.
Same shit different day. The people in charge in Argentina think they can distract their populous from real issues at home by raising a nationalist bruhaha over a few square miles of rock and moss in the sea. The really sad thing is it appears to be working.
What an enormous twat. And the joke is not even the Argentines would care about that rock if they didn't think there was a fortune in oil sitting off it.
Well they'd care about it even then, its part of their consensus history and heavily taught in schools that Argentina is the true inheritor of the old viceroyality (despite rebelling against spain, and then having half a century of interprovincial fighting that produced a later government with zero continuity) and that the other countries of the southern cone (and Britain) 'stole' their rightful claims when Argentina was weak. They constantly dickwaved with Chile up until the 90s too (the other main offender in their eyes), but it doesn't make much English language news, heck they still argue over some borders with Chile.
That kind of national myth-making runs very deep in peoples identities, its like Americans regarding the founding fathers, there is just no self-analysis. Even if the Falklands was oilless they'd still argue about it.
Interestingly, the FCO had planned for a review of the British Overseas Territories this year (2012), of which the Falkands is one. The White Paper is due out this year. I wonder if the Argentinians are trying to influence it in anyway? Would seem pretty hamfisted if so
So people seen the Workfare stuff? There's some new rules that (under certain circumstances which I'm not all that familiar with) require people on Jobseekers Allowance to work a certain amount of hours (unpaid) in order to continue to qualify for the allowance. The original idea behind this was that it would help out charities and community work, however the biggest employer and beneficiary of the scheme is apparently Tescos, who somewhat foolishly even started to advertise the roles.
There has been huge outcry in response to a job advert from Tescos for a 30 hours a week nightshift UNPAID through the Job Centre Work Experience scheme. This isn’t a one-off. A year ago, Boycott Workfare spoke to someone at the job centre who had just finished seven nights on the trot of forced unpaid work at Tescos.
Tescos tries to defend itself by saying the placements are voluntary. But what is voluntary about having to work 30 hour weeks unpaid or risk losing the meagre £53 a week Jobseekers Allowance that young people have to survive on?
Tescos says it has recently employed 300 people through the scheme. But even in last August, they had taken on 3000 placements. On a conservative estimate they may now have doubled this figure. This would be less than 5% of workfare workers given paid employment.
Once people are on these schemes have very little recourse to challenge bad treatment, and managers take advantage:
One woman was made to work without protective clothing in the chilled and freezer section in Tescos
Another store took on twelve people to cover the busy Christmas period but offered not a single job
Other people placed in supermarkets report being forced to work the worst hours, paid staff being sent home and childcare needs being ignored
Last week Sainsbury’s withdrew from the scheme after public pressure.
Tescos are doing pretty well at the moment anyway, don't really think they need the tax payers to subsidise their night staff if I'm totally honest. Plus obviously this means that due to this scheme there are actually less jobs going around if businesses can qualify for placements. Heard a little about this a couple of weeks back, but then it was linked to the 'privatised job centres' who had worked out a deal with Tescos to get the chronically unemployed and supposedly unemployable back to work (and thus earning a prize from the government for the agency) by using lots of barely qualifying part time roles. Stuff like 12 hours a week etc, so multiple people effectively holding down the one job whilst earning multiple prizes for the agency - and this is after they had to restructure the scheme as before they had just paid the agencies upfront prior to finding any work.
And to top it off, at least according the Guardian and several mental health charities, the new Welfare Bill would extend these rules to the disabled - forcing them to unlimited unpaid work if they want to qualify for benefits. And by disabled, that includes the terminally ill (as long as they have more than 6 months).
The policy could mean that those on employment and support allowance who have been placed in the work-related activity group (Wrag) could be compelled to undertake work experience for charities, public bodies and high-street retailers. The Wrag group includes those who have been diagnosed with terminal cancer but have more than six months to live; accident and stroke victims; and some of those with mental health issues.
In official notes from a meeting on 1 December last year, DWP advisers revealed they were not intending to put a time limit on the work experience placements.
When asked at the meeting if there was a maximum duration to the placements, the reply was: "There are no plans to introduce a maximum time limit."
Currently there is an eight-week limit on non-disabled jobseekers taking part in the government's work experience programme, and a six-month limit on unpaid work for a new pilot called the community action programme.
I think the NHS Reform bill is overshadowing this at the moment, but it feels like the pressure is starting to build and people are starting to notice this as well. If the coalition split, what then has to happen for it to be declared a hung parliament and call for another election?
