JR: - "But the other consequence is more important. Last night’s debate was between two clear poles of an argument. In unconditionally versus out unconditionally. And we know where the British voter prefers to be when presented with a choice like that.
David Cameron’s policy will be easily most popular position when it comes to the general election next year. “Renegotiate and decide” is the third-way winner."
Not sure if Rentoul is correct in his assessment, but it certainly doesn't chime with the PB doctrine that Cameron and Miliband are the losers in the Clegg/Farage face off.
Rentoul also opines that the prospect of a repeat of the leaders debate in the coming election is over.
However what the LBC debate has shown is that the broadcasters are prepared to empty chair leaders. Will Cameron and Miliband really opt out during a general election campaign. I think not.
Depends. If both Cameron and Miliband opt out, then they'll get away with it. If only one want to avoid it, then they won't.
JR: - "But the other consequence is more important. Last night’s debate was between two clear poles of an argument. In unconditionally versus out unconditionally. And we know where the British voter prefers to be when presented with a choice like that.
David Cameron’s policy will be easily most popular position when it comes to the general election next year. “Renegotiate and decide” is the third-way winner."
Not sure if Rentoul is correct in his assessment, but it certainly doesn't chime with the PB doctrine that Cameron and Miliband are the losers in the Clegg/Farage face off.
Rentoul also opines that the prospect of a repeat of the leaders debate in the coming election is over.
However what the LBC debate has shown is that the broadcasters are prepared to empty chair leaders. Will Cameron and Miliband really opt out during a general election campaign. I think not.
Dan Byles is a very good hardworking MP who has balanced loyalty and outspokenness on issues like HS2 well. Odds are a bit tight but I would not be wanting to bet Labour at 1-7 in this seat
Thankfully there's no chance Farage's foolish comments on Ukraine will affect things. That does not make those comments any less stupid however. I strongly believe we should leave the EU, but that does not mean we should stop being close allies with them, particularly if that means blaming people who have done nothing wrong for Russia's land grab from a neighbour.
Turnout in the Crimea referendum was 84%, including Sevastopol. Contrast with t/o in UK elections or even US elections.
Looks long for Lab given that they held the seat between 1997 and 2005, and that the ex mp, Kerry Pollard is restanding.
In contrast UKIP is too short, St Albans is not the right demographics for them.
I suspect that Shadsy has not looked too deeply at some seats. His 16/1 CON price in NE Fife looks odd, and some of his long SNP prices look even odder.
JR: - "But the other consequence is more important. Last night’s debate was between two clear poles of an argument. In unconditionally versus out unconditionally. And we know where the British voter prefers to be when presented with a choice like that.
David Cameron’s policy will be easily most popular position when it comes to the general election next year. “Renegotiate and decide” is the third-way winner."
Not sure if Rentoul is correct in his assessment, but it certainly doesn't chime with the PB doctrine that Cameron and Miliband are the losers in the Clegg/Farage face off.
Rentoul also opines that the prospect of a repeat of the leaders debate in the coming election is over.
However what the LBC debate has shown is that the broadcasters are prepared to empty chair leaders. Will Cameron and Miliband really opt out during a general election campaign. I think not.
Thankfully there's no chance Farage's foolish comments on Ukraine will affect things. That does not make those comments any less stupid however. I strongly believe we should leave the EU, but that does not mean we should stop being close allies with them, particularly if that means blaming people who have done nothing wrong for Russia's land grab from a neighbour.
Turnout in the Crimea referendum was 84%, including Sevastopol. Contrast with t/o in UK elections or even US elections.
The 84% was clearly false.
It would have to have seen almost total ethnic Russian participation and very considerable Ukrainian and Tartar turnout.
At least in the old Soviet days they knew how to rig a result.
Thankfully there's no chance Farage's foolish comments on Ukraine will affect things. That does not make those comments any less stupid however. I strongly believe we should leave the EU, but that does not mean we should stop being close allies with them, particularly if that means blaming people who have done nothing wrong for Russia's land grab from a neighbour.
