I'm amused that people who were saying that marriage isn't about having children when it related to gay marriage change their line to marriage is about having children when it comes to sibling marriage.
Come on everyone lets be a bit open minded and tolerant and get ahead of the game. We all know sibling marriage will be legal one day.
If two siblings want to get married why shouldn't they.
It doesn't hurt anyone and if it makes them happy why not let them.
Incest is currently illegal, gay sex is not.
Not so long ago gay sex was illegal in part of the UK.
I'm amused that people who were saying that marriage isn't about having children when it related to gay marriage change their line to marriage is about having children when it comes to sibling marriage.
Come on everyone lets be a bit open minded and tolerant and get ahead of the game. We all know sibling marriage will be legal one day.
If two siblings want to get married why shouldn't they.
It doesn't hurt anyone and if it makes them happy why not let them.
Yes it will, so why discriminate against siblings now?
If it's okay to marry a bridge then sooner rather than later someone will want to marry a spaniel. And consummate it. And B&B owners will be forced to rent them rooms.
Let's crack on with the brother-brother thing. It's only fair.
The issue with animals of course is the one of consent and their not being able to give it.
However it should be noted that a lot of the european countries are enlightend and zoosexual practises are legal include Mr Palmers beloved Denmark
I'm amused that people who were saying that marriage isn't about having children when it related to gay marriage change their line to marriage is about having children when it comes to sibling marriage.
Come on everyone lets be a bit open minded and tolerant and get ahead of the game. We all know sibling marriage will be legal one day.
If two siblings want to get married why shouldn't they.
It doesn't hurt anyone and if it makes them happy why not let them.
I'm in favour of gay marriage, but that is a fair point.
Same also regarding the illegality.
If two people make each other happy and want to marry why shouldn't they ?
I'd vote in favour of sibling marriage if it was asked in a referendum. But I doubt I could take seriously/look anyone in the eye who did so !
I'm amused that people who were saying that marriage isn't about having children when it related to gay marriage change their line to marriage is about having children when it comes to sibling marriage.
Come on everyone lets be a bit open minded and tolerant and get ahead of the game. We all know sibling marriage will be legal one day.
If two siblings want to get married why shouldn't they.
It doesn't hurt anyone and if it makes them happy why not let them.
Incest is currently illegal, gay sex is not.
Not so long ago gay sex was illegal in part of the UK.
I'm amused that people who were saying that marriage isn't about having children when it related to gay marriage change their line to marriage is about having children when it comes to sibling marriage.
Come on everyone lets be a bit open minded and tolerant and get ahead of the game. We all know sibling marriage will be legal one day.
If two siblings want to get married why shouldn't they.
It doesn't hurt anyone and if it makes them happy why not let them.
Yes it will, so why discriminate against siblings now?
If it's okay to marry a bridge then sooner rather than later someone will want to marry a spaniel. And consummate it. And B&B owners will be forced to rent them rooms.
Let's crack on with the brother-brother thing. It's only fair.
The issue with animals of course is the one of consent and their not being able to give it.
However it should be noted that a lot of the european countries are enlightend and zoosexual practises are legal include Mr Palmers beloved Denmark
I'm amused that people who were saying that marriage isn't about having children when it related to gay marriage change their line to marriage is about having children when it comes to sibling marriage.
Come on everyone lets be a bit open minded and tolerant and get ahead of the game. We all know sibling marriage will be legal one day.
If two siblings want to get married why shouldn't they.
It doesn't hurt anyone and if it makes them happy why not let them.
Yes it will, so why discriminate against siblings now?
If it's okay to marry a bridge then sooner rather than later someone will want to marry a spaniel. And consummate it. And B&B owners will be forced to rent them rooms.
Let's crack on with the brother-brother thing. It's only fair.
The issue with animals of course is the one of consent and their not being able to give it.
However it should be noted that a lot of the european countries are enlightend and zoosexual practises are legal include Mr Palmers beloved Denmark
I hadn't actually thought of the issue of consent.
