politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » >How many of the CON 2010 entry will call it day?
The percentages in the CONHome article look quite stark particularly as this comes a week when women in politics have been under the spotlight. The fact that it refers just four puts it into a slightly different context.
You're not showing any evidence to support this though.
If they were really protest voters then they wouldn't have left the Lib Dems for the Labour party, they'd have either not voted or gone to one of the smaller parties.
If voters went Lab-LD-Lab, that suggests they're left leaning rather than NOTA.
A fair comment, but the single line about the Lib Dems (how many retiring?) is a shade unbalanced.
Edited extra bit: wonder what odds you could've gotten on neither Djokovic nor Ferrer making the semis.
Eight iirc. Compared to seven last time round (retiring MPs are never good for their individual seats, but some silly journos have tried to make hay out of an increase of 1 showing something about the state of the Lib Dem party)
While Lynton Crosby and Dan Hodges pretend that Tories are going to come back,female Tory MPs quietly voting with their feet instead of wasting two years of their life attending meetings and more meetings for a lost cause.
You're not showing any evidence to support this though.
If they were really protest voters then they wouldn't have left the Lib Dems for the Labour party, they'd have either not voted or gone to one of the smaller parties.
If voters went Lab-LD-Lab, that suggests they're left leaning rather than NOTA.
They were left leaning. They were (and now are again) Lab supporters but couldn't, after all the craziness of Blair-Brown, bring themselves to vote Lab. So they chose the next most obvious left-leaning (hitherto NOTA) party: the LibDems.
The LibDems have disappointed them by not bringing back Clause Four while in coalition with the Tories, so those voters are (now indicating to the polls that they are) back with Lab. Of course GE2015 might prove otherwise.
You're not showing any evidence to support this though.
If they were really protest voters then they wouldn't have left the Lib Dems for the Labour party, they'd have either not voted or gone to one of the smaller parties.
If voters went Lab-LD-Lab, that suggests they're left leaning rather than NOTA.
They were left leaning. They were (and now are agaiin) Lab supporters but couldn't, after all the craziness of Blair-Brown, bring themselves to vote Lab. So they chose the next most obvious left-leaning (hitherto NOTA) party: the LibDems.
The LibDems have disappointed them by not bringing back Clause Four while in coalition with the Tories, so those voters are (now indicating to the polls that they are) back with Lab. Of course GE2015 might prove otherwise.
Hitherto NOTA?
So before GE 2010 they were a NOTA? That's an equally bizarre claim.
Perhaps they have taken a look at how Claire Perry behaves in the chamber and have decided that they don't want to be in a place where debates become shouting matches. The behaviour of MP's, particularly many Tories is appalling. I agree with Bercow that it does not set a very good example for any children watching.
But the Lib Dems have the opposite issue when it comes to career prospects. There's never been a better chance of being a Lib Dem minister, unlike the blues, whose ministerial ambitions may have been thwarted by coalition.
15 retirements over two General Elections (admittedly, covering 10 years rather than 8) is quite a lot for a party of around 50-60, isn't it?
"This year marks the 20th anniversary of Mr Osborne’s arrival at Conservative Central Office – when he was hired to man the anti-Lib Dem attack desk. "
@corporeal – your thoughtful and informative reply is much appreciated – cheers.
It's something of a point of pride among Lib Dems, and tends to confuse journos not used to Lib Dem conference. They're used to set-piece style events at Labour and Conservative ones where they get a list of such and such an MP will be speaking on this subject followed by Lord X and so on. Then they get to Lib Dem conference and are told that everyone has to put a card in to the chair and see if they're called.
And if one MP turns up to a debate and puts a card they're fairly guaranteed to be called to speak, but if several of them turn up then the chair will make sure that ordinary members will get called and some MPs will miss out. And if Nick Clegg goes over the standard speaker time his microphone gets cut off.
There's also a bit of pantomime around the whole thing, but the principle of a party run as much by the membership as the leadership is pretty strongly built into the Lib Dem ethos (the leadership probably quietly rue this fact at times, and Clegg iirc has pushed through a few changes to the party's internal structure to streamline things and gather a bit more power to the leadership, but it's not something they're going to challenge head on).
Indeed - it is why the Lib Dems had to have a special conference to vote through the Coalition Agreement - whereas the Tories were just told by Dave that was what was happening. As OGH frequently mentions - that reason also keeps the Libs united under Clegg (about Coalition) - there is no 'but we didn't ever want this' type whineing.
Indeed (well there still is by some who opposed to it, but it's got less foundation).
(I actually went to that conference, but my train got delayed and I only arrived in time to stand outside while they voted it through).
You're not showing any evidence to support this though.
If they were really protest voters then they wouldn't have left the Lib Dems for the Labour party, they'd have either not voted or gone to one of the smaller parties.
If voters went Lab-LD-Lab, that suggests they're left leaning rather than NOTA.
They were left leaning. They were (and now are agaiin) Lab supporters but couldn't, after all the craziness of Blair-Brown, bring themselves to vote Lab. So they chose the next most obvious left-leaning (hitherto NOTA) party: the LibDems.
The LibDems have disappointed them by not bringing back Clause Four while in coalition with the Tories, so those voters are (now indicating to the polls that they are) back with Lab. Of course GE2015 might prove otherwise.
Hitherto NOTA?
So before GE 2010 they were a NOTA? That's an equally bizarre claim.
OK look, before GE2010 the LDs were a well-constituted party with a manifesto and all the trappings of a party that wanted to be in power. But they had some, shall we call them "out there" policies and were not a million miles in sight of being elected with a majority to govern.
But that's not what I meant - a significant amount of their support was from NOTA voters. It was participating in the cut-and-thrust of UK politics, giving Lab-Con a bit of a bloody nose (of sorts), while not having to deal with the implications still less responsibility of power. But then they ended up in power and the events I described above transpired.
It is a bit different, as MP's have a contract for 5 years now with fixed term parliaments. They don't have a probationary period, where they have to meet certain performance standards to retain their jobs. Now that would be a great idea, with their electorate voting after say a year, whether they want them to continue.
so what, you would condemn the LDs to perpetual opposition?
Not at all. Unlike most of the posters here I've seen them in coalition long before the Cameron love in when they were in coalition in scotland long ago. They may have been pretty unimpressive they did not undergo a complete annihilation like in 2011 with their base still getting hammered almost everywhere else as well.
What were Clegg's options? Yes I'll fight for what I can get as a minority coalition member or No screw you you are Tories I will bring down the coalition (which hadn't been enacted by then)?