Turnout in the Crimea referendum was 84%, including Sevastopol. Contrast with t/o in UK elections or even US elections.
The 84% was clearly false.
It would have to have seen almost total ethnic Russian participation and very considerable Ukrainian and Tartar turnout.
At least in the old Soviet days they knew how to rig a result.
Turnout was definitely higher than at the NI referendum of 1973 (59% due to a Catholic boycott)!
Anyway: None of the 135 international observers registered any violations.[14] The EODE observer mission concluded that the referendum was conducted freely and fairly.[16] Mateusz Piskorski reported on a high turnout among Crimean Tatars.[115]
O/T but for those interested in the Scottish referendum (ignore if not) the latest piece by Professor Robertson on media bias in the BBC in particular. Some particularly striking figures on personalization of the debate and on abusive comment about individuals.
Carnyx, naive to think that people on here would want to see the truth re the bias in the media on the referendum. Do you not read the bollox written on here about it.
O/T but for those interested in the Scottish referendum (ignore if not) the latest piece by Professor Robertson on media bias in the BBC in particular. Some particularly striking figures on personalization of the debate and on abusive comment about individuals.
Professor Robertson of Pseudoscience is clearly undecided on the great question.
That is because he is talking, so to speak, in work time.
I'm pretty sure not a single couple married 50 years ago has seen their contract changed, unless they themselves got divorced.
Actually, and as IANAL maybe someone who is can confirm this, marriage is a uniquely dodgy contract to sign, inasmuch at if it goes tits up it is always settled according the terms as they now are, not those you signed up to at the time.
It's also unique (IIRC) in another way. If a salesman makes claims to you about a product, and the claims induce the contract, they're part of the contract. So if he misreps that the fridge he's selling you also makes the coffee, when you find out that it doesn't, he's got to keep you whole. With marriage, if your spouse has lied and you find out he is a convicted paedophile or criminal or bankrupt, or that she is a former prostitute or drug mule or criminal, it's tough luck and you divorce him / her at your expense and with the usual settlement. So there is no penalty or risk to lying your way into a marriage.
Those seem to me to be uniquely lousy terms that affect all marriages. They are among the reasons why Mrs. Bond remains legally speaking Ms Draco.
F1: Driver who won the last race by miles approves of new engines. Driver who had his worst qualifying and race for about 2 years disapproves of the new engines:
Since this seems to be predictably breaking down along party lines, it might be worth asking the following questions:
To Lib Dem / Clegg supporters: how did Clegg perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
To UKIP / Farage supporters: how did Farage perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
For Farage, his comments on SSM. Even without the Easteross's lies and misrepresentations, Farage's basic position on SSM this is unsupportable.
He also really really needs to learn to stop shouting.
There has been confusion on Ukip's position on SSM but unless I misheard last night Farage stated unequivocally that he opposed SSM whilst the ECHR had a potential say over whether or not some churches should be able to reject SSM.
So effectively unless the UK withdraws from ECHR this would bar SSM completely.
But since Farage has always made clear his opposition to the ECHR this would seem to be far more about that organisation and its ability to over-rule current SSM legislation than about SSM per se which I get the impression he doesn't have any hugely strong feelings about.
That said I still disagree with the basic UKIP position on SSM.
Didn't Farage articulate UKIPs view on SSM last week as taking the legal version of marriage away from churches, so everyone had equal rights to marriage under the law of the land, and allowing churches to conduct ceremonies for people who wanted a religiously blessed marriage?
Then churches could choose (or discriminate against) who they were prepared to marry, without states sanctions, and it wouldn't matter which sex was marrying which under the law.
If that does now become UKIP's official position then as an atheist it is one I would be able to support. However my perception is that there is a strong Christian element to UKIP support and the suggestion of separation of church and marriage is not one that would necessarily go down well so I would be surprised if that plan became the mainstream official position of UKIP.
Anglicans that believe such a thing are foolish. Their church would be far more successful if it was free from interference from the state.