Do we get written permission before they are turned into beefburgers?
Genesis 1:26-28 (the Bible, not Phil Collins) would give permission to religious dog-botherers.
While you are correct to point out the glaring hippocracy of the stances of sex with animals vs eating them I feel that the issue of consent is what perhaps makes people comfortable about both sexual relations and marriage. No consent then no dice
I'm amused that people who were saying that marriage isn't about having children when it related to gay marriage change their line to marriage is about having children when it comes to sibling marriage.
Come on everyone lets be a bit open minded and tolerant and get ahead of the game. We all know sibling marriage will be legal one day.
If two siblings want to get married why shouldn't they.
It doesn't hurt anyone and if it makes them happy why not let them.
Incest is currently illegal, gay sex is not.
Not so long ago gay sex was illegal in part of the UK.
I'm amused that people who were saying that marriage isn't about having children when it related to gay marriage change their line to marriage is about having children when it comes to sibling marriage.
Come on everyone lets be a bit open minded and tolerant and get ahead of the game. We all know sibling marriage will be legal one day.
If two siblings want to get married why shouldn't they.
It doesn't hurt anyone and if it makes them happy why not let them.
Incest is currently illegal, gay sex is not.
Not so long ago gay sex was illegal in part of the UK.
[Sidetracked by a very long telephone call which means I haven't been free to follow up in a timely fashion on your comments.]
The question to be determined is whether George Osborne has neglected or even dragged his heels on banking reform.
It is not whether we collectively or individually like and support George Osborne, or even, if we approve and agree with whatever banking reforms he has introduced.
The scope and scale of 'Osborne's' banking sector reforms is not a matter of opinion but a record of fact.
Osborne set up a commission under Vickers within a month of becoming Chancellor. The Commission agreed the key issues to address by September of the same year, made an interim report in the Spring of the following year and completed its report in September 2011.
During the course of the commission there were wide industry consultations, both domestically and internationally and reviews by parliamentary standing committees.
By December 2011, Osborne had announced his near complete adoption of the Vickers Commission recommendations and scheduled implementation of the primary legislation during the passage of the 2012 Financial Services Bill.
Following revelations of the LIBOR fixing scandal, Osborne set up a Parliamentary Commission to review the Vickers Commission proposals and subsequent draft legislation in light of the LIBOR events and to make further recommendations on banking sector structure. The Parliamentary Commission issued its first report in December 2012 and this led to Osborne accepting recommendations to 'electrify' the Vickers ring-fence. Electrification was short-hand for a complex set of rules designed to strengthen and heighten the ring fence and to add disincentives and penalties for banks attempting to breaching it.
Osborne accepted these additional measures in time for legislation to pass through parliament in 2013.
Additionally Osborne completely reformed the regulation of the banking sector by ending Brown's 'tripartite' structure of joint regulation by The Treasury, FSA and BoE and consolidating its macro-economic, prudential and conduct regulatory functions within a single body, the Bank of England.
Osborne also set up Treasury committees to investigate and report on 'Competition and Choice in Retail Banking which reported in 2011 and a supervisory and oversight committee on 'Structural Reform'. The latter committee's goal was to review and comment on the full inquiry, reporting, consultation and legislative process by all parties and authorities.
The restructuring of the banking and its regulatory sector which resulted from the above actions comprise, in its breadth and depth, the most comprehensive reforms of any banking sector anywhere in the world.
There simply is no basis in fact to claim that Osborne "had times to tackle reform but has just chosen not to". Such a conclusion can only be explained on the basis of pure prejudice.
I'm amused that people who were saying that marriage isn't about having children when it related to gay marriage change their line to marriage is about having children when it comes to sibling marriage.
Come on everyone lets be a bit open minded and tolerant and get ahead of the game. We all know sibling marriage will be legal one day.
If two siblings want to get married why shouldn't they.
It doesn't hurt anyone and if it makes them happy why not let them.
Incest is currently illegal, gay sex is not.
Not so long ago gay sex was illegal in part of the UK.
Be more progressive Sunil.
