What will that mean? Well let's say there are 9 SNP plus Plaid and 18 Northern Ireland MPs. Added to the LD MPs that gives us 62. So that will mean 588 Tory + Labour MPs. A government would need 326 MPs for a majority. This would be complicated by the no show of Sinn Fein MPs. Nonetheless a government would probably need 330 MPs to be stable. That means that Tory or Lab need 295 MPs if we assume the LDs are reduced to 35. However they can only have 588 between them. So it isn't possible for both parties to get to 295. This surely puts to bed the idea that the Lib Dems will be able to choose their coalitio partners. They will only be able to go with the Party that has the most MPs.
Very interesting post. However, your maths is a bit over-strict. 588 is twice 294, so there is a small margin where the LibDems could have a genuine choice of forming a coalition of some sort with either of the big parties (295 would be nice, but 290 would be sort-of OK if the LibDems had 35, especially if some support could be hoped-for from somewhere else). Still, you are very right that the window is small. As I've been saying for a while, an unstable outcome is very likely.
As for your elephant, it's anyone's guess what happens if the Scots say tìoraidh. But if the SNP did have a large bloc of Westminster MPs in the interim when they were negotiating exit, surely they'd not vote on UK issues, so the number of MPs needed to form an effective majority government would be much smaller?
I have been reading a number of blogs where people are blaming the government for not protecting these seaside towns enough. Why do people in this country always look to blame someone. The seawall at Dawlish has been there for 150 years and if you look how the sea has destroyed it overnight it just demonstrates the enormous power of nature. How can people think that it is the governments fault?
and I'd guess the Conservatives will pedal very very softly in his constituency !
As reward for being so nice to Cammie? No. Content to pat him on the head yes. Grateful enough to stop being scottish tories? Don't think so.
The zimmers will indeed be pounding the streets but tory supporters think for themselves. As I said, if I lived in his constituency I would vote for him in a heart beat. I suspect quite a number of tories will think the same.
But surely you can see that Danny being a candidate that Tories (normally notoriously unwilling to vote tactically) would vote for 'in a heart beat' may be a contra indicator for how previous LD voters might swing? As it happens my uncle lives in DA's constituency, is an LD member and has campaigned on his behalf; I must check out the LD lie of the land.
If its not too much hassle, can you ask him, who he thinks will be the best placed party to be the anti-Danny Alexander candidate.
I can see persuasive arguments for both Lab and the SNP.
I'll try. Our last 'political' conversation started off with 'That fat crook who's trying to break up our country'; it didn't end well.
Aww bless.
I'll be back in Edinburgh next month, where my mission is to find a non UKIP/SDL supporting Taxi Driver.
They were interesting in how they foresaw the referendum turning out, when I was there last year.
Carmichael will be the only Scottish Lib Dem MP not sweating on election night.
Charlie and Thurso should be fine. Other than that I agree.
Presumably you think so partly because they have been very quiet in the indy debates?
Partly, but mainly because their constituencies are an amazingly long way from anywhere. The locals support their own up there and are less interested in what the rest of the country thinks. I have done court cases up in Wick and Thurso. When you get to Inverness you are about half way there from the Scottish central belt. Scotland is huge and very, very empty.
Quite. And that's before you even try to get to Kirkwall, or Lerwick, or ... we once stayed in the northernmost B&B in the UK, on Unst, and that was around as far from Lerwick as Brighton is from London (which just shows that London is out on the fringes too...).
I'm just wondering, how far the Scottish LD dilemma is due to the fact that they generally used to support home rule and devo max as a nice comfortable option between yes and no to full indy. But they have had that option firmly turned down by Mr Clegg's nice friend Mr Cameron (who claimed the credit for it but would not have been there without LD support). So will they blame the LDs for forcing them to make a choice they didn't want?
And if some go for yes, and some for no, then any MP who has been active in the indy debates (Moore, Alexander, etc.) will end up hacking off a fair proportion of their constituents whatever they do (though I can't remember any LD MPs doing a Canavan and supporting independence). Which might explain the reluctance of most MPs to join the prophylactic battalions. I also wonder how far Mr Carmichael's planned retirement is due to his insisting that the Shetlanders are gagging to go it alone, and then the local paper did a poll which showed the complete opposite ...
That's the Cornish economy fecked. I've travelled that line many times. It's the only railway into the county.
It looks from the BBC photos as is one of those houses is right at the edge as well - that'll probably have to be demolished, as may some of its neighbours. Looking at Google Maps, the houses in the background may be safe, but they're also cut off - that's the only road in.
A real mess.
And no airports either between Exeter and Newquay if I recall rightly - Plymouth closed two years or so ago.
The roads aren't bad though, and I'm pretty sure a large majority of freight and people travels by road.
I think the Coalition announced the A30 would be dualled in the places where it isn't already.
Finally, one of the strongest parts of the Cornish economy is tourism, and one hopes they'll have the train line up and running in the spring, when the storms have died down.
Keep calm, eh?
I'm starting to find all this doom and gloom startling: the Somerset levels problem is severe, but effects only relatively few people (who are getting help) and is hardly unique historically. Ditto the Dawlish rail line. It's not like the southwest is suddenly cut off by the Tamar cutting through to the north coast, turning Cornwall into an island and the inhabitants into grockle-eating cannibals.
The media are treating it like it's the film 2012. Except instead of an Mayan prophesy, it's a coalition government that's upset the sandal-wearing weather Gods.
What will that mean? Well let's say there are 9 SNP plus Plaid and 18 Northern Ireland MPs. Added to the LD MPs that gives us 62. So that will mean 588 Tory + Labour MPs. A government would need 326 MPs for a majority. This would be complicated by the no show of Sinn Fein MPs. Nonetheless a government would probably need 330 MPs to be stable. That means that Tory or Lab need 295 MPs if we assume the LDs are reduced to 35. However they can only have 588 between them. So it isn't possible for both parties to get to 295. This surely puts to bed the idea that the Lib Dems will be able to choose their coalitio partners. They will only be able to go with the Party that has the most MPs.
As for your elephant, it's anyone's guess what happens if the Scots say tìoraidh. But if the SNP did have a large bloc of Westminster MPs in the interim when they were negotiating exit, surely they'd not vote on UK issues, so the number of MPs needed to form an effective majority government would be much smaller?
Yes perhaps a grinning Salmond would give assurances that he wouldn't bring down a UK coalition whilst negotiating for independence. However the negotiations will be tough. My own view is that rUK would make it's dominant presence felt - that is after all how large countries behave towards smaller ones - they'll want to get the best possible for their people. However if Salmond can pull the plug under the coalition at any moment........
Yes perhaps a grinning Salmond would give assurances that he wouldn't bring down a UK coalition whilst negotiating for independence. However the negotiations will be tough. My own view is that rUK would make it's dominant presence felt - that is after all how large countries behave towards smaller ones - they'll want to get the best possible for their people. However if Salmond can pull the plug under the coalition at any moment........
It would certainly be an interesting set of dynamics. However, Salmond would also soon realise that he needed a government with whom to negotiate. Only parliament can dissolve the union, and any government which relied on SNP support in that scenario would be negotiating its own removal from office.
What will that mean? Well let's say there are 9 SNP plus Plaid and 18 Northern Ireland MPs. Added to the LD MPs that gives us 62. So that will mean 588 Tory + Labour MPs. A government would need 326 MPs for a majority. This would be complicated by the no show of Sinn Fein MPs. Nonetheless a government would probably need 330 MPs to be stable. That means that Tory or Lab need 295 MPs if we assume the LDs are reduced to 35. However they can only have 588 between them. So it isn't possible for both parties to get to 295. This surely puts to bed the idea that the Lib Dems will be able to choose their coalitio partners. They will only be able to go with the Party that has the most MPs.
As for your elephant, it's anyone's guess what happens if the Scots say tìoraidh. But if the SNP did have a large bloc of Westminster MPs in the interim when they were negotiating exit, surely they'd not vote on UK issues, so the number of MPs needed to form an effective majority government would be much smaller?