But, that is nonsensical. He still does have the power to bring it down which is sort of tautological because he _is_ the coalition so he doesn't need any power.
Clegg didn't even attempt to make it arms length and the romance in the rose garden with Cammie was a signal that the voter understood very well. Of course it would never be easy but he knew all this before the election when the polls were pointing to a hung parliament for months. Plenty of time to at least try to ensure that there was a strategy to prevent the obvious which was that the lib dems would be subsumed and thought of as mere 'helpers' to the tory party which would always alienate so many of their previous voters.
The power to bring down the coalition is a recognition of the fact that in the end both sides are equal since they both can do it. From there you then argue your case and don't immediately presume that the only way forward is to then act like the election was fought under PR and any deal must reflect that kind of thinking.
He could have said no in 2010 and either gone with Lab (contrary to his stated intention of allying with the largest party) or said no I'm having nothing to do with any coalition and allowed the Cons to govern under confidence and supply but by so doing, forsaking power which is presumably why every political party is constituted.
He could have done any number different things but he made his choice because that's what it was. A choice. A choice between thousands of different policies, many different ways to make up the coalition (or opt for something else) and how responsibility was then parcelled out. What he wasn't was powerless. He set the tone and the policy direction and all else that has followed has followed because of those decisions. The reason he is in such trouble is because of those choices and because it's far too late now to suddenly pretend he didn't make them.
We can never be certain of what might have been if he had made other choices but we do know they were his to make and that he as leader was responsible for those he has made.
But the Lib Dems have the opposite issue when it comes to career prospects. There's never been a better chance of being a Lib Dem minister, unlike the blues, whose ministerial ambitions may have been thwarted by coalition.
15 retirements over two General Elections (admittedly, covering 10 years rather than 8) is quite a lot for a party of around 50-60, isn't it?
I think it's down to the way the party grew it's MP base, you had a lot of the same generation coming in together. As far as I remember all the MPs retiring have been up at retirement age and either hitting or nearing 70 at the GE they retired at (off the top of my head, Ming, Malcolm Bruce, Andrew Stunell, etc).
Two governments. 1) The old national government involved all MPs in decision-making. 2) The new EU government only involves the MPs (and mainly only of the majority party) in selecting the delegates for the supreme soviet (aka Council of Ministers / Commissioners).
So as the balance of decision making and power has shifted to the supreme soviet from the now pretend national governments the MPs in the national parliaments become increasingly meaningless.
If Europhiles were honest the national elections would elect a temporary parliament to select delegates to the supreme soviet and then disband until next time - as that is effectively their sole role - but if Europhiles were honest the rebel alliance would be 80% in the polls.
You're not showing any evidence to support this though.
If they were really protest voters then they wouldn't have left the Lib Dems for the Labour party, they'd have either not voted or gone to one of the smaller parties.
If voters went Lab-LD-Lab, that suggests they're left leaning rather than NOTA.
They were left leaning. They were (and now are agaiin) Lab supporters but couldn't, after all the craziness of Blair-Brown, bring themselves to vote Lab. So they chose the next most obvious left-leaning (hitherto NOTA) party: the LibDems.
The LibDems have disappointed them by not bringing back Clause Four while in coalition with the Tories, so those voters are (now indicating to the polls that they are) back with Lab. Of course GE2015 might prove otherwise.
Hitherto NOTA?
So before GE 2010 they were a NOTA? That's an equally bizarre claim.
OK look, before GE2010 the LDs were a well-constituted party with a manifesto and all the trappings of a party that wanted to be in power. But they had some, shall we call them "out there" policies and were not a million miles in sight of being elected with a majority to govern.
But that's not what I meant - a significant amount of their support was from NOTA voters. It was participating in the cut-and-thrust of UK politics, giving Lab-Con a bit of a bloody nose (of sorts), while not having to deal with the implications still less responsibility of power. But then they ended up in power and the events I described above transpired.
Any foundation to this, Lib Dems as NOTA party theory? As opposed to the simpler explanation that a coalition with the Conservatives was unpalatable to a chunk of Lib Dems who then went to Labour?
You're not showing any evidence to support this though.
If they were really protest voters then they wouldn't have left the Lib Dems for the Labour party, they'd have either not voted or gone to one of the smaller parties.
If voters went Lab-LD-Lab, that suggests they're left leaning rather than NOTA.
They were left leaning. They were (and now are agaiin) Lab supporters but couldn't, after all the craziness of Blair-Brown, bring themselves to vote Lab. So they chose the next most obvious left-leaning (hitherto NOTA) party: the LibDems.
The LibDems have disappointed them by not bringing back Clause Four while in coalition with the Tories, so those voters are (now indicating to the polls that they are) back with Lab. Of course GE2015 might prove otherwise.
Hitherto NOTA?
So before GE 2010 they were a NOTA? That's an equally bizarre claim.
OK look, before GE2010 the LDs were a well-constituted party with a manifesto and all the trappings of a party that wanted to be in power. But they had some, shall we call them "out there" policies and were not a million miles in sight of being elected with a majority to govern.
But that's not what I meant - a significant amount of their support was from NOTA voters. It was participating in the cut-and-thrust of UK politics, giving Lab-Con a bit of a bloody nose (of sorts), while not having to deal with the implications still less responsibility of power. But then they ended up in power and the events I described above transpired.
Any foundation to this, Lib Dems as NOTA party theory? As opposed to the simpler explanation that a coalition with the Conservatives was unpalatable to a chunk of Lib Dems who then went to Labour?
Yes.
I've spoken to every voter who put a cross in the LibDem box because it was a NOTA vote. And they confirm my theory.
I apologise if you and some of your fellow "true" LibDems thought every LD vote was a sincere and enthusiastic vote for a LD govt but it wasn't and ain't so. Sorry to break it to you.
I admire those that want to put up with the sheer hassle of wanting to be MPs. I do not find it surprising at all that some of those elected in 2010 may have found it frustrating, boring and unfulfilling. In fact I am quite impressed that so many of them are willing to stick it out and put themselves through the trauma of defending marginal seats in difficult circumstances.
I do not know of the numbers but if 4 = 11% there were presumably 38 women elected in 2010 for the tories. If so, then 34 of them are having another go.
It would be a little unfair to say that someone is stirring here and no doubt there are the usual questions as to whether a back bench MPs job can be made more interesting and the House less misogynist. But some sort of perspective is perhaps called for.
Hmm. The France figure is wildly out of whack with a report on ITV News a few night's ago.
UK was 2.4%, China 7.7%, US 2%, Germany 1.3% and France (according to that report, which related to the rumoured hike by the IMF in its UK forecast) had growth of just 0.2%.