Why are you such a homophobe, another_richard?
Earlier in this thread I asked that both sides of the debate treat each other with mutual respect. Specifically, I requested that there would be no accusations of mental illness against homosexuals or religious.
Why is it the gay rights supporters who always break this rule of civility?
I'm amused that people who were saying that marriage isn't about having children when it related to gay marriage change their line to marriage is about having children when it comes to sibling marriage.
Come on everyone lets be a bit open minded and tolerant and get ahead of the game. We all know sibling marriage will be legal one day.
If two siblings want to get married why shouldn't they.
It doesn't hurt anyone and if it makes them happy why not let them.
Incest is currently illegal, gay sex is not.
Not so long ago gay sex was illegal in part of the UK.
Be more progressive Sunil.
Why are you such a homophobe, another_richard?
Earlier in this thread I asked that both sides of the debate treat each other with mutual respect. Specifically, I requested that there would be no accusations of mental illness against homosexuals or religious.
Why is it the gay rights supporters who always break this rule of civility?
[Phobias are a mental disorder]
"Got it all wrong, holy man. I absolutely believe in God, and I absolutely hate the f***er!" - Vin Diesel as Riddick in "Pitch Black".
"Got it all wrong, holy man. I absolutely believe in God, and I absolutely hate the f***er!" - Vin Diesel as Riddick in "Pitch Black".
Where he went wrong like most people is in believing in a beardy boy god. Girl gods ftw every time. They are not only more pleasant deities to deal with but also much easier on the eye. It is unfortunately true to say they can be a touch more whimsical however
"Angry Lib Dem peers are planning to openly defy the Deputy Prime Minister by blocking a demand that Lord Rennard apologise over sexual harassment allegations, in what would be the most damaging blow yet to Mr Clegg’s authority. Supporters of Lord Rennard – who are understood to be numerous in the Upper House – are planning to use the vote as a test of Mr Clegg’s leadership, and indications are that the ballot would deliver a victory for Lord Rennard.
With the Lib Dems facing their most serious split in several years, there are also moves by both supporters and opponents of Lord Rennard to use the upcoming contest for deputy leader as a “proxy battle” in what is developing into a Lib Dem civil war."
"But the Lib Dem peers group is fiercely independent and, at its weekly parliamentary party meeting last Wednesday, news that Lord Rennard would be returning was met with loud cheers in his support. Another senior figure expressed dismay at the Lib Dems’ entire party structure, saying that the leader has “all the effing responsibility but hardly any of the power”"
"Lib Dem MPs are planning to vote next week in the party’s deputy leadership election. Lorely Burt, the MP for Solihull, is being urged to use the contest as a platform for enhancing the status of women in the party. Sir Malcolm Bruce, who is standing down as an MP at the next election, is planning to announce his candidacy this week. Senior figures are concerned that, with Mr Clegg focusing on government, the party is in need of a “strong and safe pair of hands” to see the Lib Dems through what is being described as one of the most dangerous and unstable periods in its recent history.
“There has been a lot of frustration with Clegg’s leadership in the Lords,” added a senior Liberal Democrat peer. “There is a view that the party needs someone like Sir Malcolm Bruce ... to distract the Deputy Prime Minister from the advice he is being given by special advisers and party officials.”"
I'm amused that people who were saying that marriage isn't about having children when it related to gay marriage change their line to marriage is about having children when it comes to sibling marriage.
Come on everyone lets be a bit open minded and tolerant and get ahead of the game. We all know sibling marriage will be legal one day.
If two siblings want to get married why shouldn't they.
It doesn't hurt anyone and if it makes them happy why not let them.
Incest is currently illegal, gay sex is not.
Not so long ago gay sex was illegal in part of the UK.
Be more progressive Sunil.
Why are you such a homophobe, another_richard?
I'm not.
And I request you withdraw that accusation Sunil.
OK, then stop moaning about gay marriage.
Thank you Sunil.
But I'll point out that I'm not moaning and haven't moaned about gay marriage.