Yes perhaps a grinning Salmond would give assurances that he wouldn't bring down a UK coalition whilst negotiating for independence. However the negotiations will be tough. My own view is that rUK would make it's dominant presence felt - that is after all how large countries behave towards smaller ones - they'll want to get the best possible for their people. However if Salmond can pull the plug under the coalition at any moment........
I don't think he'd be grinning - it'd be too serious for that, I think we all agree. The problem is that the business of government needs to go on for the year or two to indy. So the SNP will still be voting, quite legitimately, on many superficially EWNI or English-only matters because of the Barnett consequentials which impact the Scottish government's financial allocation. I am sure they would continue to avoid truly non-Scots matters, as they do now, as anything else would be a wee bit tactless. But it remains to be seen whether the LDs and Labour continue to ignore the West Lothian question - and the Tories too: even their one MP in Scotland could make a difference on such arithmetic. It's not in anyone's interest to wreck the running of the UK per se, or to push their luck too far (unless you benefit from chaos). But trying to change the system radically for its last year or two would certainly be a wrecking tactic de facto.
Yes perhaps a grinning Salmond would give assurances that he wouldn't bring down a UK coalition whilst negotiating for independence. However the negotiations will be tough. My own view is that rUK would make it's dominant presence felt - that is after all how large countries behave towards smaller ones - they'll want to get the best possible for their people. However if Salmond can pull the plug under the coalition at any moment........
It would certainly be an interesting set of dynamics. However, Salmond would also soon realise that he needed a government with whom to negotiate. Only parliament can dissolve the union, and any government which relied on SNP support in that scenario would be negotiating its own removal from office.
"only parliament can dissolve ..." Er, even if it is true, does that actually make any practical difference (assuming you mean that the Westminster parliament which has to give permission)? Mr C has already agreed to respect the result of a Yes vote, a year back, and that is before we even get into the different approaches in England and Scotland to crown and pmt sovereignty. So surely a Yes vote would resolve that instantly. The negotiations are on the details - but obviously important details - whether the Scots e.g. pay a share of the debt as the SNP propose, or are forced into a clean "new state" start.
(I am aware of the Westminster doctrine that an administration cannot bind its successors, so if Mr Miliband were to take over, it could get interesting, but it would be difficult to deny independence after a clear plebiscite arranged with the full permission (or whatever) of th then legal government of the UK. )
Iain's predictions are interesting. For example, I have seen no sign of the Tories making any progress in Eastleigh whatsoever. The idea of a Labour revival in places like Sutton is surely just wishful thinking. But kudos to him for making a call.
What will that mean? Well let's say there are 9 SNP plus Plaid and 18 Northern Ireland MPs. Added to the LD MPs that gives us 62. So that will mean 588 Tory + Labour MPs. A government would need 326 MPs for a majority. This would be complicated by the no show of Sinn Fein MPs. Nonetheless a government would probably need 330 MPs to be stable. That means that Tory or Lab need 295 MPs if we assume the LDs are reduced to 35. However they can only have 588 between them. So it isn't possible for both parties to get to 295. This surely puts to bed the idea that the Lib Dems will be able to choose their coalitio partners. They will only be able to go with the Party that has the most MPs.
As for your elephant, it's anyone's guess what happens if the Scots say tìoraidh. But if the SNP did have a large bloc of Westminster MPs in the interim when they were negotiating exit, surely they'd not vote on UK issues, so the number of MPs needed to form an effective majority government would be much smaller?
Yes perhaps a grinning Salmond would give assurances that he wouldn't bring down a UK coalition whilst negotiating for independence. However the negotiations will be tough. My own view is that rUK would make it's dominant presence felt - that is after all how large countries behave towards smaller ones - they'll want to get the best possible for their people. However if Salmond can pull the plug under the coalition at any moment........
The sensible thing to do there would be for the SNP to pledge to abstain on any Vote of No Confidence, while reserving the right to vote on any other matters which in their judgement affect Scotland. That might still cause some difficulties but shouldn't create anything insurmountable.
Yes perhaps a grinning Salmond would give assurances that he wouldn't bring down a UK coalition whilst negotiating for independence. However the negotiations will be tough. My own view is that rUK would make it's dominant presence felt - that is after all how large countries behave towards smaller ones - they'll want to get the best possible for their people. However if Salmond can pull the plug under the coalition at any moment........
It would certainly be an interesting set of dynamics. However, Salmond would also soon realise that he needed a government with whom to negotiate. Only parliament can dissolve the union, and any government which relied on SNP support in that scenario would be negotiating its own removal from office.
"only parliament can dissolve ..." Er, even if it is true, does that actually make any practical difference (assuming you mean that the Westminster parliament which has to give permission)? Mr C has already agreed to respect the result of a Yes vote, a year back, and that is before we even get into the different approaches in England and Scotland to crown and pmt sovereignty. So surely a Yes vote would resolve that instantly. The negotiations are on the details - but obviously important details - whether the Scots e.g. pay a share of the debt as the SNP propose, or are forced into a clean "new state" start.
(I am aware of the Westminster doctrine that an administration cannot bind its successors, so if Mr Miliband were to take over, it could get interesting, but it would be difficult to deny independence after a clear plebiscite arranged with the full permission (or whatever) of th then legal government of the UK. )
You've missed the point. I'm not saying anyone would deny the Scots independence after a Yes vote, but the actual mechanics of it require an Act of Parliament, and the text of that Act has to be agreed with some UK government after a lot of detailed negotiation. If Salmond blew up the government half-way through that process, he'd be back to square one. It would be a sorry mess, would lead to long delays and much recrimination which certainly wouldn't help the new Scotland get off to a good start.
SeanT is quite capable of defending himself. He doesn't need me.
I also thought OGH had instituted a rule that commenters were not allowed to speculate on the identity of other posters? In which case I suggest he looks to the remarks by uniondivvie.
You dont think Scotland will have a navy? Interesting.
I think Scotland is 8% of the UK and their Navy would match that. And 100% of the nuclear related jobs / activities will go.
So....in retrospect...yes I accept that Faslane will still be a naval base for the Scottish Navy. All one minesweeper of it.
They'd have more than a minesweeper - fishery protection vessels, something for anti terrorism in the oil fields. But nothing as grand as any navy Salmond might imagine, more of an armed Coastguard.
Look to the Republic of Ireland for the model of Scottish defence post any independence. Assuming they leave NATO, since staying in's a bit more expensive.
Yes perhaps a grinning Salmond would give assurances that he wouldn't bring down a UK coalition whilst negotiating for independence. However the negotiations will be tough. My own view is that rUK would make it's dominant presence felt - that is after all how large countries behave towards smaller ones - they'll want to get the best possible for their people. However if Salmond can pull the plug under the coalition at any moment........
It would certainly be an interesting set of dynamics. However, Salmond would also soon realise that he needed a government with whom to negotiate. Only parliament can dissolve the union, and any government which relied on SNP support in that scenario would be negotiating its own removal from office.
"only parliament can dissolve ..." Er, even if it is true, does that actually make any practical difference (assuming you mean that the Westminster parliament which has to give permission)? Mr C has already agreed to respect the result of a Yes vote, a year back, and that is before we even get into the different approaches in England and Scotland to crown and pmt sovereignty. So surely a Yes vote would resolve that instantly. The negotiations are on the details - but obviously important details - whether the Scots e.g. pay a share of the debt as the SNP propose, or are forced into a clean "new state" start.
(I am aware of the Westminster doctrine that an administration cannot bind its successors, so if Mr Miliband were to take over, it could get interesting, but it would be difficult to deny independence after a clear plebiscite arranged with the full permission (or whatever) of th then legal government of the UK. )
You've missed the point. I'm not saying anyone would deny the Scots independence after a Yes vote, but the actual mechanics of it require an Act of Parliament, and the text of that Act has to be agreed with some UK government after a lot of detailed negotiation. If Salmond blew up the government half-way through that 0process, he'd be back to square one. It would be a sorry mess, would lead to long delays and much recrimination which certainly wouldn't help the new Scotland get off to a good start.
Thanks. I agree it's not in anyone's interest to be silly. Does work both ways though - not good for anyone if someone playing silly devils on either side ends up forcing something like a clean slate start. And thanks to @david_herdman for his comment too.