This is a generic problem with our political system because, since 1918, we have drawn the executive branch from the members of the legislature.
MPs fall into two broad categories: 1. Those who aspire to / expect to / do govern; and 2. Lobby fodder whose role in life is to vote and to be their constituents’ agony aunt
Most people entering politics do so with 1 in mind but most MPs are in the second category. And the second category can’t be that uplifting. I’m surprised more MPs don’t quit – the otherwise employable and smart ones anyway. Stopping second careers for MPs would turn a dribble of exits into a flood and we’d end up with the House full of dullard backbenchers (as opposed to today’s mixed lot).
NPXMP (if you’re here) – how rewarding is role 2 really? I’m sure being in the House at PMQs and the odd committee meeting were cool, but day in day out?
Hmm. The France figure is wildly out of whack with a report on ITV News a few night's ago.
UK was 2.4%, China 7.7%, US 2%, Germany 1.3% and France (according to that report, which related to the rumoured hike by the IMF in its UK forecast) had growth of just 0.2%.
So... has France been increased significantly?
PWC was predicting 0.7 for 2014 a couple of weeks ago - not that out of kilter.
Mr. Corporeal, that seems to make sense. I wonder if Julia Goldsworthy will return to being an MP.
I believe she's since married so now Julia Church. I don't know that part of the world well but I imagine she would be welcome back in the parliamentary party; she was a significant loss last time, particularly heading into Government.
I admire those that want to put up with the sheer hassle of wanting to be MPs. I do not find it surprising at all that some of those elected in 2010 may have found it frustrating, boring and unfulfilling. In fact I am quite impressed that so many of them are willing to stick it out and put themselves through the trauma of defending marginal seats in difficult circumstances.
I do not know of the numbers but if 4 = 11% there were presumably 38 women elected in 2010 for the tories. If so, then 34 of them are having another go.
It would be a little unfair to say that someone is stirring here and no doubt there are the usual questions as to whether a back bench MPs job can be made more interesting and the House less misogynist. But some sort of perspective is perhaps called for.
Indeed. I also question if we as the public even know what we want MP's to do - as quite often it seems to be mutually contradictory. We appear to want them to both represent Westminster in the constituency, as well as the constituency in Westminster - we want them to be both independently-minded and also united enough to support the Leader of their party - we want them to spend all the time they have scrutinizing legislation in Whitehall, whilst simultaneously always being available to constituents as a glorified social worker.
I wonder how much campaigning plans are being put on hold due to the Scottish referendum. Whilst No seems likelier to win, the question (and potential Yes) does mean that the parties can't really get stuck in until they know whether the country will have 10% going walkies in a few years.
I admire those that want to put up with the sheer hassle of wanting to be MPs. I do not find it surprising at all that some of those elected in 2010 may have found it frustrating, boring and unfulfilling. In fact I am quite impressed that so many of them are willing to stick it out and put themselves through the trauma of defending marginal seats in difficult circumstances.
I do not know of the numbers but if 4 = 11% there were presumably 38 women elected in 2010 for the tories. If so, then 34 of them are having another go.
It would be a little unfair to say that someone is stirring here and no doubt there are the usual questions as to whether a back bench MPs job can be made more interesting and the House less misogynist. But some sort of perspective is perhaps called for.
You are wrong to assume that as 4 have announced that they are retiring , the other 34 are definitely having another go . It is suggested over at ConHome that another 3 or 4 will announce their retirement in due course . I have no idea if that is correct but it is unlikely that the final figures will end up as 4 retiring and 34 standing again .
You're not showing any evidence to support this though.
If they were really protest voters then they wouldn't have left the Lib Dems for the Labour party, they'd have either not voted or gone to one of the smaller parties.
If voters went Lab-LD-Lab, that suggests they're left leaning rather than NOTA.
They were left leaning. They were (and now are agaiin) Lab supporters but couldn't, after all the craziness of Blair-Brown, bring themselves to vote Lab. So they chose the next most obvious left-leaning (hitherto NOTA) party: the LibDems.
The LibDems have disappointed them by not bringing back Clause Four while in coalition with the Tories, so those voters are (now indicating to the polls that they are) back with Lab. Of course GE2015 might prove otherwise.
Hitherto NOTA?
So before GE 2010 they were a NOTA? That's an equally bizarre claim.
OK look, before GE2010 the LDs were a well-constituted party with a manifesto and all the trappings of a party that wanted to be in power. But they had some, shall we call them "out there" policies and were not a million miles in sight of being elected with a majority to govern.
But that's not what I meant - a significant amount of their support was from NOTA voters. It was participating in the cut-and-thrust of UK politics, giving Lab-Con a bit of a bloody nose (of sorts), while not having to deal with the implications still less responsibility of power. But then they ended up in power and the events I described above transpired.
The problem for the LDs is that their brand has been trashed. Some people in the North saw them as Labour-Lite and were appalled they joined the coalition. Other people like me saw the appeal of the LDs as that they were a party of the centre, between the Tories on the right and Labour on the left. I was actually quite happy with the first year of the coalition but got turned off by their increasingly left wing rhetoric and attempt to be an opposition within the government. I was also annoyed that they casually broke their tuition fees promise whilst being obsessed with stuff like AV and Lords reform which were designed to benefit themselves rather than the public.
But the Lib Dems have the opposite issue when it comes to career prospects. There's never been a better chance of being a Lib Dem minister, unlike the blues, whose ministerial ambitions may have been thwarted by coalition.
15 retirements over two General Elections (admittedly, covering 10 years rather than 8) is quite a lot for a party of around 50-60, isn't it?
I don't think so. If the life expectancy of an MP in a long-term safe seat is about 25 years, then you'd expect between a fifth and a sixth of MPs in those constituencies to be retiring each election, on average, so four or five in the Lib Dems' case. Given the names mentioned upthread, that sounds about right. On top of that, the Lib Dems gained a lot of MPs in 1997. Some of those are naturally enough feeling that 18 years is enough and there may be a higher than normal retirement rate from those who are left. Add in those leaving for any number of other reasons and to lose a third to a quarter to retirements in the space of ten years is probably slightly better than par, if anything.
I wonder how much campaigning plans are being put on hold due to the Scottish referendum. Whilst No seems likelier to win, the question (and potential Yes) does mean that the parties can't really get stuck in until they know whether the country will have 10% going walkies in a few years.
I doubt it; the Scottish constituencies will elect MPs in 2015 whatever the outcome. The Lib Dem conference has had to be moved however; it'll be in Glasgow just after the others. So likely to be a victory rally if the vote is No, and also a small bonus getting to go last just before the general election.