The people who, to me, seem overly obsessed about it are those who are increasingly hardline about people who oppose it.
As far as I'm aware no mainstream party is advocating making gay marriage illegal so why people are trying to make political points about it baffles me.
I don't see why we should condemn people who think gay marriage is wrong, instead of merely hoping that they will become a little more open minded in future.
Likewise I won't condemn what I see as the lack of open mindedness that you and Eagles seem to have towards the concept of sibling marriage. I will merely hope that you can change you mind at some future point.
Toleration towards people different to yourself is usually a good thing.
Incest can quite easily be made legal, as homosexuality was.
Also, what you are suggesting is discriminatory.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my mother? We both love each other.
I'm not sure I understand this. Are you genuinely agitating for the legalisation of incest? I'm not sure a political betting site is the best place to agitate for such a change.
Incest can quite easily be made legal, as homosexuality was.
Also, what you are suggesting is discriminatory.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my mother? We both love each other.
I'm not sure I understand this. Are you genuinely agitating for the legalisation of incest? I'm not sure a political betting site is the best place to agitate for such a change.
I think for most people on this side of the argument what we are actually doing is pointing out the inconsistency as the people who are calling those who oppose gay marriage looneys and fruitcakes are also the ones coming out with the same arguments as were used 40 years ago against the legislation of homosexuality when it is suggested that group marriages or incest (when procreation is not an issue) should be as legally acceptable
@Rod_Crosby Please don't call people you disagree with "Twits".
Oh FFS. Even if they are, in fact a twit? Why bleeping not? What happened to freedom of speech here? Has power gone to your shiny head? Free the Thailand One! Bring back SeanT!
Oh, and another thing. I'm annoyed because I've run out of chocolate biscuits. Someone must have eaten them all. Even though I keep going to the cupboard every 30 minutes, none seem to be magically appearing. I can't go and buy any more until the shop opens at 8am. In the circumstances, I think it is only fair that I should blame the renegade tyrant Smithson. Down with Old Grumpy Head! Bring back SeanT!
Also, RIP Chris Chattaway, a sad week in that we have lost 2 talented, decent men with Rodger Lloyd-Pack also passing away!
In my Death List (which I have been compiling since the start of 1993) there have already been 9 deaths in 2014. In 2009 there were also 9 deaths in the first 19 days of the year; otherwise there have never been more than 6.
"So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason?"
I forgot that infertile heterosexual couples cannot get married for that reason, for instance women past the menopause.
Oh, hang on.
With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled.
With homosexual couples, there is no chance of children of the marriage.
If you wish to stop non-fertile couples from marrying, I would agree with your proposal.
"With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled."
Really? I'd be interested to know how a woman in her eighties, who has been legally able to marry for centuries, has a theoretical chance of children.
Go on, educate us.
If you wish to stop 80-year women marrying, I will support you.
As the Virgin Mary was cited further down this thread, I would put point out her cousin Elisabeth conceived at an advanced age (John the Baptist), but she, of course, had been married much earlier.
A little bit strange to see scripture quoted on this thread after the piss being taken out of that Baptist Ukipper.
Why would anyone want to stop 80-year old women marrying their partners? If they love their partner, good. Let them have a few twilight years of happiness together. Or in fact any woman long after the menopause.
And it should be the same for homosexuals, who also cannot naturally conceive children. If they genuinely love each other, then what's the problem?
Inability to conceive is one of the weaker arguments against gay marriage.
You are making out as if the difference between being in a civil partnership and being married is the difference between misery and happiness. Why?
I'm not saying any such thing. Don't invent stuff.
Just answer the question: why do you want to restrict a right from a certain segment of society?
You don't have a good reason, do you? Is it just that you're trying to ape UKIP's position (pro-cp, anti- same-sex marriage), without having actually put any thought into whether it's right or wrong?
"So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason?"
I forgot that infertile heterosexual couples cannot get married for that reason, for instance women past the menopause.
Oh, hang on.
With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled.
With homosexual couples, there is no chance of children of the marriage.