Can I just ask, could you please give an example of the mechanics that need an Act? Things like empowering temporarily shared functions of administration (e.g. DVLA)?
You dont think Scotland will have a navy? Interesting.
I think Scotland is 8% of the UK and their Navy would match that. And 100% of the nuclear related jobs / activities will go.
So....in retrospect...yes I accept that Faslane will still be a naval base for the Scottish Navy. All one minesweeper of it.
They'd have more than a minesweeper - fishery protection vessels, something for anti terrorism in the oil fields. But nothing as grand as any navy Salmond might imagine, more of an armed Coastguard.
Look to the Republic of Ireland for the model of Scottish defence post any independence. Assuming they leave NATO, since staying in's a bit more expensive.
They would indeed be well advised to protect that oil! And hassle English or Spanish trawlers.
Can I just ask, could you please give an example of the mechanics that need an Act? Things like empowering temporarily shared functions of administration (e.g. DVLA)?
More than that - the entire legal existence of the new Scotland would need to start from an Act undoing the 1707 Act of Union.
A standard game with one exception, there can only be one winner alliances are not allowed. One player has to make 18 centres to win. Anyone can join but be aware this is going to be a devious, vicious, no holds barred, bring a gun to a knife fight sort of game. Not really for novices, the feint-hearted or anyone who likes their gaming fair and honest. To give a clue as to the type of game I expect, I am trying to tempt Andy Cooke back to play (and hopefully to comment on the site again).
Those who are interested in either game should email me at HurstLlama at gmail dot com for details.
I stick my head in for old times sake and see HurstLlama dangling a Diplomacy game in front of me ... Oh, I may be persuaded. Pencil me in, old chap.
I fear ID is being too optimistic from an LD pov. I think UKIP might win at least 1 and possibly 3 LD seats, though they will also help LDs somewhat elsewhere. UKIP will certainly be targeting the LDs, possibly with (local) Conservative collusion. I also fear the LD situation in Scotland, though I only have any real information from the Highlands. Is ID assuming some new factor, such as a change of leadership (Conservative or LD) perhaps?
Iain Dale is living in 'wishes are fishes' land. I hope he's put money where his mouth is: he'll become a pauper.
Less of a fantasy land than your '26 UKIP gains !'
I like Fantasy; what of it?
However to be serious, I recon the LD's will get a minimum of 11 seats and a maximum of 19 seats. And the latter figure only if no's to independence win the vote. This leaves room for UKIP to get a minimum 21 seats and a maximum (at the moment) of 34 seats.
I fear ID is being too optimistic. I think UKIP might win at least 1 and possibly 3 LD seats, though they will also help LDs somewhat elsewhere. UKIP will certainly be targeting the LDs, possibly with (local) Conservative collusion. I also fear the LD situation in Scotland, though I only have any real information from the Highlands. Is ID assuming some new factor, such as a change of leadership (Conservative or LD) perhaps?
Interesting views - which ones? (Eastleigh clearly, but other than that?)
Just add to my Sheffield Hallam essay -- there's also the "ground war" aspect, in that there's going to be an entire army of hungry Labour councillors and activists from all over Sheffield who will be happy to focus their fire on Hallam since all the other Sheffield seats will be safe for Labour. Simultaneously, the Lib Dems' "army" has been heavily depleted by their hammerings in most of Sheffield (though, as I say, I accept that hasn't happened in the Hallam wards) and indeed all over much of the general region. That ground war aspect could potentially account for an extra 3-5% on Labour's voteshare imo, which would nudge them over the line.
They focussed their fire in 2011 and particularly in the Fullwood by-election last year, urging the people of Sheffield Hallam to send Nick Clegg a message.
They did send him a message, the Lib Dems held the council seats comfortably, and with swings a lot less than seen elsewhere in the country, IIRC, in a couple of seats there was a swing to the Lib Dems.
The Fulwood by election in 2012 saw Labour ( and the Lib Dems ) both pour workers and activists into the ward . The Lib Dem vote increased by over 400 on 2011 and the Labour vote increased by just 9 votes . There may well have been more Labour activists in the ward than Labour voters .
SeanT is quite capable of defending himself. He doesn't need me.
I also thought OGH had instituted a rule that commenters were not allowed to speculate on the identity of other posters? In which case I suggest he looks to the remarks by uniondivvie.
Who was speculating? In any case I'm sure Seant wouldn't go snivelling to the moderators, would he?
I have heard a lot about this Sean T gent and this Tim chap for that matter. Both seem to have been very popular and respected contributors.
Neither seem to post. What happened to them? Are they the same person?
I'm not quite sure what mental ailment some poor unfortunate would suffer from to be able to post as both SeanT and Tim simultaneously. Whilst both are utterly sane, to write from such utterly different viewpoints would require a mind that was not just sprained, but positively broken.
It'd be like the mentalities of Skinner and Thatcher cohabiting in the same body ...
@Lennon. In my part of the world: North Devon and Yeovil. UKIP are certainly allocating resources to both and the local Conservatives are very pro pact it seems.
@Lennon. In my part of the world: North Devon and Yeovil. UKIP are certainly allocating resources to both and the local Conservatives are very pro pact it seems.
Thanks. North Devon I can see - but for the Libs to lose Paddy's old seat - that'd be totemic.
More than that - the entire legal existence of the new Scotland would need to start from an Act undoing the 1707 Act of Union.
@Carnyx is technically right that Scotland could be given independence without an Act of Parliament. Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, under section 30(2) of the Scotland Act 1998, with the consent of the Scottish Parliament and both Houses of Parliament, provide that all matters which are currently reserved shall cease to be. It would then be open in law to the Scottish Parliament to declare independence unilaterally.
SeanT is quite capable of defending himself. He doesn't need me.
I also thought OGH had instituted a rule that commenters were not allowed to speculate on the identity of other posters? In which case I suggest he looks to the remarks by uniondivvie.
Who was speculating? In any case I'm sure Seant wouldn't go snivelling to the moderators, would he?
No, from what I know of him, I don't think he would. But I will. As a new contributor, it is a pain for everyone to snidely assume you are someone else. And quite off putting. I suggest OGH applies his own rule.
IMO Iain Dale is being far too optimistic from both a Conservative and Lib Dem point of view, and too pessimistic towards Labour and maybe also UKIP. But that isn't surprising since I think he's on the ultra-liberal wing of the Conservative Party.
SeanT is quite capable of defending himself. He doesn't need me.
I also thought OGH had instituted a rule that commenters were not allowed to speculate on the identity of other posters? In which case I suggest he looks to the remarks by uniondivvie.
Who was speculating? In any case I'm sure Seant wouldn't go snivelling to the moderators, would he?
This posh chap seems confused at to what was said unsurprisingly enough. Bit of a poor showing for the posh boy to not know exactly who it was OGH didn't want speculated about. Cause it certainly wasn't who he unaccountably seems to think it was.
Lennon. Unfortunately David Laws, despite being something of a Eurosceptic (but obviously nowhere like enough) represents almost everything UKIP hate in their crusade against the metropolitan establishment. The local Conservatives share many of these hostile sentiments but feel they might be pressured from on high to go easy: a toxic mix. A fully squeezed Labour vote might unsqueeze to UKIP, especially with the defence jobs angle.......etc.
and I'd guess the Conservatives will pedal very very softly in his constituency !
As reward for being so nice to Cammie? No. Content to pat him on the head yes. Grateful enough to stop being scottish tories? Don't think so.
The zimmers will indeed be pounding the streets but tory supporters think for themselves. As I said, if I lived in his constituency I would vote for him in a heart beat. I suspect quite a number of tories will think the same.
But surely you can see that Danny being a candidate that Tories (normally notoriously unwilling to vote tactically) would vote for 'in a heart beat' may be a contra indicator for how previous LD voters might swing? As it happens my uncle lives in DA's constituency, is an LD member and has campaigned on his behalf; I must check out the LD lie of the land.
Certainly I see that. That is why it is going to be challenging for him. But a couple of thousand tories voting tactically (and I agree with you there is not much history of that either) could make the difference in what is going to be a tight race.
If we get independence, however, there will be a shake up of Scottish politics. I could see myself easily in the same party as Danny Alexander. And I would not say that about many Liberals of my experience.