I think any religion is stronger if it's not tied up with the State.
The worst part of the new energy investigation is that it could have been preempted by the government two years ago by forcing such an inquiry when the first round of semi coordinated 20% price rises came along.
The supreme fact, Richard, is that you do not want a UKIP governed Britain. You are satisfied to be ruled by the Lab/Lib/Con establishment, as long as a few of your wants are granted.
Only a UKIP controlled government will give some hope for a revival of the British nation. But perhaps the rot has spread so much that even lukewarm supporters like you are not ready for a real revolution to happen.
Be aware that I do not blindly support all that the UKIP executive say, or come up with, and I argue my points of difference at branch level or e-mail to the relevant persons. There is still a massive amount of work to do before UKIP becomes a real political fighting machine, but it is on it's way and the past year has seen enormous growth, not only in members, but also in attitude.
All that being said, the main point of any political party is to reap enough votes to gain power. If you cannot see that in UKIPs case, then you are surely a bewildered man, to say the least.
I am certainly not satisfied being ruled by a Lib/Lab/Con establishment but what I want is far more radical than UKIP are offering. Simply put UKIP are not the alternative I could support for government. To try and claim that because I oppose the current 3 parties I should therefore support UKIP is clearly illogical.
And I certainly cannot support the formation of a government that has the reactionary attitudes UKIP has to social issues.
If UKIP were to become a true small state libertarian party then I would be a far more enthusiastic supporter.
My view is, let's break up the current (dysfunctional) political system, and see what emerges?
I'm pretty sure not a single couple married 50 years ago has seen their contract changed, unless they themselves got divorced.
Actually, and as IANAL maybe someone who is can confirm this, marriage is a uniquely dodgy contract to sign, inasmuch at if it goes tits up it is always settled according the terms as they now are, not those you signed up to at the time.
It's also unique (IIRC) in another way. If a salesman makes claims to you about a product, and the claims induce the contract, they're part of the contract. So if he misreps that the fridge he's selling you also makes the coffee, when you find out that it doesn't, he's got to keep you whole. With marriage, if your spouse has lied and you find out he is a convicted paedophile or criminal or bankrupt, or that she is a former prostitute or drug mule or criminal, it's tough luck and you divorce him / her at your expense and with the usual settlement. So there is no penalty or risk to lying your way into a marriage.
Those seem to me to be uniquely lousy terms that affect all marriages. They are among the reasons why Mrs. Bond remains legally speaking Ms Draco.
I would not quibble at your analysis of marriage, which was certainly pretty much the case in England in the 1840s as I was recently reading for a research project. (Though lying about your name/identity, a prior marriage, or mental incapacity etc. would invalidate the marriage as the contract could not be legally made, of course). But are not politicians out for election the other example? Did Labour not go to court to prove it did not have to tell the truth?
"Former Clegg spinmeister Olly Grender had no answer when told by Brillo that, despite the LibDem leader’s assurances, the House of Commons library did not back him up on his claim that only 7% of UK law was made in Brussels. Their figure is actually between 15% and 50%."
"A senior Labour frontbencher is under fire for tweeting a letter which jokes about Tory minister Eric Pickles dropping dead if he took part in the London Marathon. Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice minister who could run for London mayor, posted the letter from ex-Labour leader Neil Kinnock who offered to sponsor his run.
But in a comment condemned by the Tories as 'nasty', Lord Kinnock also suggested getting Mr Pickles to also take part 'so we have a helpful by-election', apparently caused by the large-than-life Conservative's death."
"A senior Labour frontbencher is under fire for tweeting a letter which jokes about Tory minister Eric Pickles dropping dead if he took part in the London Marathon. Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice minister who could run for London mayor, posted the letter from ex-Labour leader Neil Kinnock who offered to sponsor his run.
But in a comment condemned by the Tories as 'nasty', Lord Kinnock also suggested getting Mr Pickles to also take part 'so we have a helpful by-election', apparently caused by the large-than-life Conservative's death."