If you wish to stop non-fertile couples from marrying, I would agree with your proposal.
"With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled."
Really? I'd be interested to know how a woman in her eighties, who has been legally able to marry for centuries, has a theoretical chance of children.
Go on, educate us.
If you wish to stop 80-year women marrying, I will support you.
As the Virgin Mary was cited further down this thread, I would put point out her cousin Elisabeth conceived at an advanced age (John the Baptist), but she, of course, had been married much earlier.
A little bit strange to see scripture quoted on this thread after the piss being taken out of that Baptist Ukipper.
Why would anyone want to stop 80-year old women marrying their partners? If they love their partner, good. Let them have a few twilight years of happiness together. Or in fact any woman long after the menopause.
And it should be the same for homosexuals, who also cannot naturally conceive children. If they genuinely love each other, then what's the problem?
Inability to conceive is one of the weaker arguments against gay marriage.
You are making out as if the difference between being in a civil partnership and being married is the difference between misery and happiness. Why?
I'm not saying any such thing. Don't invent stuff.
Just answer the question: why do you want to restrict a right from a certain segment of society?
You don't have a good reason, do you? Is it just that you're trying to ape UKIP's position (pro-cp, anti- same-sex marriage), without having actually put any thought into whether it's right or wrong?
I was at KL airport and Isam and Jessop were having a spat. Now I am in Hong Kong and, Isam and Jessop are having a spat !
"So, reproduction of the species isn't a good reason?"
I forgot that infertile heterosexual couples cannot get married for that reason, for instance women past the menopause.
Oh, hang on.
With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled.
With homosexual couples, there is no chance of children of the marriage.
If you wish to stop non-fertile couples from marrying, I would agree with your proposal.
"With heterosexual couples, there is at least the theoretical chance of children, even if this is not fulfilled."
Really? I'd be interested to know how a woman in her eighties, who has been legally able to marry for centuries, has a theoretical chance of children.
Go on, educate us.
If you wish to stop 80-year women marrying, I will support you.
As the Virgin Mary was cited further down this thread, I would put point out her cousin Elisabeth conceived at an advanced age (John the Baptist), but she, of course, had been married much earlier.
A little bit strange to see scripture quoted on this thread after the piss being taken out of that Baptist Ukipper.
Why would anyone want to stop 80-year old women marrying their partners? If they love their partner, good. Let them have a few twilight years of happiness together. Or in fact any woman long after the menopause.
And it should be the same for homosexuals, who also cannot naturally conceive children. If they genuinely love each other, then what's the problem?
Inability to conceive is one of the weaker arguments against gay marriage.
You are making out as if the difference between being in a civil partnership and being married is the difference between misery and happiness. Why?
I'm not saying any such thing. Don't invent stuff.
Just answer the question: why do you want to restrict a right from a certain segment of society?
You don't have a good reason, do you? Is it just that you're trying to ape UKIP's position (pro-cp, anti- same-sex marriage), without having actually put any thought into whether it's right or wrong?
I was at KL airport and Isam and Jessop were having a spat. Now I am in Hong Kong and, Isam and Jessop are having a spat !
A timely non-apology apology by Rennard would have sufficed – it still might imho.
At the moment it appears to be a battle royal between the Lords, the party leadership and the few remaining female members. This ‘scandal’ has been around for yonks, poor old Clegg was just holding the parcel when the music stopped - and has made I pigs ear of events so far.
A timely non-apology apology by Rennard would have sufficed – it still might imho.
At the moment it appears to be a battle royal between the Lords, the party leadership and the few remaining female members. This ‘scandal’ has been around for yonks, poor old Clegg was just holding the parcel when the music stopped - and has made I pigs ear of events so far.
Well, from memory Clegg was around when some of the allegations surfaced, and did not handle it well then. ISTR the women (or at least some of them) were told that Rennard was going to 'retire' from Chief Executive for health reasons, meaning he would no longer be in a position to potentially abuse women.
It was a dirty little deal in a sordid affair.