@MickPork will have substantiated the nonsense he is pretending to believe regarding me and the Batten charter last night??
You could actually try spelling out whatever this imagined slight is before crying and whining about it.
You attacked the guardian piece on Batten and you weren't happy with the Mail piece either just like I said.v Anyone can check the threads to see that's the case. Anyone apart from you it would seem.
I just pull people up when they lie about me and what i say
You have done so today hence I've pulled you on it
I didn't attack the guardian piece at all,and all I said of the mail article was that it looked as though they had copied the guardian one.
You then said " are you seriously suggesting..." Then put something I hadn't said in the slightest about Paul Dacre. When all I did say was the mail had plagiarised the guardian!
Ie you lied
As you say the threads are there, all easily checkable, and anyone who bothers will see that you will look an utter fool
SeanT is quite capable of defending himself. He doesn't need me.
I also thought OGH had instituted a rule that commenters were not allowed to speculate on the identity of other posters? In which case I suggest he looks to the remarks by uniondivvie.
Who was speculating? In any case I'm sure Seant wouldn't go snivelling to the moderators, would he?
This posh chap seems confused at to what was said unsurprisingly enough. Bit of a poor showing for the posh boy to not know exactly who it was OGH didn't want speculated about. Cause it certainly wasn't who he unaccountably seems to think it was.
Is this written in Scotch? Cause it doesn't seem to be written in English.
Lennon. Unfortunately David Laws, despite being something of a Eurosceptic (but obviously nowhere like enough) represents almost everything UKIP hate in their crusade against the metropolitan establishment. The local Conservatives share many of these hostile sentiments but feel they might be pressured from on high to go easy: a toxic mix. A fully squeezed Labour vote might unsqueeze to UKIP, especially with the defence jobs angle.......etc.
@MickPork will have substantiated the nonsense he is pretending to believe regarding me and the Batten charter last night??
You could actually try spelling out whatever this imagined slight is before crying and whining about it.
You attacked the guardian piece on Batten and you weren't happy with the Mail piece either just like I said.v Anyone can check the threads to see that's the case. Anyone apart from you it would seem.
I just pull people up when they lie about me and what i say
You have done so today hence I've pulled you on it
I didn't attack the guardian piece at all,and all I said of the mail article was that it looked as though they had copied the guardian one.
You then said " are you seriously suggesting..." Then put something I hadn't said in the slightest about Paul Dacre. When all I did say was the mail had plagiarised the guardian!
Ie you lied
As you say the threads are there, all easily checkable, and anyone who bothers will see that you will look an utter fool
*tears of laughter*
Try looking up 'rhetorical device' petal.
Even you seem clueless as to precisely what it is I'm supposed to have 'Lied' about.
I'm more than happy to keep the Batten story going if you want because it does seem to get you very excitable.
"To Aaronovitch and Moos and the cartoonist, the protection of freedom of speech requires that you exercise it. "
You don't have a freedom if you can't exercise it. To claim otherwise is to fight for Loretta's right to have a baby.
"It will not have escaped you that this piece is also unaccompanied by the cartoon – the editor's decision, but one I agree with."
The piece is generally thoughtful and I have no reason to disbelieve the journalist, but if every media organisation and journalist covering this makes the same decision then what we have is self-censorship masquerading as choice.
I'm going to choose not to sleep with Olivia Wilde. Obviously I could, but having considered the moral implications I have chosen, of my own volition, not to. I am sure many other pbers will make the same choice.
Edited extra bit: and, to respond to the question which is the headline, yes, it is my right to offend you. It's your right to offend me too.
SeanT is quite capable of defending himself. He doesn't need me.
I also thought OGH had instituted a rule that commenters were not allowed to speculate on the identity of other posters? In which case I suggest he looks to the remarks by uniondivvie.
Who was speculating? In any case I'm sure Seant wouldn't go snivelling to the moderators, would he?
This posh chap seems confused at to what was said unsurprisingly enough. Bit of a poor showing for the posh boy to not know exactly who it was OGH didn't want speculated about. Cause it certainly wasn't who he unaccountably seems to think it was.
Is this written in Scotch? Cause it doesn't seem to be written in English.
Lennon. Unfortunately David Laws, despite being something of a Eurosceptic (but obviously nowhere like enough) represents almost everything UKIP hate in their crusade against the metropolitan establishment. The local Conservatives share many of these hostile sentiments but feel they might be pressured from on high to go easy: a toxic mix. A fully squeezed Labour vote might unsqueeze to UKIP, especially with the defence jobs angle.......etc.
The recent ComRes favourability poll showed the LDs to be Labour voters' third choice, UKIP being their second choice.
Mr. Hugh, two points in response to 'salting the earth': 1) It was Labour that gave the Coalition the hospital pass of picking up the pieces after the longest, deepest and worst recession in British history. Complaining Osborne won't be handing over a sparkly economy is like complaining when a juvenile delinquent breaks a window in Dresden after it was bombed.
2) Labour had the policy to reduce the NHS' budget.
[As an aside, the archetypical 'salted earth' city, Carthage, was destroyed but made a pretty good comeback as a Romanised city].
Not sure that Mr Williams in Bristol W is entirely popular with his support for the Mayor's parking zones, 20 mph speed limits, and emissions car tax on residents. At times I wonder if the Greens had a MP for the area. Hard choice, turf him out and let Labour in. Boundary changes took more of the Tory supports out of the seat, and a chinless wonder stood for the blues.
Williams is challenged by a different Labour candidate - not sure I would vote for her, but she might tick enough votes to turf him out. On the basis of the last local elections, I was left thinking that Bristol Labour Party couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, the spelling and grammatical mistakes were bad enough. I wish I had kept their leaflet, it was a lesson on how not to appeal to neutral, literate voters.
SeanT is quite capable of defending himself. He doesn't need me.
I also thought OGH had instituted a rule that commenters were not allowed to speculate on the identity of other posters? In which case I suggest he looks to the remarks by uniondivvie.
Who was speculating? In any case I'm sure Seant wouldn't go snivelling to the moderators, would he?
No, from what I know of him, I don't think he would. But I will. As a new contributor, it is a pain for everyone to snidely assume you are someone else. And quite off putting. I suggest OGH applies his own rule.
After careful monitoring of the situation I can reveal the shocking truth. As posters are banned they are assimilated wholesale into the persona of the PBModerator so while Tim and SeanT were once both individuals they are now no more than facets of the legion like mind of the PBModerator gestalt entity.
Though I must admit it is currently only a tentative theory
As an aside Gildas any relation to the poster on a procyon themed site?
A standard game with one exception, there can only be one winner alliances are not allowed. One player has to make 18 centres to win. Anyone can join but be aware this is going to be a devious, vicious, no holds barred, bring a gun to a knife fight sort of game. Not really for novices, the feint-hearted or anyone who likes their gaming fair and honest. To give a clue as to the type of game I expect, I am trying to tempt Andy Cooke back to play (and hopefully to comment on the site again).
Those who are interested in either game should email me at HurstLlama at gmail dot com for details.
I stick my head in for old times sake and see HurstLlama dangling a Diplomacy game in front of me ... Oh, I may be persuaded. Pencil me in, old chap.
Mr. Cooke, Wonderful to hear from you again! I hope you and your family are well and prospering. It is great that you are interested in the Death Match, your participation will certainly up the treachery coefficient of the game. Do please drop me a line at HurstLlama at Gmail dot com. All the best, my dear old porpoise.
A standard game with one exception, there can only be one winner alliances are not allowed. One player has to make 18 centres to win. Anyone can join but be aware this is going to be a devious, vicious, no holds barred, bring a gun to a knife fight sort of game. Not really for novices, the feint-hearted or anyone who likes their gaming fair and honest. To give a clue as to the type of game I expect, I am trying to tempt Andy Cooke back to play (and hopefully to comment on the site again).
Those who are interested in either game should email me at HurstLlama at gmail dot com for details.
I stick my head in for old times sake and see HurstLlama dangling a Diplomacy game in front of me ... Oh, I may be persuaded. Pencil me in, old chap.