Oh come on, it's a harmless enough joke. You'd have to be pretty thin-skinned to regard that as offensive.
"A senior Labour frontbencher is under fire for tweeting a letter which jokes about Tory minister Eric Pickles dropping dead if he took part in the London Marathon. Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice minister who could run for London mayor, posted the letter from ex-Labour leader Neil Kinnock who offered to sponsor his run.
But in a comment condemned by the Tories as 'nasty', Lord Kinnock also suggested getting Mr Pickles to also take part 'so we have a helpful by-election', apparently caused by the large-than-life Conservative's death."
Oh come on, it's a harmless enough joke. You'd have to be pretty thin-skinned to regard that as offensive.
Eric Pickles is not thin-skinned, despite how far it has to stretch.
"A senior Labour frontbencher is under fire for tweeting a letter which jokes about Tory minister Eric Pickles dropping dead if he took part in the London Marathon. Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice minister who could run for London mayor, posted the letter from ex-Labour leader Neil Kinnock who offered to sponsor his run.
But in a comment condemned by the Tories as 'nasty', Lord Kinnock also suggested getting Mr Pickles to also take part 'so we have a helpful by-election', apparently caused by the large-than-life Conservative's death."
Why am I not surprised by the behaviour of a pair of loathsome troughers?
Kinnock should know better than that, after the untimely and unfortunate, early death of John Smith.
Probably a good move - back SL if an early wicket goes down.
To rub salt in the NL wounds their bowler Malik had figures of 5:19, third best ever world 20/20 and eighth best 20/20 international numbers and lost out as "Man of the Match" to South Africa's birthday boy Imran Tahir, who turns 35 today, for his worse figures of 4-21.
"Former Clegg spinmeister Olly Grender had no answer when told by Brillo that, despite the LibDem leader’s assurances, the House of Commons library did not back him up on his claim that only 7% of UK law was made in Brussels. Their figure is actually between 15% and 50%."
On the next debate,when clegg goes on his facts line,farage should hit him with cleggs misleading facts on how many laws were made in Brussels,should put a end to cleggs look at the facts cr@p.
"Former Clegg spinmeister Olly Grender had no answer when told by Brillo that, despite the LibDem leader’s assurances, the House of Commons library did not back him up on his claim that only 7% of UK law was made in Brussels. Their figure is actually between 15% and 50%."
Which includes the decentralising measure of renationalising the railways. Figure that one out if you can.
Also I like the idea of decentralising by setting up a new Department for Cities in central government.
'Major metropolitan areas are now the Labour party’s voting base: the party must actively think about how to expand them and give them the power to innovate and expand. '
oh and as I find myself repeating ad nauseam on here, which is surprising given the clientele, the ECHR issue is often (wilfully?) misunderstood and is a red herring.
Under the Margin of Appreciation doctrine the ECHR prefers to allow individual member states to rule on religious issues such as this.
In short there is no way in the world that the ECHR, or the High Court for that matter, would even contemplate forcing religious organisations to carry out SSM against their will.
I don't think you really understand how the "margin of appreciation" doctrine works in practice. I would direct you to Lord Hoffmann's excellent 2009 lecture on the 'The Universality of Human Rights' at [27] and [43] (pp. 14 & 25-26). The English courts take a different approach.
Interesting lecture. I understand the principle of the margin of appreciation as does Lord Hoffmann.
But as I (skim-)read what he is also saying, which I don't disagree with, is that just the principle of having it, ipso facto, throws up issues of competence and sovereignty and that seems to be what he disagrees with.
The fact remains that it is highly unlikely that the ECHR would decide to opine on SSM especially as the popular perception of what it might be asked to do differs from where there might have been an issue, namely religious institutions that might have appealed to it to ensure they *could* hold SSMs under Article 9 had the govt not included religious same sex marriages in the Act as well as civil ones.