However what I wanted to know is whether anyone could tell me the various pros and cons of an elected mayor over a council leader? Got a flyer through the post a few days back regarding a referendum for the change.
However what I wanted to know is whether anyone could tell me the various pros and cons of an elected mayor over a council leader? Got a flyer through the post a few days back regarding a referendum for the change.
If there is absolutely no difference in actual powers, then the elected mayor will be little more than a higher profile elected official that will be held personally accountable for the actions of the entire council.
I think that the powers of the mayors, to be elected, isn't substantially different from the current leader's power, so I'm not sure what practical difference there will be
Reports this morning suggest that Galloway pandered to one distinct group in the constituency (guess which one) and Labour's campaign was taken utterly by surprise (so they hadn't spent much money or built up much of a presence there).
Reports this morning suggest that Galloway pandered to one distinct group in the constituency (guess which one) and Labour's campaign was taken utterly by surprise (so they hadn't spent much money or built up much of a presence there).
Some reports have also mentioned the perception that Labour in Bradford West was dominated by some clan/family connections may well have hurt Labour's chances. Added to that is the fact that Bradford is kind of a terrible place to live, I can imagine that voter dis-satisfaction would be high. Galloway comes along, plays to his crowd, promises to turn things around and people think why not give him a try. Because he's George Galloway and he's an unutterable creep and a schmuck of the highest order may not have occurred to them.
Posts
Go talk to an Argentinian about Las Malvinas sometime. For extra fun, call the islands by their real name. Said Argentinian will get very boring very quickly. There's always been more tension about it there than there is here.
...which makes it a useful drum to beat for Argentinian politicians who want to win elections. Problem being, when they actually get elected, they then have to try and make good on the rhetoric.
Like AManFromEarth I can't imagine anyone serious in the international community doing anything other than rolling their eyes. But it was a particularly pathetic display of UN pointlessness for Ban Ki Moon to plead with both parties to have a civil discussion, instead of just ignoring it or smacking Argentina down and telling them to stop trying to pick a fight. When your standard response to pretty much everything, regardless of situation, severity or culpability, is to say that both sides should just talk and play nice, one has to wonder what the point of the organisation is.
Essentially, what Argentina are doing now is only a marginally more credible version of North Korea kicking off about US / SK "imperialist aggression" just because they're conducting a routine annual exercise. That said, it is pretty amusing to claim we want to "militarise the conflict" by sending the Duke of Cambridge as "a conqueror" in, er, an unarmed emergency rescue helicopter.
They're claiming that the UK sent a nuclear armed submarine into the area to transport nukes to the South Atlantic:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16993391
They realize you guys are not in fact Americans, yes?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17025000
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I presume that Mr Penn also supports handing back that brutally colonial construct known as The Argentine back to it's native inhabitants.
He went to Iraq you know.[/Team America]
Seriously, until such time that the Falklanders say "Hey, we're kinda tired of being British, we're going to try out this other team for a while." The UK has every right to tell the world to kiss their ass.
There are lots of friendship pacts and trade deals involved with this, and the investment in the region has increased to support the growing ties between France and its neighbor Brazil. It's a bit of scam, but both nations hope to benefit from it.
"Would you like to abandon a stable parliamentary democracy with a seat on the Security Council and a thousand year tradition of freedom and the rule of law in order to join a completely different culture that doesn't even speak the same language and that collapses into a military dictatorship every generation or so (and risk seeing your children get 'disappeared' in their hundreds)? Oh by the way, you'll be abandoning a relatively stable currency and a triple A credit rating in return for a currency made of recycled toilet paper, but at least we'll promise to treat you as well as the other natives and not marginalise you in any way."
Did I say it would be instant? I think Philishere's approach was more what I was thinking, buttering them up.
My favourite quote from him is:
"I think that the world today is not going to tolerate any kind of ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology,"
He apparently has overlooked the repeated statements from Falklands government who have repeatedly said that they wish to remain a part of the UK.
Bloody idiot.
They pretty explicitly don't want the people, just the land.
I think Brazil's approach is different in that Brazil doesn't want to own the French territory. It wants to capitalize on the French insistence that this slice of South American jungle is actually part of mainland Europe, allowing them to piggyback on a whole host of trade regulations and laws aimed at encouraging trade between Europe and its actual neighbors.
My belief is that any attempt to procure one without the other is bad, and it annoys me that I've seen so few non-British sources make reference to the existing population. Even if Argentina is totally right as to the original seizure, why should the Islanders be punished for something they never did?