Mr. Cooke, Wonderful to hear from you again! I hope you and your family are well and prospering. It is great that you are interested in the Death Match, your participation will certainly up the treachery coefficient of the game. Do please drop me a line at HurstLlama at Gmail dot com. All the best, my dear old porpoise.
Are the proposed games suitable for someone who has never played before? If so how does it work do you need to be online at particular times or is it more play by mail?
SeanT is quite capable of defending himself. He doesn't need me.
I also thought OGH had instituted a rule that commenters were not allowed to speculate on the identity of other posters? In which case I suggest he looks to the remarks by uniondivvie.
Who was speculating? In any case I'm sure Seant wouldn't go snivelling to the moderators, would he?
No, from what I know of him, I don't think he would. But I will. As a new contributor, it is a pain for everyone to snidely assume you are someone else. And quite off putting. I suggest OGH applies his own rule.
I'm confident that Seant, even by his potboilery standards, would be capable of creating a reasonably convincing and discrete persona rather than a pallid facsimile of his own florid presence.
I'm fairly certainly that won't be the route Cammie goes down unless he wants his backbenchers to run about like headless chickens even more than usual.
A 'brave' choice indeed for Clegg to accuse others of not having the courage of their convictions. The voters should love that.
I also seem to recall the last time Clegg became the public face of a referendum choice it didn't turn out so well for him or the lib dems.
UKIP want to turn the Euros into an in/out vote too, so this should help!
SeanT is quite capable of defending himself. He doesn't need me.
I also thought OGH had instituted a rule that commenters were not allowed to speculate on the identity of other posters? In which case I suggest he looks to the remarks by uniondivvie.
Who was speculating? In any case I'm sure Seant wouldn't go snivelling to the moderators, would he?
No, from what I know of him, I don't think he would. But I will. As a new contributor, it is a pain for everyone to snidely assume you are someone else. And quite off putting. I suggest OGH applies his own rule.
I'm confident that Seant, even by his potboilery standards, would be capable of creating a reasonably convincing and discrete persona rather than a pallid facsimile of his own florid presence.
I'm fairly certainly that won't be the route Cammie goes down unless he wants his backbenchers to run about like headless chickens even more than usual.
A 'brave' choice indeed for Clegg to accuse others of not having the courage of their convictions. The voters should love that.
I also seem to recall the last time Clegg became the public face of a referendum choice it didn't turn out so well for him or the lib dems.
UKIP want to turn the Euros into an in/out vote too, so this should help!
I know they do. Clegg also knows they do. And unless Clegg was hiding or asleep when the tory rebels humiliated Cammie he knows full well who doesn't. I think we can safely say Clegg has completely abandoned trying to protect Cammie from his own backbenchers. Who can blame him after he was left holding the bag when Cammie caved into them anyway?
"My understanding this morning was that the LDs had agreed to the home secretary’s power to remove citizenship only to see off the unacceptable rebel amendments. But the Government has just announced it won’t oppose the Raab amendment"
@MickPork will have substantiated the nonsense he is pretending to believe regarding me and the Batten charter last night??
You could actually try spelling out whatever this imagined slight is before crying and whining about it.
You attacked the guardian piece on Batten and you weren't happy with the Mail piece either just like I said.v Anyone can check the threads to see that's the case. Anyone apart from you it would seem.
I just pull people up when they lie about me and what i say
You have done so today hence I've pulled you on it
I didn't attack the guardian piece at all,and all I said of the mail article was that it looked as though they had copied the guardian one.
You then said " are you seriously suggesting..." Then put something I hadn't said in the slightest about Paul Dacre. When all I did say was the mail had plagiarised the guardian!
Ie you lied
As you say the threads are there, all easily checkable, and anyone who bothers will see that you will look an utter fool
*tears of laughter*
Try looking up 'rhetorical device' petal.
Even you seem clueless as to precisely what it is I'm supposed to have 'Lied' about.
I'm more than happy to keep the Batten story going if you want because it does seem to get you very excitable.
Mr. Hugh, two points in response to 'salting the earth': 1) It was Labour that gave the Coalition the hospital pass of picking up the pieces after the longest, deepest and worst recession in British history. Complaining Osborne won't be handing over a sparkly economy is like complaining when a juvenile delinquent breaks a window in Dresden after it was bombed.
2) Labour had the policy to reduce the NHS' budget.
[As an aside, the archetypical 'salted earth' city, Carthage, was destroyed but made a pretty good comeback as a Romanised city].
I don't deny the Govt inherited an economy knackered by the global financial crisis (although it was growing, something Osborne promptly put an end to).
Problem is, they haven't fixed it, and will hand over a mess. I don't envy the job Ed and Ed will face.
Will they inherit a better or worse economy than the coalition?
A standard game with one exception, there can only be one winner alliances are not allowed. One player has to make 18 centres to win. Anyone can join but be aware this is going to be a devious, vicious, no holds barred, bring a gun to a knife fight sort of game. Not really for novices, the feint-hearted or anyone who likes their gaming fair and honest. To give a clue as to the type of game I expect, I am trying to tempt Andy Cooke back to play (and hopefully to comment on the site again).
Those who are interested in either game should email me at HurstLlama at gmail dot com for details.
I stick my head in for old times sake and see HurstLlama dangling a Diplomacy game in front of me ... Oh, I may be persuaded. Pencil me in, old chap.
Mr. Cooke, Wonderful to hear from you again! I hope you and your family are well and prospering. It is great that you are interested in the Death Match, your participation will certainly up the treachery coefficient of the game. Do please drop me a line at HurstLlama at Gmail dot com. All the best, my dear old porpoise.
Are the proposed games suitable for someone who has never played before? If so how does it work do you need to be online at particular times or is it more play by mail?
Mr. Pagan, The PB Diplomacy Novice Hurdles is there for people who have never played or who have limited experience in the game. It is very much a play by email type of game with deadlines for submitting moves. Players are free to communicate between themselves however, how ever often and where ever they like. I have in the past negotiated Diplomacy turns in such divers places as the lobby of the House of Lords and a brothel in Macau.
Drop me a ;line if you want more details of how the proposed game will work.
Spat between SeanT and Louise Mensch about Thai prostitutes:
twitter.com/thomasknox/status/431078637396172800
@LouiseMensch You're factually wrong on all counts. Unless you think you know more about this world than me? You don't. End of debate.
Sean could do himself out of a (very cushy) job if he's not careful.
Not at all. As I very clearly recall he was supremely relaxed about things being said on twitter that could endanger his job as twitter is a very "discrete"place, just like PB.
Mr. Pork, I think you mean 'discreet'. 'Discrete' is more to do with separate, individual things (ie fewer discrete things and less continuous things).
Mr. Pork, I think you mean 'discreet'. 'Discrete' is more to do with separate, individual things (ie fewer discrete things and less continuous things).
It was in quotes for a rather different and far more amusing reason but well done, point taken.
Can I just ask, could you please give an example of the mechanics that need an Act? Things like empowering temporarily shared functions of administration (e.g. DVLA)?
More than that - the entire legal existence of the new Scotland would need to start from an Act undoing the 1707 Act of Union.
Unlike an independent EWNI (which would presumably need an enabling act for a smooth transition once the Treaty was dissolved, and with it the main founding document of the UK 1707 Parliament), Scotland has always been in legal being in many important ways, such as administration, geography and law), and this was reinforced by the reconvention of the Scottish Parliament from its 1707 suspension in 1997, so that it would just need to repeal the 1707 Act. And there are the different laws on sovereignty as confirmed by the Supreme Court. Still, I'm inclined to agree with you that that is the way to go if possible, so nobody is in any doubt about legality, just as when the referendum was agreed with the Coalition Gmt, and even when unilateral action is another option. The concern is that someeone is deliberately obstructive - and as @Life_in_a-market_town very helpfully comments, even then there is a way around that by direct action of the Head of State. Some of the MPs in Scottish seats might feel they have nothing to lose , and I'm not thinking of the SNP.