But last year, he allowed Rennard to make a comeback. This angered a couple of the women, and made them break cover and make the allegations public. Personally, I can't blame them. In total eleven women made allegations that were seen as 'broadly credible'.
The problem is simple: Rennard is too powerful within the party for the leadership to do anything about him. Even Clegg is impotent.
(All from memory: i daresay someone will be able to correct if wrong).
The net effect of further LibDems switchers to Lab on seats could be a plus for the Tories in Lib-Con marginals in the event that the Libs become so toxic their usual argument to Lab voters ie "the only way to beat the Tories is to vote Lib in this constituency" loses creedence.Voters may just vote Labour,whether the Tories get in or not as they are both as bad as each other.This,paradoxically,could benefit the Tories. The sad fact is that Labour needs the Libdems to do less badly than this.A breakdown of this polling in marginals,especially Lib-Con marginals,is needed before it can automatically be assumed this will only benefit Labour in its' Lib-Lab and Con-Lab marginals.
Comments
Be more progressive Sunil.
However it should be noted that a lot of the european countries are enlightend and zoosexual practises are legal include Mr Palmers beloved Denmark
A list can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law
Same also regarding the illegality.
If two people make each other happy and want to marry why shouldn't they ?
I'd vote in favour of sibling marriage if it was asked in a referendum. But I doubt I could take seriously/look anyone in the eye who did so !
Do we get written permission before they are turned into beefburgers?
Genesis 1:26-28 (the Bible, not Phil Collins) would give permission to religious dog-botherers.
A whole page devoted to bigging up Farage and ukip...
"Farage has tapped into issues that REALLY matter to voters. He gives voice to concerns over Europe, immigration and control of jobs in Britain"
And I request you withdraw that accusation Sunil.
[Sidetracked by a very long telephone call which means I haven't been free to follow up in a timely fashion on your comments.]
The question to be determined is whether George Osborne has neglected or even dragged his heels on banking reform.
It is not whether we collectively or individually like and support George Osborne, or even, if we approve and agree with whatever banking reforms he has introduced.
The scope and scale of 'Osborne's' banking sector reforms is not a matter of opinion but a record of fact.
Osborne set up a commission under Vickers within a month of becoming Chancellor. The Commission agreed the key issues to address by September of the same year, made an interim report in the Spring of the following year and completed its report in September 2011.
During the course of the commission there were wide industry consultations, both domestically and internationally and reviews by parliamentary standing committees.
By December 2011, Osborne had announced his near complete adoption of the Vickers Commission recommendations and scheduled implementation of the primary legislation during the passage of the 2012 Financial Services Bill.
Following revelations of the LIBOR fixing scandal, Osborne set up a Parliamentary Commission to review the Vickers Commission proposals and subsequent draft legislation in light of the LIBOR events and to make further recommendations on banking sector structure. The Parliamentary Commission issued its first report in December 2012 and this led to Osborne accepting recommendations to 'electrify' the Vickers ring-fence. Electrification was short-hand for a complex set of rules designed to strengthen and heighten the ring fence and to add disincentives and penalties for banks attempting to breaching it.
Osborne accepted these additional measures in time for legislation to pass through parliament in 2013.
Additionally Osborne completely reformed the regulation of the banking sector by ending Brown's 'tripartite' structure of joint regulation by The Treasury, FSA and BoE and consolidating its macro-economic, prudential and conduct regulatory functions within a single body, the Bank of England.
Osborne also set up Treasury committees to investigate and report on 'Competition and Choice in Retail Banking which reported in 2011 and a supervisory and oversight committee on 'Structural Reform'. The latter committee's goal was to review and comment on the full inquiry, reporting, consultation and legislative process by all parties and authorities.
The restructuring of the banking and its regulatory sector which resulted from the above actions comprise, in its breadth and depth, the most comprehensive reforms of any banking sector anywhere in the world.
There simply is no basis in fact to claim that Osborne "had times to tackle reform but has just chosen not to". Such a conclusion can only be explained on the basis of pure prejudice.