Comments
Netherlands v South Africa
Matched: GBP 17,861,088
In-play
Back & Lay Market Depth
More options
Selections: (2)
Netherlands
£890.34
South Africa
£1.71
I took the position of wagering only if NL bowled first. Big profit taken ....
Ssshhh .... Don't tell Mrs JackW !!
Redded out for -£20 now. Live and learn !
Contrast with t/o in UK elections or even US elections.
A reasonable chance it could all go spectacularly wrong for the cloggies from here.
It would have to have seen almost total ethnic Russian participation and very considerable Ukrainian and Tartar turnout.
At least in the old Soviet days they knew how to rig a result.
Any other PBer see any value ?
Anyway:
None of the 135 international observers registered any violations.[14] The EODE observer mission concluded that the referendum was conducted freely and fairly.[16] Mateusz Piskorski reported on a high turnout among Crimean Tatars.[115]
That is because he is talking, so to speak, in work time.
It's also unique (IIRC) in another way. If a salesman makes claims to you about a product, and the claims induce the contract, they're part of the contract. So if he misreps that the fridge he's selling you also makes the coffee, when you find out that it doesn't, he's got to keep you whole. With marriage, if your spouse has lied and you find out he is a convicted paedophile or criminal or bankrupt, or that she is a former prostitute or drug mule or criminal, it's tough luck and you divorce him / her at your expense and with the usual settlement. So there is no penalty or risk to lying your way into a marriage.
Those seem to me to be uniquely lousy terms that affect all marriages. They are among the reasons why Mrs. Bond remains legally speaking Ms Draco.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26768206
NL 12 runs to win
England will be pleased if they can beat NL
"Former Clegg spinmeister Olly Grender had no answer when told by Brillo that, despite the LibDem leader’s assurances, the House of Commons library did not back him up on his claim that only 7% of UK law was made in Brussels. Their figure is actually between 15% and 50%."
http://order-order.com/2014/03/27/cleggs-facts-turn-out-to-be-fiction/
"A senior Labour frontbencher is under fire for tweeting a letter which jokes about Tory minister Eric Pickles dropping dead if he took part in the London Marathon.
Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice minister who could run for London mayor, posted the letter from ex-Labour leader Neil Kinnock who offered to sponsor his run.
But in a comment condemned by the Tories as 'nasty', Lord Kinnock also suggested getting Mr Pickles to also take part 'so we have a helpful by-election', apparently caused by the large-than-life Conservative's death."
http://labourlist.org/2014/03/8-big-ideas-for-a-miliband-government/
Which includes the decentralising measure of renationalising the railways. Figure that one out if you can.
Kinnock should know better than that, after the untimely and unfortunate, early death of John Smith.
'The arrival of the Kinnock dynasty on the political scene is one of the more unpleasant aspects of modern politics.'
The Labour aristocracy has moved on from jobs for the boys to jobs for the family.
Very shabby.
Ooop's, there go's another L/dem wicket. LOL
..........................................................
Nice to hear SL's jolly anthem again, although it is longer than Ed Ball's nose when he talks about Labour economic policy over the past ten years.
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84820
'Major metropolitan areas are now the Labour party’s voting base: the party must actively think about how to expand them and give them the power to innovate and expand. '
Party before Country. Delightful.
But as I (skim-)read what he is also saying, which I don't disagree with, is that just the principle of having it, ipso facto, throws up issues of competence and sovereignty and that seems to be what he disagrees with.
The fact remains that it is highly unlikely that the ECHR would decide to opine on SSM especially as the popular perception of what it might be asked to do differs from where there might have been an issue, namely religious institutions that might have appealed to it to ensure they *could* hold SSMs under Article 9 had the govt not included religious same sex marriages in the Act as well as civil ones.
This story is completely, totally and utterly unrelated to two prominent PB posters .... titters .... probably :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26764929
Bloody Cloggies.
You can tell Nick Clegg is descended from Netherlanders.
The VoteUK Forum has been invaded by a spammer:
http://www.vote-2012.proboards.com/board/13/general-uk-politics