I was in fact wondering how far you saw the necessary agreements as being for legislative detail of Acts of Parliament, rather than administrative action by fiat. Presumably commissioners would sort out some series of agreements to be presented to the two Pmts for approval, or in the London case rather a sort of Grand Committee of the UK Pmt comprising all MPs sans the Scottish ones. I wonder how much you think the detail needs to be put into Acts of Parliament, as opposed to general acts enabling the relevant governments) to accept the proposals, and to provide basic principles on general things like transfer of fixed installations. The UK Gmt has, I believe, considerable power to make decisions and impose regulations by administrative action once it is empowered. As I recall from professional training, the Defence of the Realm Act(s) and related legislation was still being used to empower import-export regulations into the 1990s - I am not sure of today. Or on a more relevant example, if the MoD can privatise the maintenance of nuke weapons sites to overseas companies, or sell off old Harriers to the USA, then it hardly seems to need new legal powers to transfer the agreed share of kit to the Scottish Government (which in any case already deals with many major functions such as the NHS and law).
A standard game with one exception, there can only be one winner alliances are not allowed. One player has to make 18 centres to win. Anyone can join but be aware this is going to be a devious, vicious, no holds barred, bring a gun to a knife fight sort of game. Not really for novices, the feint-hearted or anyone who likes their gaming fair and honest. To give a clue as to the type of game I expect, I am trying to tempt Andy Cooke back to play (and hopefully to comment on the site again).
Those who are interested in either game should email me at HurstLlama at gmail dot com for details.
I stick my head in for old times sake and see HurstLlama dangling a Diplomacy game in front of me ... Oh, I may be persuaded. Pencil me in, old chap.
Mr. Cooke, Wonderful to hear from you again! I hope you and your family are well and prospering. It is great that you are interested in the Death Match, your participation will certainly up the treachery coefficient of the game. Do please drop me a line at HurstLlama at Gmail dot com. All the best, my dear old porpoise.
Are the proposed games suitable for someone who has never played before? If so how does it work do you need to be online at particular times or is it more play by mail?
Mr. Pagan, The PB Diplomacy Novice Hurdles is there for people who have never played or who have limited experience in the game. It is very much a play by email type of game with deadlines for submitting moves. Players are free to communicate between themselves however, how ever often and where ever they like. I have in the past negotiated Diplomacy turns in such divers places as the lobby of the House of Lords and a brothel in Macau.
Drop me a ;line if you want more details of how the proposed game will work.
Now this is pretty damn good. For an MEP it's almost miraculous to have such a sense of humour and an extremely clever way of dealing with fruitcakery. Batten entirely deserves such mockery. (as did Godfrey Bloom come to that)
Here is the text of a letter Syed delivered to Batten today:
“Dear Gerard,
I read with interest your intervention on the subject of Islam, seeking written pledges from Muslims that they will not commit acts of violence or indulge in terrorist rhetoric.
Do you have a form I can sign already? I am anxious to assure you that I have no intention of mounting any attacks on unsuspecting infidels, nor of attempting to radicalise you or anyone else.
If the forms aren’t ready yet, perhaps you would take this note as my guarantee? My wife and family would be most reassured to know you will allow me to stay in Britain, especially since I was born here.
Please feel free to drop into my office to discuss this over a cup of tea. I promise you will be entirely safe.
Yours sincerely,
Syed Kamall
Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament”
It would be tempting to put Kamall in charge of dealing with the kippers as it sounds like has has a far better handle on it than Cammie and the CCHQ spin machine.
Now this is pretty damn good. For an MEP it's almost miraculous to have such a sense of humour and an extremely clever way of dealing with fruitcakery. It deserves nothing less than mockery.
Here is the text of a letter Syed delivered to Batten today:
“Dear Gerard,
I read with interest your intervention on the subject of Islam, seeking written pledges from Muslims that they will not commit acts of violence or indulge in terrorist rhetoric.
Do you have a form I can sign already? I am anxious to assure you that I have no intention of mounting any attacks on unsuspecting infidels, nor of attempting to radicalise you or anyone else.
If the forms aren’t ready yet, perhaps you would take this note as my guarantee? My wife and family would be most reassured to know you will allow me to stay in Britain, especially since I was born here.
Please feel free to drop into my office to discuss this over a cup of tea. I promise you will be entirely safe.
Yours sincerely,
Syed Kamall
Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament”
A standard game with one exception, there can only be one winner alliances are not allowed. One player has to make 18 centres to win. Anyone can join but be aware this is going to be a devious, vicious, no holds barred, bring a gun to a knife fight sort of game. Not really for novices, the feint-hearted or anyone who likes their gaming fair and honest. To give a clue as to the type of game I expect, I am trying to tempt Andy Cooke back to play (and hopefully to comment on the site again).
Those who are interested in either game should email me at HurstLlama at gmail dot com for details.
I stick my head in for old times sake and see HurstLlama dangling a Diplomacy game in front of me ... Oh, I may be persuaded. Pencil me in, old chap.
Mr. Cooke, Wonderful to hear from you again! I hope you and your family are well and prospering. It is great that you are interested in the Death Match, your participation will certainly up the treachery coefficient of the game. Do please drop me a line at HurstLlama at Gmail dot com. All the best, my dear old porpoise.
Are the proposed games suitable for someone who has never played before? If so how does it work do you need to be online at particular times or is it more play by mail?
Mr. Pagan, The PB Diplomacy Novice Hurdles is there for people who have never played or who have limited experience in the game. It is very much a play by email type of game with deadlines for submitting moves. Players are free to communicate between themselves however, how ever often and where ever they like. I have in the past negotiated Diplomacy turns in such divers places as the lobby of the House of Lords and a brothel in Macau.
Drop me a ;line if you want more details of how the proposed game will work.
How experienced is limited experience?
Its a game for novices. In horse racing a novice is, if I recall, defined as being a horse that hasn't won before and I thought that was a good place to set the bar. So if a player hasn't previously won a game or been part of a winning alliance then it is a game open to them.
I'm sure everyone is bored of our bickering, and the mods will step in soon, so just apologise for implying I said things I didn't and let's forget it?
Mr. Hugh, two points in response to 'salting the earth': 1) It was Labour that gave the Coalition the hospital pass of picking up the pieces after the longest, deepest and worst recession in British history. Complaining Osborne won't be handing over a sparkly economy is like complaining when a juvenile delinquent breaks a window in Dresden after it was bombed.
2) Labour had the policy to reduce the NHS' budget.
[As an aside, the archetypical 'salted earth' city, Carthage, was destroyed but made a pretty good comeback as a Romanised city].
I don't deny the Govt inherited an economy knackered by the global financial crisis (although it was growing, something Osborne promptly put an end to).
Problem is, they haven't fixed it, and will hand over a mess. I don't envy the job Ed and Ed will face.
Will they inherit a better or worse economy than the coalition?
Tough one. They'll inherit dangerously unbalanced growth and high but falling unemployment and underemployment, I should think, but so did the Tories.
A lot hasn't changed much. The financial sector is still dangerously unreformed, the deficit is still a problem and a lot of tax rises / spending cuts need to be inflicted etc.
Elsewhere, the Tories have created a lot of unnecessary mess like the chaos in the NHS and IDS's Universal Credit disaster that Labour will have to clean up.
Economy - about the same inheritance as the Tories. Overall - worse inheritance than the Tories.
It should give Tories cause for hope though, because if they modernise in opposition and Labour get it wrong in Government, they could walk 2020.
Posturing for the moment but it's one of the few things that could help mitigate the damage of having Clegg in a leaders debate. Someone far more right wing to contrast against as well as diluting the impact of the debates by having that much less time for each of them.
Mr. Hugh, two points in response to 'salting the earth': 1) It was Labour that gave the Coalition the hospital pass of picking up the pieces after the longest, deepest and worst recession in British history. Complaining Osborne won't be handing over a sparkly economy is like complaining when a juvenile delinquent breaks a window in Dresden after it was bombed.
2) Labour had the policy to reduce the NHS' budget.
[As an aside, the archetypical 'salted earth' city, Carthage, was destroyed but made a pretty good comeback as a Romanised city].
I don't deny the Govt inherited an economy knackered by the global financial crisis (although it was growing, something Osborne promptly put an end to).
Problem is, they haven't fixed it, and will hand over a mess. I don't envy the job Ed and Ed will face.
Will they inherit a better or worse economy than the coalition?
Tough one. They'll inherit dangerously unbalanced growth and high but falling unemployment and underemployment, I should think, but so did the Tories.