Absolutely. I mean The Falklands Islands pretty much govern themselves anyway (Westminster has control over foreign affairs and military deployment) so it wouldn't be a massive issue to let them have independence. But the UK is in the enviable position where a large oil field has been found and the Islanders themselves have said they wish to remain part of the UK.
The new oil field is probably why Argentina has decided to saber rattle again.
Well, it is, they send MPs to the French parliment, the governing structure is pretty straight forward - they are French citizens.
It's a very different situation for the mess of Crown Dependecies and Overseas Territories that the United Kingdom has.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Can the citizens of French Guiana migrate just move to France if they feel like it? From the photos I've seen, it's a very undeveloped and impoverish tract of land. I suspect it's one of those colonial situations where the residents are completely and totally French citizens, just much less so than the French citizens in France.
The European powers like to play the "You are a full citizen, but you can't actually migrate to your home country" thing with their colonies. For all its faults, the U.S. at least allows anyone from Puerto Rico and Guam to move to New York if they can afford the airfare and rent.
The most important thing about the Falklands is that the Falklanders want to be British. There is no legitimate Falkland Independence Party. Argentina has zero ground here. This would be like Russia demanding Alaska back or China making a claim on the Hawaiian Islands or Guam.
They are totally French citizens and can move to any part of France just like any other French citizen.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Cool. Rock on France!
The biggest dipshit.
Oh but he's so cool and edgy standing up against the big evil British Empire for the poor oppressed underdogs.
What an enormous twat. And the joke is not even the Argentines would care about that rock if they didn't think there was a fortune in oil sitting off it.
I think it's hilarious that everyone keeps telling Britain to forget it's outdated colonial ambitions when it's Argentina that is being colonialist here.
Same shit different day. The people in charge in Argentina think they can distract their populous from real issues at home by raising a nationalist bruhaha over a few square miles of rock and moss in the sea. The really sad thing is it appears to be working.
Well they'd care about it even then, its part of their consensus history and heavily taught in schools that Argentina is the true inheritor of the old viceroyality (despite rebelling against spain, and then having half a century of interprovincial fighting that produced a later government with zero continuity) and that the other countries of the southern cone (and Britain) 'stole' their rightful claims when Argentina was weak. They constantly dickwaved with Chile up until the 90s too (the other main offender in their eyes), but it doesn't make much English language news, heck they still argue over some borders with Chile.
That kind of national myth-making runs very deep in peoples identities, its like Americans regarding the founding fathers, there is just no self-analysis. Even if the Falklands was oilless they'd still argue about it.
http://ukoverseasterritories.readandcomment.com/
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/what-we-do/overseas-territories
From here, not the original place I read about it but the first google hit
Tescos are doing pretty well at the moment anyway, don't really think they need the tax payers to subsidise their night staff if I'm totally honest. Plus obviously this means that due to this scheme there are actually less jobs going around if businesses can qualify for placements. Heard a little about this a couple of weeks back, but then it was linked to the 'privatised job centres' who had worked out a deal with Tescos to get the chronically unemployed and supposedly unemployable back to work (and thus earning a prize from the government for the agency) by using lots of barely qualifying part time roles. Stuff like 12 hours a week etc, so multiple people effectively holding down the one job whilst earning multiple prizes for the agency - and this is after they had to restructure the scheme as before they had just paid the agencies upfront prior to finding any work.
And to top it off, at least according the Guardian and several mental health charities, the new Welfare Bill would extend these rules to the disabled - forcing them to unlimited unpaid work if they want to qualify for benefits. And by disabled, that includes the terminally ill (as long as they have more than 6 months).
I think the NHS Reform bill is overshadowing this at the moment, but it feels like the pressure is starting to build and people are starting to notice this as well. If the coalition split, what then has to happen for it to be declared a hung parliament and call for another election?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Surprised it took this long.
They wanted things to die down. While they arguably had, the recent arrests kinda reverse that.
However what I wanted to know is whether anyone could tell me the various pros and cons of an elected mayor over a council leader? Got a flyer through the post a few days back regarding a referendum for the change.
If there is absolutely no difference in actual powers, then the elected mayor will be little more than a higher profile elected official that will be held personally accountable for the actions of the entire council.
I think that the powers of the mayors, to be elected, isn't substantially different from the current leader's power, so I'm not sure what practical difference there will be
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hR5F-gVuRU_zSJxAD4hY2vhriXQg?docId=N0007281333054982516A
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I really like the photo.
Did anyone follow the campaign closely?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Apparently he also did very well on postal votes
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3