Must be frustrating for people like her that the likes of George Osborne and Lynton "hate a foreigner or poor person a week" Crosby are following the Nasty Party route instead.
They should stop copying Rachel Reeves and Chuka Umunna.
Mr. Corporeal, that seems to make sense. I wonder if Julia Goldsworthy will return to being an MP.
I believe she's since married so now Julia Church. I don't know that part of the world well but I imagine she would be welcome back in the parliamentary party; she was a significant loss last time, particularly heading into Government.
She is also currently on maternity leave from her job as a SPAD to Danny Alexander .
I admire those that want to put up with the sheer hassle of wanting to be MPs. I do not find it surprising at all that some of those elected in 2010 may have found it frustrating, boring and unfulfilling. In fact I am quite impressed that so many of them are willing to stick it out and put themselves through the trauma of defending marginal seats in difficult circumstances.
I do not know of the numbers but if 4 = 11% there were presumably 38 women elected in 2010 for the tories. If so, then 34 of them are having another go.
It would be a little unfair to say that someone is stirring here and no doubt there are the usual questions as to whether a back bench MPs job can be made more interesting and the House less misogynist. But some sort of perspective is perhaps called for.
Indeed. I also question if we as the public even know what we want MP's to do - as quite often it seems to be mutually contradictory. We appear to want them to both represent Westminster in the constituency, as well as the constituency in Westminster - we want them to be both independently-minded and also united enough to support the Leader of their party - we want them to spend all the time they have scrutinizing legislation in Whitehall, whilst simultaneously always being available to constituents as a glorified social worker.
Yes, it has often occurred to me that if any other employer behaved as unreasonably as the electorate does a case of constructive dismissal would be in order.
The Conservative Party needs to spend less time talking about people and things it hates and more time talking about those it likes, a Tory Treasury minister has warned.
Nicky Morgan, the economic secretary, said in order to win in 2015 the party needed to set out a "positive long term plan" - especially if it wanted to win over female voters.
Speaking at an event for Tory activists in Westminster on Monday evening, Morgan said the party needed to have a more constructive message than simply "we're against this, we're anti-that, we don't like them, we don't want them here, we don't want them doing this".
"If we talk about what we hate all the time, we're not talking about we like and what we want to do to help people who want to do well," she said. "We never say actually we are on the side of these people, we want this to happen and we think this is great."
Must be frustrating for people like her that the likes of George Osborne and Lynton "hate a foreigner or poor person a week" Crosby are following the Nasty Party route instead.
She makes a very valid point. There are those famous "hard working families" of course but the tory party should remember its roots as the party not just of landowners but shopkeepers, small businessmen (and women) and the aspirational classes who want a property owning democracy. They are what Thatcher tapped into.
There are more self employed in this country than ever before and we have an excellent record in new business formation. Tory ministers do not talk about this nearly enough and let the perception that they are all about big business and even big government take hold.
This is a generic problem with our political system because, since 1918, we have drawn the executive branch from the members of the legislature.
MPs fall into two broad categories: 1. Those who aspire to / expect to / do govern; and 2. Lobby fodder whose role in life is to vote and to be their constituents’ agony aunt
Most people entering politics do so with 1 in mind but most MPs are in the second category. And the second category can’t be that uplifting. I’m surprised more MPs don’t quit – the otherwise employable and smart ones anyway. Stopping second careers for MPs would turn a dribble of exits into a flood and we’d end up with the House full of dullard backbenchers (as opposed to today’s mixed lot).
NPXMP (if you’re here) – how rewarding is role 2 really? I’m sure being in the House at PMQs and the odd committee meeting were cool, but day in day out?
There is another category / role for MPs:
3. Lobbying government from the backbenchers to adopt specific policies (or at least, promoting those views with the aim of winning wider support among those who might form a government).
Speaking at an event for Tory activists in Westminster on Monday evening, Morgan said the party needed to have a more constructive message than simply "we're against this, we're anti-that, we don't like them, we don't want them here, we don't want them doing this". ... She makes a very valid point...
It's a good point for all parties, actually. A problem is that it is MUCH easier to get media coverage of anything negative.
Yes, it has often occurred to me that if any other employer behaved as unreasonably as the electorate does a case of constructive dismissal would be in order.
"The people have spoken, the b*******"
Never a truer word.
I always think it's like having an absent-minded employer who pays almost no attention to your work for 4-5 years, then storms into the office and either promotes or fires you.
Erewash sounds like a location in Middleearth, perhaps heavily forested and inhabited by ents.
Indeed (usual pronunciation is Erriwash, Sean F), and it's next to the magical-sounding Amber Valley, which is actually a tough place dominated by former coal mines. Both are next to Broxtowe, named after a mercenary force in the Middle Ages, and unrelated to any current location except for the Broxtowe housing estate...which is not in Broxtowe. Being a Boundary Commissioner is a boring and thankless task, leavened only by the fun of making up constituency names.
I admire those that want to put up with the sheer hassle of wanting to be MPs. I do not find it surprising at all that some of those elected in 2010 may have found it frustrating, boring and unfulfilling. In fact I am quite impressed that so many of them are willing to stick it out and put themselves through the trauma of defending marginal seats in difficult circumstances.
I do not know of the numbers but if 4 = 11% there were presumably 38 women elected in 2010 for the tories. If so, then 34 of them are having another go.
It would be a little unfair to say that someone is stirring here and no doubt there are the usual questions as to whether a back bench MPs job can be made more interesting and the House less misogynist. But some sort of perspective is perhaps called for.
Indeed. I also question if we as the public even know what we want MP's to do - as quite often it seems to be mutually contradictory. We appear to want them to both represent Westminster in the constituency, as well as the constituency in Westminster - we want them to be both independently-minded and also united enough to support the Leader of their party - we want them to spend all the time they have scrutinizing legislation in Whitehall, whilst simultaneously always being available to constituents as a glorified social worker.
My MP Natascha Engel rebels when she feels it is the right thing to do.
Compare to Julie Elliott MP, Sunderland Central. She hasn't rebelled once. Can she seriously agree with EVERYTHING Ed Miliband says ? What a brown-noser !
I admire those that want to put up with the sheer hassle of wanting to be MPs. I do not find it surprising at all that some of those elected in 2010 may have found it frustrating, boring and unfulfilling. In fact I am quite impressed that so many of them are willing to stick it out and put themselves through the trauma of defending marginal seats in difficult circumstances.
I do not know of the numbers but if 4 = 11% there were presumably 38 women elected in 2010 for the tories. If so, then 34 of them are having another go.