A lot hasn't changed much. The financial sector is still dangerously unreformed, the deficit is still a problem and a lot of tax rises / spending cuts need to be inflicted etc.
Elsewhere, the Tories have created a lot of unnecessary mess like the chaos in the NHS and IDS's Universal Credit disaster that Labour will have to clean up.
Economy - about the same inheritance as the Tories. Overall - worse inheritance than the Tories.
It should give Tories cause for hope though, because if they modernise in opposition and Labour get it wrong in Government, they could walk 2020.
2020? We'll be fully integrated into the new European Government by then. UKIP's antics will see to that.
I was in fact wondering how far you saw the necessary agreements as being for legislative detail of Acts of Parliament, rather than administrative action by fiat.
Oh, I'm sure a lot of the real nitty-gritty will be in statutory instruments and regulations rather than in the Act itself, but the overall point still remains, that parliament has to approve the package.
However, the pre-1707 Scottish parliament wasn't 'reconvened' in 1998. The original parliament of Scotland ceased to exist as a separate body in 1707, and was subsumed (as was the English parliament) into what we now know as the UK parliament. The 1998 Scottish parliament is a completely new and unrelated body, which has been granted some delegated powers but is still subject to Westminster; the Westminster parliament could abolish it at any time in exactly the same way that it could abolish Brighton Council if it was pleased to do so. Scottish independence can legally only occur if parliament wills it, or I suppose if Soctland declares UDI and successfully seeks international recognition as an independent country.
Happy to carry on all day personally, but everyone else must find it a massive turn off, and it makes us both look very petty
You know full well that all I asked last night was did they expect all Muslims to sign the charter or just the spokesman for Muslim council etc, why on earth you are trying to imply otherwise is beyond me.
the thread is there for all to check as is today's where you put words into my mouth about Paul Dacre that I palpably didn't even hint at
I know they do. Clegg also knows they do. And unless Clegg was hiding or asleep when the tory rebels humiliated Cammie he knows full well who doesn't. I think we can safely say Clegg has completely abandoned trying to protect Cammie from his own backbenchers. Who can blame him after he was left holding the bag when Cammie caved into them anyway?
"My understanding this morning was that the LDs had agreed to the home secretary’s power to remove citizenship only to see off the unacceptable rebel amendments. But the Government has just announced it won’t oppose the Raab amendment"
Clegg making yet more noise about having Farage in the leaders debates would be another telling sign of that.
The latest newsletter from the Lib Dems in the East Midlands makes it clear they are intending to target EU migrants in the region as a means of bolstering their Euro vote with the main argument being deployed being that their positions are at risk if UKIP win.
This is from the Lib Dem candidate Issan Ghazni
"People in the cafes told me they were fearful of the anti-immigration rhetoric of UKIP and the Tory Right, and many would enthusiastically support the Lib Dems if only we made contact with them. We must, for they could hold the key to fending off UKIP and make the difference between keeping or losing our MEPs.
However many Eastern Europeans are unaware they had a vote. We need to spread the news that they can vote so long as they register. Others told me they feared being kicked out of Britain if UKIP ‘won’ the Euro elections.
All local parties across Britain would benefit from targeting this group in society. I am urging my colleagues in the East Midlands to keep engaging with these communities because we need to do all we can to re-elect our hard-working MEP Bill Newton-Dunn.
Eastern Europeans will become more established in future decades. Securing their support today, at a time when they are repelled by the anti-immigration climate, will serve us well in future elections. And it may just take us over the winning post in May."
Comments
As for your elephant, it's anyone's guess what happens if the Scots say tìoraidh. But if the SNP did have a large bloc of Westminster MPs in the interim when they were negotiating exit, surely they'd not vote on UK issues, so the number of MPs needed to form an effective majority government would be much smaller?
Spat between SeanT and Louise Mensch about Thai prostitutes:
twitter.com/thomasknox/status/431078637396172800
You dont think Scotland will have a navy? Interesting.
Why do people in this country always look to blame someone.
The seawall at Dawlish has been there for 150 years and if you look how the sea has destroyed it overnight it just demonstrates the enormous power of nature. How can people think that it is the governments fault?
Mick, can you explain why this story appears to have disppeared very quickly from news sites today??
I thought it would have stuck around longer.
I guess Farage must have been pressed for a comment, but I can't see anything and there;s no response from UKIP's website.
They appear to be just ignoring it.
What does Gildas think?
I'm just wondering, how far the Scottish LD dilemma is due to the fact that they generally used to support home rule and devo max as a nice comfortable option between yes and no to full indy. But they have had that option firmly turned down by Mr Clegg's nice friend Mr Cameron (who claimed the credit for it but would not have been there without LD support). So will they blame the LDs for forcing them to make a choice they didn't want?
And if some go for yes, and some for no, then any MP who has been active in the indy debates (Moore, Alexander, etc.) will end up hacking off a fair proportion of their constituents whatever they do (though I can't remember any LD MPs doing a Canavan and supporting independence). Which might explain the reluctance of most MPs to join the prophylactic battalions. I also wonder how far Mr Carmichael's planned retirement is due to his insisting that the Shetlanders are gagging to go it alone, and then the local paper did a poll which showed the complete opposite ...
Try saying 'hypocriticalprostitute' quickly as a Thai Tongue Twister.
The media are treating it like it's the film 2012. Except instead of an Mayan prophesy, it's a coalition government that's upset the sandal-wearing weather Gods.
twitter.com/cogload519/status/431020307588321280
So....in retrospect...yes I accept that Faslane will still be a naval base for the Scottish Navy. All one minesweeper of it.
(I am aware of the Westminster doctrine that an administration cannot bind its successors, so if Mr Miliband were to take over, it could get interesting, but it would be difficult to deny independence after a clear plebiscite arranged with the full permission (or whatever) of th then legal government of the UK. )
I also thought OGH had instituted a rule that commenters were not allowed to speculate on the identity of other posters? In which case I suggest he looks to the remarks by uniondivvie.
Look to the Republic of Ireland for the model of Scottish defence post any independence. Assuming they leave NATO, since staying in's a bit more expensive.
Can I just ask, could you please give an example of the mechanics that need an Act? Things like empowering temporarily shared functions of administration (e.g. DVLA)?
Neither seem to post. What happened to them? Are they the same person?
Neither seem to post. What happened to them? Are they the same person?
Oh, I may be persuaded. Pencil me in, old chap.
However to be serious, I recon the LD's will get a minimum of 11 seats and a maximum of 19 seats. And the latter figure only if no's to independence win the vote.
This leaves room for UKIP to get a minimum 21 seats and a maximum (at the moment) of 34 seats.
http://hurryupharry.org/2014/02/03/more-horrifying-death-threats-against-maajid-nawaz/
http://hurryupharry.org/2014/02/05/understanding-quilliam-and-its-critics/
Why are the Lib Dems not speaking up about this? Why aren't other parties?
In any case I'm sure Seant wouldn't go snivelling to the moderators, would he?
It'd be like the mentalities of Skinner and Thatcher cohabiting in the same body ...
In my part of the world: North Devon and Yeovil. UKIP are certainly allocating resources to both and the local Conservatives are very pro pact it seems.
http://www.tomknoxbooks.com/
Cause it certainly wasn't who he unaccountably seems to think it was.
If we get independence, however, there will be a shake up of Scottish politics. I could see myself easily in the same party as Danny Alexander. And I would not say that about many Liberals of my experience.
You have done so today hence I've pulled you on it
I didn't attack the guardian piece at all,and all I said of the mail article was that it looked as though they had copied the guardian one.
You then said " are you seriously suggesting..." Then put something I hadn't said in the slightest about Paul Dacre. When all I did say was the mail had plagiarised the guardian!
Ie you lied
As you say the threads are there, all easily checkable, and anyone who bothers will see that you will look an utter fool
Hoping the new interweb connection holds up....
Mr. Gildas, that must be unfortunate. I'm glad I delurked in the olden days, before astroturf grew like Japanese knotweed.
*tears of laughter*
Try looking up 'rhetorical device' petal.
Even you seem clueless as to precisely what it is I'm supposed to have 'Lied' about.