Shall you do the ooers or shall I?
Why is it the gay rights supporters who always break this rule of civility?
[Phobias are a mental disorder]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU8UfYdKHvs
- Vin Diesel as Riddick in "Pitch Black".
http://themoneyconverter.com/GBP/THB.aspx
Maybe something to do with this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25799877
"Angry Lib Dem peers are planning to openly defy the Deputy Prime Minister by blocking a demand that Lord Rennard apologise over sexual harassment allegations, in what would be the most damaging blow yet to Mr Clegg’s authority. Supporters of Lord Rennard – who are understood to be numerous in the Upper House – are planning to use the vote as a test of Mr Clegg’s leadership, and indications are that the ballot would deliver a victory for Lord Rennard.
With the Lib Dems facing their most serious split in several years, there are also moves by both supporters and opponents of Lord Rennard to use the upcoming contest for deputy leader as a “proxy battle” in what is developing into a Lib Dem civil war."
"But the Lib Dem peers group is fiercely independent and, at its weekly parliamentary party meeting last Wednesday, news that Lord Rennard would be returning was met with loud cheers in his support. Another senior figure expressed dismay at the Lib Dems’ entire party structure, saying that the leader has “all the effing responsibility but hardly any of the power”"
"Lib Dem MPs are planning to vote next week in the party’s deputy leadership election. Lorely Burt, the MP for Solihull, is being urged to use the contest as a platform for enhancing the status of women in the party. Sir Malcolm Bruce, who is standing down as an MP at the next election, is planning to announce his candidacy this week. Senior figures are concerned that, with Mr Clegg focusing on government, the party is in need of a “strong and safe pair of hands” to see the Lib Dems through what is being described as one of the most dangerous and unstable periods in its recent history.
“There has been a lot of frustration with Clegg’s leadership in the Lords,” added a senior Liberal Democrat peer. “There is a view that the party needs someone like Sir Malcolm Bruce ... to distract the Deputy Prime Minister from the advice he is being given by special advisers and party officials.”"
But I'll point out that I'm not moaning and haven't moaned about gay marriage.
The people who, to me, seem overly obsessed about it are those who are increasingly hardline about people who oppose it.
As far as I'm aware no mainstream party is advocating making gay marriage illegal so why people are trying to make political points about it baffles me.
I don't see why we should condemn people who think gay marriage is wrong, instead of merely hoping that they will become a little more open minded in future.
Likewise I won't condemn what I see as the lack of open mindedness that you and Eagles seem to have towards the concept of sibling marriage. I will merely hope that you can change you mind at some future point.
Toleration towards people different to yourself is usually a good thing.
Just answer the question: why do you want to restrict a right from a certain segment of society?
You don't have a good reason, do you? Is it just that you're trying to ape UKIP's position (pro-cp, anti- same-sex marriage), without having actually put any thought into whether it's right or wrong?
I thought Clegg’s initial handling of the Rennard scandal was bad enough – second time around and it’s just farcical.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25804724
Although I did got some sleep in between.
It does seem to have pressed the self destruct button in time for The Euros. I cannot see this ending cleanly or quickly.
At the moment it appears to be a battle royal between the Lords, the party leadership and the few remaining female members. This ‘scandal’ has been around for yonks, poor old Clegg was just holding the parcel when the music stopped - and has made I pigs ear of events so far.
It was a dirty little deal in a sordid affair.
But last year, he allowed Rennard to make a comeback. This angered a couple of the women, and made them break cover and make the allegations public. Personally, I can't blame them. In total eleven women made allegations that were seen as 'broadly credible'.
The problem is simple: Rennard is too powerful within the party for the leadership to do anything about him. Even Clegg is impotent.
(All from memory: i daresay someone will be able to correct if wrong).
The sad fact is that Labour needs the Libdems to do less badly than this.A breakdown of this polling in marginals,especially Lib-Con marginals,is needed before it can automatically be assumed this will only benefit Labour in its' Lib-Lab and Con-Lab marginals.