It would be a little unfair to say that someone is stirring here and no doubt there are the usual questions as to whether a back bench MPs job can be made more interesting and the House less misogynist. But some sort of perspective is perhaps called for.
Indeed. I also question if we as the public even know what we want MP's to do - as quite often it seems to be mutually contradictory. We appear to want them to both represent Westminster in the constituency, as well as the constituency in Westminster - we want them to be both independently-minded and also united enough to support the Leader of their party - we want them to spend all the time they have scrutinizing legislation in Whitehall, whilst simultaneously always being available to constituents as a glorified social worker.
My MP Natascha Engel rebels when she feels it is the right thing to do.
Compare to Julie Elliott MP, Sunderland Central. She hasn't rebelled once. Can she seriously agree with EVERYTHING Ed Miliband says ? What a brown-noser !
I believe NPXMP voted with the governments of Blair and Brown 100% of the time. But that's fine coz they never put forward anything stupid, damaging, divisive, self serving or illegal.
Hmm. The France figure is wildly out of whack with a report on ITV News a few night's ago.
UK was 2.4%, China 7.7%, US 2%, Germany 1.3% and France (according to that report, which related to the rumoured hike by the IMF in its UK forecast) had growth of just 0.2%.
The UK's 2014 growth was upped by 0.6%, Spain's by 0.4%, Germany's by 0.2%. By contrast France is held flat, and Italy is revised downwards by 0.1%.
So: the IMF expects
Germany to grow 1.6% in 2014 UK 2.4% France 0.9% Spain 0.6% Italy 0.6%
I suspect the UK will be nearer 3% for the year. I would expect France to be somewhat worse - perhaps 0.1-0.2%. I think the Germany and Italy numbers are about right, and I would be very surprised if Spain wasn't north of 2% growth by year end.
China is forecast to grow 7.5% in 2014. I'm going to go out on a limb, and predict 4-4.5%, with the economy being particularly anaemic in the fourth quarter (maybe actually down quarter-on-quarter.) This will be a drag on Japan where Abenomics seems to be losing traction, and the government has completely failed to implement any of the structural changes suggested, I would expect the real number will be nearer 1% than the 1.7% predicted.
The IMF is expecting 2.8% for the US, and I think that is probably a little bit pessimistic. I would be more bullish on Canada too.
Yesterday I pointed PBers towards a speech given by Ben Broadbent, the Goldman Sachs banker who sits as an external member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. A key theme of the speech was that business investment tended to lag employment and output growth in a post-recessionary recovery and that the UK was currently well positioned to see a big upturn in investment during 2014.
Today the CBI has published an index of manufacturer's intentions to increase investment and reported that it had reached its highest level for three years. The index for intentions to increase capital expenditure on buildings rose to -1 in the quarter to January 2014 from -20. Similar increases were recorded for intentions to invest in new machinery.
Rising investment confidence was underpinned by reports by manufacturers of an increase in new orders (index up to 13 from 6), the highest level since April 2012.
This upbeat news from the CBI contrasts with Germany's ZEW Center for European Economic Research in Mannheim, who reported its index of investor expectations had fallen slightly from 61.7 in January from a seven-year high of 62 in December. Whilst the German figures undershot economist expectations and headed down rather than up, they still showed reasonably robust prospects in Germany.
Both the UK and Germany are managing to keep ahead of the rest of the EU by servicing growth in domestic demand rather than through increased exports. The rest of the EU remains weak and intra EU trade is contracting, even after allowing for the welcome recovery of the restructured peripheral economies.
The need for the EU to recover was a second theme of Broadbent's speech. He argued that increased demand from the EU for UK exports was the second main condition needed for the UK to sustain its current recovery. EU reoovery may well be happening but it is still painfully slow and fragile with France, the EU's second largest economy, going backward rather than forward.
Even the CBI survey picked up the clouds. On a monthly basis, the index for UK factory orders in January fell to minus 2 from 12 in the previous month as a similar index export orders dropped 27 points to minus 16.
It is time for St George to set forth on the continent to slay the EU dragon.
Not only is Lord Rennard going all out with legal action, but the party's suspension is valid for 14 weeks, so it would be lifted going into the election campaign. Genius.....
This upbeat news from the CBI contrasts with Germany's ZEW Center for European Economic Research in Mannheim, who reported its index of investor expectations had fallen slightly from 61.7 in January from a seven-year high of 62 in December. Whilst the German figures undershot economist expectations and headed down rather than up, they still showed reasonably robust prospects in Germany.
AveryLP - German ZEW numbers were a smidgen below their six year highs... they were very good numbers, they just weren't *quite* as good as December's.
That said, with the Chinese economy slowing, I would be super cautious on all capital goods exporting countries. Germany and Sweden have been big beneficiaries of China's investment boom. If that begins to slow, that will severely impact those countries. For that reason, I suspect that the IMF German GDP numbers may be slightly too optimistic for 2014.
Not only is Lord Rennard going all out with legal action, but the party's suspension is valid for 14 weeks, so it would be lifted going into the election campaign. Genius.....
Quite unbelievable that Clegg didnt have everything sorted out before the public statement.
Sky Sources: Ex-Lib Dem Chief Exec Lord #Rennard starts legal proceedings to challenge disciplinary action by party over harassment claims
Rennard doesn't understand that this is not just a legal argument. It is also about the politics and the human dimension. Even the Courts will consider how equitable the Lib Dem process was, taking account of the sexual harrassment evidence (regardless of intent not being proved) as well as how Rennard has been treated.
A more pressing concern is - how do you pronounce "Erewash"?
I've just had a look in my book on East Midlands dialect, and it's not in there. But from memory, it's Eh-re-wash, or Errywash when drunk. ;-)
Nearby there's Trowell (home to the M1 services), which, when spoken, sounds like it's the home to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast.
We ought to have a dialect thread on PB, where we all type in our local dialect: That Clegg, e's a reet blather-yadded bogger, bletherin' on 'bout 'nowt. Ah dosst 'im ter jump in'ter cut.
This upbeat news from the CBI contrasts with Germany's ZEW Center for European Economic Research in Mannheim, who reported its index of investor expectations had fallen slightly from 61.7 in January from a seven-year high of 62 in December. Whilst the German figures undershot economist expectations and headed down rather than up, they still showed reasonably robust prospects in Germany.
AveryLP - German ZEW numbers were a smidgen below their six year highs... they were very good numbers, they just weren't *quite* as good as December's.