I'm more than happy to keep the Batten story going if you want because it does seem to get you very excitable.
There's tons of this stuff.
The LDs voting against boundary changes had nothing to do with the failure to reform the HoL.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jessenorman/100258267/the-masters-of-truthiness-are-spreading-ignorance-about-lords-reform/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/freedom-of-speech-is-it-my-right-to-offend-you-9101650.html
"To Aaronovitch and Moos and the cartoonist, the protection of freedom of speech requires that you exercise it. "
You don't have a freedom if you can't exercise it. To claim otherwise is to fight for Loretta's right to have a baby.
"It will not have escaped you that this piece is also unaccompanied by the cartoon – the editor's decision, but one I agree with."
The piece is generally thoughtful and I have no reason to disbelieve the journalist, but if every media organisation and journalist covering this makes the same decision then what we have is self-censorship masquerading as choice.
I'm going to choose not to sleep with Olivia Wilde. Obviously I could, but having considered the moral implications I have chosen, of my own volition, not to. I am sure many other pbers will make the same choice.
Edited extra bit: and, to respond to the question which is the headline, yes, it is my right to offend you. It's your right to offend me too.
*chortle*
I understand completely. What a crying shame you still don't.
http://comresupdates.eu.com/DCJ-24O6F-F21LMD8E11/cr.aspx
I don't think LD hopes of Labour supporters voting LD in 2015 are going to deliver.
1) It was Labour that gave the Coalition the hospital pass of picking up the pieces after the longest, deepest and worst recession in British history. Complaining Osborne won't be handing over a sparkly economy is like complaining when a juvenile delinquent breaks a window in Dresden after it was bombed.
2) Labour had the policy to reduce the NHS' budget.
[As an aside, the archetypical 'salted earth' city, Carthage, was destroyed but made a pretty good comeback as a Romanised city].
Williams is challenged by a different Labour candidate - not sure I would vote for her, but she might tick enough votes to turf him out. On the basis of the last local elections, I was left thinking that Bristol Labour Party couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, the spelling and grammatical mistakes were bad enough. I wish I had kept their leaflet, it was a lesson on how not to appeal to neutral, literate voters.
Though I must admit it is currently only a tentative theory
As an aside Gildas any relation to the poster on a procyon themed site?
The Guardian just mashed up snippets from interviews/articles several years old, and threw the result onto their website.
Who can blame him after he was left holding the bag when Cammie caved into them anyway?
"My understanding this morning was that the LDs had agreed to the home secretary’s power to remove citizenship only to see off the unacceptable rebel amendments. But the Government has just announced it won’t oppose the Raab amendment"
http://www.libdemvoice.org/why-has-nick-clegg-backed-plan-to-deprive-terror-suspects-of-citizenship-38025.html
Clegg making yet more noise about having Farage in the leaders debates would be another telling sign of that.
He clearly knows more about it than the idiotic dillatante (unter) mensch,
Are you stark raving mental or did you have a Scottish breakfast?
Drop me a ;line if you want more details of how the proposed game will work.
Looks like Farage has caught on even if you haven't.
'Problem is, they haven't fixed it, and will hand over a mess. I don't envy the job Ed and Ed will face.'
LOL
It's the way you tell them.
I'm not bothered about arguing, please just don't make up any more stuff that I didn't say x
I was in fact wondering how far you saw the necessary agreements as being for legislative detail of Acts of Parliament, rather than administrative action by fiat. Presumably commissioners would sort out some series of agreements to be presented to the two Pmts for approval, or in the London case rather a sort of Grand Committee of the UK Pmt comprising all MPs sans the Scottish ones. I wonder how much you think the detail needs to be put into Acts of Parliament, as opposed to general acts enabling the relevant governments) to accept the proposals, and to provide basic principles on general things like transfer of fixed installations. The UK Gmt has, I believe, considerable power to make decisions and impose regulations by administrative action once it is empowered. As I recall from professional training, the Defence of the Realm Act(s) and related legislation was still being used to empower import-export regulations into the 1990s - I am not sure of today. Or on a more relevant example, if the MoD can privatise the maintenance of nuke weapons sites to overseas companies, or sell off old Harriers to the USA, then it hardly seems to need new legal powers to transfer the agreed share of kit to the Scottish Government (which in any case already deals with many major functions such as the NHS and law).
I'm not bothered about arguing
ROFL
Wonderful. Unspoofable I'd have to say.
Wonderful. Unspoofable I'd have to say.
I'm sure you would have to say unspoofable... It's about as funny as when you say Osbrowne and Cammie
its not worth getting into an argument about something that you made up that I didn't say or imply, that's all.
I read with interest your intervention on the subject of Islam, seeking written pledges from Muslims that they will not commit acts of violence or indulge in terrorist rhetoric.
Do you have a form I can sign already? I am anxious to assure you that I have no intention of mounting any attacks on unsuspecting infidels, nor of attempting to radicalise you or anyone else.
If the forms aren’t ready yet, perhaps you would take this note as my guarantee? My wife and family would be most reassured to know you will allow me to stay in Britain, especially since I was born here.
Please feel free to drop into my office to discuss this over a cup of tea. I promise you will be entirely safe.
Yours sincerely,
Syed Kamall
Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament”
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2014/02/a-letter-from-syed-kamall-mep-punctures-ukips-absurd-muslim-pledge-idea.html
It would be tempting to put Kamall in charge of dealing with the kippers as it sounds like has has a far better handle on it than Cammie and the CCHQ spin machine.
I read with interest your intervention on the subject of Islam, seeking written pledges from Muslims that they will not commit acts of violence or indulge in terrorist rhetoric.
Do you have a form I can sign already? I am anxious to assure you that I have no intention of mounting any attacks on unsuspecting infidels, nor of attempting to radicalise you or anyone else.
If the forms aren’t ready yet, perhaps you would take this note as my guarantee? My wife and family would be most reassured to know you will allow me to stay in Britain, especially since I was born here.
Please feel free to drop into my office to discuss this over a cup of tea. I promise you will be entirely safe.
Yours sincerely,
Syed Kamall
Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament”
It's about as clever and funny as you!
Well it is hard to compete with a witty riposte of your magnitude, I'll grant you.
I'm sure everyone is bored of our bickering, and the mods will step in soon, so just apologise for implying I said things I didn't and let's forget it?
*chortle*
Hugh, you are one seriously deluded individual.
However, the pre-1707 Scottish parliament wasn't 'reconvened' in 1998. The original parliament of Scotland ceased to exist as a separate body in 1707, and was subsumed (as was the English parliament) into what we now know as the UK parliament. The 1998 Scottish parliament is a completely new and unrelated body, which has been granted some delegated powers but is still subject to Westminster; the Westminster parliament could abolish it at any time in exactly the same way that it could abolish Brighton Council if it was pleased to do so. Scottish independence can legally only occur if parliament wills it, or I suppose if Soctland declares UDI and successfully seeks international recognition as an independent country.
You know full well that all I asked last night was did they expect all Muslims to sign the charter or just the spokesman for Muslim council etc, why on earth you are trying to imply otherwise is beyond me.
the thread is there for all to check as is today's where you put words into my mouth about Paul Dacre that I palpably didn't even hint at
what's your aim with all this nonsense?
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/rbs-move-london-scots-vote-112703414.html
Has that been picked up before here?
This is from the Lib Dem candidate Issan Ghazni
"People in the cafes told me they were fearful of the anti-immigration rhetoric of UKIP and the Tory Right, and many would enthusiastically support the Lib Dems if only we made contact with them. We must, for they could hold the key to fending off UKIP and make the difference between keeping or losing our MEPs.
However many Eastern Europeans are unaware they had a vote. We need to spread the news that they can vote so long as they register. Others told me they feared being kicked out of Britain if UKIP ‘won’ the Euro elections.
All local parties across Britain would benefit from targeting this group in society. I am urging my colleagues in the East Midlands to keep engaging with these communities because we need to do all we can to re-elect our hard-working MEP Bill Newton-Dunn.
Eastern Europeans will become more established in future decades. Securing their support today, at a time when they are repelled by the anti-immigration climate, will serve us well in future elections. And it may just take us over the winning post in May."