That said, with the Chinese economy slowing, I would be super cautious on all capital goods exporting countries. Germany and Sweden have been big beneficiaries of China's investment boom. If that begins to slow, that will severely impact those countries. For that reason, I suspect that the IMF German GDP numbers may be slightly too optimistic for 2014.
We are divided only on use of language, Robert.
One of the strangest facets of Chinese manufacturing hegemony is the increase in their share of the global markets for building stones. Quarries in Brazil and Africa export uncut slabs to China who buy cutting equipment from Italy and re-export the processed stone back to the Americas or to Europe.
Surely this must be one of the most economically and environmentally absurd shifts in trade known to history.
You're not showing any evidence to support this though.
If they were really protest voters then they wouldn't have left the Lib Dems for the Labour party, they'd have either not voted or gone to one of the smaller parties.
If voters went Lab-LD-Lab, that suggests they're left leaning rather than NOTA.
They were left leaning. They were (and now are agaiin) Lab supporters but couldn't, after all the craziness of Blair-Brown, bring themselves to vote Lab. So they chose the next most obvious left-leaning (hitherto NOTA) party: the LibDems.
The LibDems have disappointed them by not bringing back Clause Four while in coalition with the Tories, so those voters are (now indicating to the polls that they are) back with Lab. Of course GE2015 might prove otherwise.
Hitherto NOTA?
So before GE 2010 they were a NOTA? That's an equally bizarre claim.
OK look, before GE2010 the LDs were a well-constituted party with a manifesto and all the trappings of a party that wanted to be in power. But they had some, shall we call them "out there" policies and were not a million miles in sight of being elected with a majority to govern.
But that's not what I meant - a significant amount of their support was from NOTA voters. It was participating in the cut-and-thrust of UK politics, giving Lab-Con a bit of a bloody nose (of sorts), while not having to deal with the implications still less responsibility of power. But then they ended up in power and the events I described above transpired.
Any foundation to this, Lib Dems as NOTA party theory? As opposed to the simpler explanation that a coalition with the Conservatives was unpalatable to a chunk of Lib Dems who then went to Labour?
Yes.
I've spoken to every voter who put a cross in the LibDem box because it was a NOTA vote. And they confirm my theory.
I apologise if you and some of your fellow "true" LibDems thought every LD vote was a sincere and enthusiastic vote for a LD govt but it wasn't and ain't so. Sorry to break it to you.
You're sliding goalposts around. You've gone from declaring that the Lib Dems were a NOTA party, to 'not every vote wasn't NOTA'.
Were some votes NOTA votes sure, were they a NOTA party, rubbish.
Bill Gates says there will be no poor countries by 2035. Extreme poverty and child mortality virtually wiped out.
Desperate news for Britain's big charities......
One of my favourite Daily Mash articles was one reporting on African dictators coming together to standardise on Presidential Limos to save on servicing costs..
Interesting article in yesterday's Times by Matt Ridley pointing out the link between polygamy and violent societies, mainly because of the fact that if one man has, say, five wives, it means that five men won't be able to find a wife, which inevitably leads to violence.
Erewash (Eh-re-wash) is an odd place. At the centre of it is Ilkeston, a satellite town/suburb of Nottingham that is administratively in Derbyshire, but is nearer to Nottingham than it is Derby and has a Nottingham phone number. It's steel and (former) mining country, and seems an odd place to have a Tory MP.
Not only is Lord Rennard going all out with legal action, but the party's suspension is valid for 14 weeks, so it would be lifted going into the election campaign. Genius.....
He's been suspended pending disciplinary procedure. So the outcome of that would supercede the suspension and I'd have thought would take less than 14 weeks.
I admire those that want to put up with the sheer hassle of wanting to be MPs. I do not find it surprising at all that some of those elected in 2010 may have found it frustrating, boring and unfulfilling. In fact I am quite impressed that so many of them are willing to stick it out and put themselves through the trauma of defending marginal seats in difficult circumstances.
I do not know of the numbers but if 4 = 11% there were presumably 38 women elected in 2010 for the tories. If so, then 34 of them are having another go.
It would be a little unfair to say that someone is stirring here and no doubt there are the usual questions as to whether a back bench MPs job can be made more interesting and the House less misogynist. But some sort of perspective is perhaps called for.
Indeed. I also question if we as the public even know what we want MP's to do - as quite often it seems to be mutually contradictory. We appear to want them to both represent Westminster in the constituency, as well as the constituency in Westminster - we want them to be both independently-minded and also united enough to support the Leader of their party - we want them to spend all the time they have scrutinizing legislation in Whitehall, whilst simultaneously always being available to constituents as a glorified social worker.
My MP Natascha Engel rebels when she feels it is the right thing to do.
Compare to Julie Elliott MP, Sunderland Central. She hasn't rebelled once. Can she seriously agree with EVERYTHING Ed Miliband says ? What a brown-noser !
I believe NPXMP voted with the governments of Blair and Brown 100% of the time. But that's fine coz they never put forward anything stupid, damaging, divisive, self serving or illegal.
Blair was generally careful to put all the controversial stuff into the manifesto.
This upbeat news from the CBI contrasts with Germany's ZEW Center for European Economic Research in Mannheim, who reported its index of investor expectations had fallen slightly from 61.7 in January from a seven-year high of 62 in December. Whilst the German figures undershot economist expectations and headed down rather than up, they still showed reasonably robust prospects in Germany.
AveryLP - German ZEW numbers were a smidgen below their six year highs... they were very good numbers, they just weren't *quite* as good as December's.
That said, with the Chinese economy slowing, I would be super cautious on all capital goods exporting countries. Germany and Sweden have been big beneficiaries of China's investment boom. If that begins to slow, that will severely impact those countries. For that reason, I suspect that the IMF German GDP numbers may be slightly too optimistic for 2014.
We are divided only on use of language, Robert.
One of the strangest facets of Chinese manufacturing hegemony is the increase in their share of the global markets for building stones. Quarries in Brazil and Africa export uncut slabs to China who buy cutting equipment from Italy and re-export the processed stone back to the Americas or to Europe.
Surely this must be one of the most economically and environmentally absurd shifts in trade known to history.
From memory, the paper mills at Fort William did something similar. When the pulping mill closed in 1981, Scottish timber was exported abroad by ship, and the resultant pulp bought back to FW by sea to be made into paper.
It's all gone now, sadly. The paper mill closed in 2005.
Erewash (Eh-re-wash) is an odd place. At the centre of it is Ilkeston, a satellite town/suburb of Nottingham that is administratively in Derbyshire, but is nearer to Nottingham than it is Derby and has a Nottingham phone number. It's steel and (former) mining country, and seems an odd place to have a Tory MP.
The Ilkeston seat that existed until 1983 was safe for Labour. In that year Long Eaton was added from the SE Derbyshire constituency which meant the Tories were able to win Erewash in a good year.
Interesting article in yesterday's Times by Matt Ridley pointing out the link between polygamy and violent societies, mainly because of the fact that if one man has, say, five wives, it means that five men won't be able to find a wife, which inevitably leads to violence.
China has well over 40 million excess men. I wonder how that bodes for future peace and quiet out east?
(p.s. I expect alot of the grief in the Muslim world ultimately comes, IMHO, from sexual and alcohol frustration. Alot of poor and hopeless young men who don't have the option to distract themselves with booze or getting the leg over).
a) he keeps the Coalition in the (bad) news for ages b) he pushes anymore leftie Lib waverers into Labour's arms*
*or so you would think from reading this blog. I suspect it will make little difference
He thinks he is right. People racked by self-doubt are unlikely to go into politics. That's what stops me wanting to be Prime Minister: it's not that I don't know how to bring peace to the Middle East and end world poverty; it's that I know I don't know.
Erewash (Eh-re-wash) is an odd place. At the centre of it is Ilkeston, a satellite town/suburb of Nottingham that is administratively in Derbyshire, but is nearer to Nottingham than it is Derby and has a Nottingham phone number. It's steel and (former) mining country, and seems an odd place to have a Tory MP.
The Ilkeston seat that existed until 1983 was safe for Labour. In that year Long Eaton was added from the SE Derbyshire constituency which meant the Tories were able to win Erewash in a good year.
Comments
You're not showing any evidence to support this though.
If they were really protest voters then they wouldn't have left the Lib Dems for the Labour party, they'd have either not voted or gone to one of the smaller parties.
If voters went Lab-LD-Lab, that suggests they're left leaning rather than NOTA.
Edited extra bit: wonder what odds you could've gotten on neither Djokovic nor Ferrer making the semis.
I can only think of three though? How many were first elected in 2010 in total?
The LibDems have disappointed them by not bringing back Clause Four while in coalition with the Tories, so those voters are (now indicating to the polls that they are) back with Lab. Of course GE2015 might prove otherwise.
So before GE 2010 they were a NOTA? That's an equally bizarre claim.
Most companies would be happy with that.
Next...
15 retirements over two General Elections (admittedly, covering 10 years rather than 8) is quite a lot for a party of around 50-60, isn't it?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100255738/george-osbornes-whack-a-mole-tactic-is-denying-labour-any-advantage/
1997 was the LDs break-thru election. 18 > 46 seats.
(I actually went to that conference, but my train got delayed and I only arrived in time to stand outside while they voted it through).
But that's not what I meant - a significant amount of their support was from NOTA voters. It was participating in the cut-and-thrust of UK politics, giving Lab-Con a bit of a bloody nose (of sorts), while not having to deal with the implications still less responsibility of power. But then they ended up in power and the events I described above transpired.
The power to bring down the coalition is a recognition of the fact that in the end both sides are equal since they both can do it. From there you then argue your case and don't immediately presume that the only way forward is to then act like the election was fought under PR and any deal must reflect that kind of thinking. He could have done any number different things but he made his choice because that's what it was. A choice. A choice between thousands of different policies, many different ways to make up the coalition (or opt for something else) and how responsibility was then parcelled out. What he wasn't was powerless. He set the tone and the policy direction and all else that has followed has followed because of those decisions. The reason he is in such trouble is because of those choices and because it's far too late now to suddenly pretend he didn't make them.
We can never be certain of what might have been if he had made other choices but we do know they were his to make and that he as leader was responsible for those he has made.
1) The old national government involved all MPs in decision-making.
2) The new EU government only involves the MPs (and mainly only of the majority party) in selecting the delegates for the supreme soviet (aka Council of Ministers / Commissioners).
So as the balance of decision making and power has shifted to the supreme soviet from the now pretend national governments the MPs in the national parliaments become increasingly meaningless.
If Europhiles were honest the national elections would elect a temporary parliament to select delegates to the supreme soviet and then disband until next time - as that is effectively their sole role - but if Europhiles were honest the rebel alliance would be 80% in the polls.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10586902/Nick-Clegg-will-call-Lord-Rennards-bluff-over-legal-action.html
I think West Ham are about 30,000/1 to qualify
I've spoken to every voter who put a cross in the LibDem box because it was a NOTA vote. And they confirm my theory.
I apologise if you and some of your fellow "true" LibDems thought every LD vote was a sincere and enthusiastic vote for a LD govt but it wasn't and ain't so. Sorry to break it to you.
France 0.9% : "policy uncertainty is weighing on growth"
I do not know of the numbers but if 4 = 11% there were presumably 38 women elected in 2010 for the tories. If so, then 34 of them are having another go.
It would be a little unfair to say that someone is stirring here and no doubt there are the usual questions as to whether a back bench MPs job can be made more interesting and the House less misogynist. But some sort of perspective is perhaps called for.
UK was 2.4%, China 7.7%, US 2%, Germany 1.3% and France (according to that report, which related to the rumoured hike by the IMF in its UK forecast) had growth of just 0.2%.
So... has France been increased significantly?
MPs fall into two broad categories:
1. Those who aspire to / expect to / do govern; and
2. Lobby fodder whose role in life is to vote and to be their constituents’ agony aunt
Most people entering politics do so with 1 in mind but most MPs are in the second category. And the second category can’t be that uplifting. I’m surprised more MPs don’t quit – the otherwise employable and smart ones anyway. Stopping second careers for MPs would turn a dribble of exits into a flood and we’d end up with the House full of dullard backbenchers (as opposed to today’s mixed lot).
NPXMP (if you’re here) – how rewarding is role 2 really? I’m sure being in the House at PMQs and the odd committee meeting were cool, but day in day out?
http://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/global-economy-watch/gew-projections.jhtml
Elsewhere this man makes a career with such amazing insights...
Owen Jones@OwenJones841 min
@DAaronovitch @georgeeaton If I was a Scottish Nat I'd want nothing more than Cameron to debate Salmond!
I wonder how much campaigning plans are being put on hold due to the Scottish referendum. Whilst No seems likelier to win, the question (and potential Yes) does mean that the parties can't really get stuck in until they know whether the country will have 10% going walkies in a few years.
"The people have spoken, the b*******"
Never a truer word.
Churchill: I defeated Nazism and saved the democratic world....
'45 electorate: Don't forget to close the door after you....
She makes a very valid point. There are those famous "hard working families" of course but the tory party should remember its roots as the party not just of landowners but shopkeepers, small businessmen (and women) and the aspirational classes who want a property owning democracy. They are what Thatcher tapped into.
There are more self employed in this country than ever before and we have an excellent record in new business formation. Tory ministers do not talk about this nearly enough and let the perception that they are all about big business and even big government take hold.
3. Lobbying government from the backbenchers to adopt specific policies (or at least, promoting those views with the aim of winning wider support among those who might form a government).
Compare to Julie Elliott MP, Sunderland Central. She hasn't rebelled once. Can she seriously agree with EVERYTHING Ed Miliband says ? What a brown-noser !
The UK's 2014 growth was upped by 0.6%, Spain's by 0.4%, Germany's by 0.2%. By contrast France is held flat, and Italy is revised downwards by 0.1%.
So: the IMF expects
Germany to grow 1.6% in 2014
UK 2.4%
France 0.9%
Spain 0.6%
Italy 0.6%
I suspect the UK will be nearer 3% for the year. I would expect France to be somewhat worse - perhaps 0.1-0.2%. I think the Germany and Italy numbers are about right, and I would be very surprised if Spain wasn't north of 2% growth by year end.
China is forecast to grow 7.5% in 2014. I'm going to go out on a limb, and predict 4-4.5%, with the economy being particularly anaemic in the fourth quarter (maybe actually down quarter-on-quarter.) This will be a drag on Japan where Abenomics seems to be losing traction, and the government has completely failed to implement any of the structural changes suggested, I would expect the real number will be nearer 1% than the 1.7% predicted.
The IMF is expecting 2.8% for the US, and I think that is probably a little bit pessimistic. I would be more bullish on Canada too.
Sky Sources: Ex-Lib Dem Chief Exec Lord #Rennard starts legal proceedings to challenge disciplinary action by party over harassment claims
Today the CBI has published an index of manufacturer's intentions to increase investment and reported that it had reached its highest level for three years. The index for intentions to increase capital expenditure on buildings rose to -1 in the quarter to January 2014 from -20. Similar increases were recorded for intentions to invest in new machinery.
Rising investment confidence was underpinned by reports by manufacturers of an increase in new orders (index up to 13 from 6), the highest level since April 2012.
This upbeat news from the CBI contrasts with Germany's ZEW Center for European Economic Research in Mannheim, who reported its index of investor expectations had fallen slightly from 61.7 in January from a seven-year high of 62 in December. Whilst the German figures undershot economist expectations and headed down rather than up, they still showed reasonably robust prospects in Germany.
Both the UK and Germany are managing to keep ahead of the rest of the EU by servicing growth in domestic demand rather than through increased exports. The rest of the EU remains weak and intra EU trade is contracting, even after allowing for the welcome recovery of the restructured peripheral economies.
The need for the EU to recover was a second theme of Broadbent's speech. He argued that increased demand from the EU for UK exports was the second main condition needed for the UK to sustain its current recovery. EU reoovery may well be happening but it is still painfully slow and fragile with France, the EU's second largest economy, going backward rather than forward.
Even the CBI survey picked up the clouds. On a monthly basis, the index for UK factory orders in January fell to minus 2 from 12 in the previous month as a similar index export orders dropped 27 points to minus 16.
It is time for St George to set forth on the continent to slay the EU dragon.
"Lord Rennard is to seek a court injunction to lift his suspension by the Liberal Democrats as the dispute within the party deepens.
The peer had his membership temporarily suspended after he refused to apologise over sexual harassment claims.
But the peer will seek a court order within days to try and halt disciplinary proceedings against him."
That said, with the Chinese economy slowing, I would be super cautious on all capital goods exporting countries. Germany and Sweden have been big beneficiaries of China's investment boom. If that begins to slow, that will severely impact those countries. For that reason, I suspect that the IMF German GDP numbers may be slightly too optimistic for 2014.
(except in English tory/lib dem marginals, of course).
Rennard doesn't understand that this is not just a legal argument. It is also about the politics and the human dimension. Even the Courts will consider how equitable the Lib Dem process was, taking account of the sexual harrassment evidence (regardless of intent not being proved) as well as how Rennard has been treated.
Nearby there's Trowell (home to the M1 services), which, when spoken, sounds like it's the home to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast.
We ought to have a dialect thread on PB, where we all type in our local dialect:
That Clegg, e's a reet blather-yadded bogger, bletherin' on 'bout 'nowt. Ah dosst 'im ter jump in'ter cut.
Desperate news for Britain's big charities......
Difficult though it might be to believe, there are still, mainly rural, parts of the Midlands where he is still remains unrecognised as Our Saviour.
One of the strangest facets of Chinese manufacturing hegemony is the increase in their share of the global markets for building stones. Quarries in Brazil and Africa export uncut slabs to China who buy cutting equipment from Italy and re-export the processed stone back to the Americas or to Europe.
Surely this must be one of the most economically and environmentally absurd shifts in trade known to history.
norman smith @BBCNormanS 30s
Friends of @LordRennard accuse party president @timfarron of deliberately scuppering attempts to broker peace deal @LibDems
Were some votes NOTA votes sure, were they a NOTA party, rubbish.
Mars the new gap yah destination?
I guess its a riposte to those stats from Oxfam earlier in the week about the 84 wealthiest people and the poorest half of the world.
Turns out there may not even be an Oxfam in 25 years!!
Interesting article in yesterday's Times by Matt Ridley pointing out the link between polygamy and violent societies, mainly because of the fact that if one man has, say, five wives, it means that five men won't be able to find a wife, which inevitably leads to violence.
a) he keeps the Coalition in the (bad) news for ages
b) he pushes anymore leftie Lib waverers into Labour's arms*
*or so you would think from reading this blog. I suspect it will make little difference
It's all gone now, sadly. The paper mill closed in 2005.
(p.s. I expect alot of the grief in the Muslim world ultimately comes, IMHO, from sexual and alcohol frustration. Alot of poor and hopeless young men who don't have the option to distract themselves with booze or getting the leg over).
Must be even worse for the muslim lads in Britain. Imagine listening to your white/black peers tales of drunken abandon and sexual conquest.
And then having to listen to them taking the p8ss out of you...
"Stop Holiday companies charging extra in school holidays":
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/46455
Sources close to @timfarron say asking ACAS to mediate in @LordRennard dispute was "a non runner" cos not an employee of @libdemsparty
Details
norman smith @BBCNormanS 7m
Lib Dem president @timfarron dismisses claims he wanted @LordRennard expelled from the party as "total rubbish"