Tory MP quits as ministerial aide amid rent boy scandal. Exclusive in @TheSunNewspaoer
pic.twitter.com/TMxEe1Sjph
That's a very Sun story. "Top Tory" is a bit overegged for a PPS - when I was a PPS, even I barely noticed. An odd whiff of homophobia still in the "rent boy" phrase, too. It's simply a male prostitute, right?
Tory MP quits as ministerial aide amid rent boy scandal. Exclusive in @TheSunNewspaoer
pic.twitter.com/TMxEe1Sjph
That's a very Sun story. "Top Tory" is a bit overegged for a PPS - when I was a PPS, even I barely noticed. An odd whiff of homophobia still in the "rent boy" phrase, too. It's simply a male prostitute, right?
In scandals, there's no such thing as a junior politician.
Comment on Guardian website in response to this poll:
"We've got to get Ed out NOW to even have a prayer at the next election. David could back and dethrone his brother in a powerful and potent coup-sde-famille which would thrill the voters and mark him as ruthless and unstoppable. Let's do it this week"
Some of the comment responses on that article are pretty special. Just out of curiosity, Rod, do you consider yourself totally non-aligned then? For some reason, I recall you might have mentioned voting Labour previously once or twice, and had you down as being naturally on the centre-left?
Doesn't bother me either way, incidentally, just curious.
Mr. Lilburne, the Normans, as I understand it, conquered Normandy and agreed to give a nod to the French king in return for continuing to own it without French efforts to take it back. They were not Frenchmen, any more than Welshmen acknowledging the supremacy of England became English.
Of course, I could be wrong. One cannot be expected to be familiar with such a vulgarly modern period of history (I use the term loosely).
No you are technically right. But surely anyone who accepts the feudal suzerainty of the French king is... French. They adopted the French language and by 1066 had stopped being Norse.
I think not, Mr. Lilburne. One might just as well say people who speak English as their first language are English, which would come as a shock to hundreds of millions of people around the globe.
As for accepting French suzerainity, the number of times the Normans went to war with the French king suggests they didn't in the slightest (didn't William the Bastard actually suffered his fatal injury whilst attacking a French castle?).
The French nation state did not exist in anything like its modern form until hundreds of years after the Conquest. The Normans were allowed to have and to hold Normandy in 911 by the French king Charles the Simple who surrendered the County of Rouen to Rollo, first Duke of Normandy. Charles did so because otherwise he would have been slit up a treat by Rollo.
Tory MP quits as ministerial aide amid rent boy scandal. Exclusive in @TheSunNewspaoer
pic.twitter.com/TMxEe1Sjph
That's a very Sun story. "Top Tory" is a bit overegged for a PPS - when I was a PPS, even I barely noticed.
Similarly, I only ever seem to see backbenchers referenced as 'senior' or 'prominent' backbenchers or the like. I'm actually all for more respect for MPs who, by choice or not, serve their constituents without the glory of the front bench or as high placed contrarians causing a ruckus on the backbenches, but apparently there are simply no non-senior MPs at all. If they have no ministerial position at all and no credible claim to being 'prominent' can be made in the event of a scandal, I would guess that, politics being a close knit club, the 'former adviser to X' gets pulled out from when they used to work for another MP or something.
Comment on Guardian website in response to this poll:
"We've got to get Ed out NOW to even have a prayer at the next election. David could back and dethrone his brother in a powerful and potent coup-sde-famille which would thrill the voters and mark him as ruthless and unstoppable. Let's do it this week"
Some of the comment responses on that article are pretty special. Just out of curiosity, Rod, do you consider yourself totally non-aligned then? For some reason, I recall you might have mentioned voting Labour previously once or twice, and had you down as being naturally on the centre-left?
Doesn't bother me either way, incidentally, just curious.
IIRC Rod mentioned once that he campaigned for the SDP in the early 80s. Apologies if I've misremembered.
The Normans took Sicily, as well as England, and stirred up rather a bit of trouble in the Balkans (I forget the name precisely, something like the Great Company, a sizeable band of rogues that caused the Byzantines some sleepless nights).
You should read R.H.C. Davis' The Norman Myth, (London, 1976), which destroys nearly all that was written theretofore about the "Normans".
Mr. Lilburne, the Normans, as I understand it, conquered Normandy and agreed to give a nod to the French king in return for continuing to own it without French efforts to take it back. They were not Frenchmen, any more than Welshmen acknowledging the supremacy of England became English.
Of course, I could be wrong. One cannot be expected to be familiar with such a vulgarly modern period of history (I use the term loosely).
No you are technically right. But surely anyone who accepts the feudal suzerainty of the French king is... French. They adopted the French language and by 1066 had stopped being Norse.
Well as Dukes of Normandy the English Kings nominally accepted the suzerenity of the French King, but that didn't mean the English people were French even if their aristocracy mostly was. That said, the Norman people probably did count as French by that point given the language adoption, although given the weakness of the French Crown at the time, I still like to interpret it as not really being conquered by French people proper.
The French king was only suzerain in respect of Normandy (and eventually Anjou, Touraine, Blois etc...)
Just saying, the OE Chronicle reckoned they were French rather than Norse (by which they would have recognised Harald Hardrada & his army)
No doubt this will be seen as 'Unionists in disarray' from the Yes side, although given waking up the complacency is what they and union supporters claim No should have been doing before now, it surely means that it is not great news for the Yes side. It doesn't mean No will suddenly gets its act together, but that some are now saying they need to do so, it means they have a chance they will.
It's an alliteration that newspapers like the Mirror find almost impossible to resist: Mark Menzies MP would not qualify as a 'Top Tory' under any rational definition of the term.
Was PPS to Mark Prisk, Housing and Local Government Minister. A rare Tory Scot as MP, albeit for an English constituency. Independent School on an assisted place then University of Glasgow where he was President of the Conservative Association.
Worked in marketing for Marks and Spencer, being fighting Glasgow Govan in 2001 and Selby in 2005. Thereafter A listed and selected for Fylde.
Although not openly 'out', there appears to be no pretence about his sexuality:
Since becoming an MP Menzies has made appearances at various LGBTory events held in Parliament but has never spoken openly about his sexuality. There is no mention of family life or personal relationships on his website, unlike many other MPs.
So his trangression, if that is what it is, is of contracting with a prostitute rather than being gay, although I guess the Sun won't expect its readers to make so fine a distinction. Apparently David Wooding had four Sun journalists in Brazil to get the story.
Not what Cameron would have wanted on the day that same sex marriages became lawful.
If Dave is brave and there is nothing further in the story to damn Menzies maybe a "refusal to accept resignation" is appropriate.
A difficult decision, especially as the story is not likely to have legs or do much damage.
I will second that, dyed woolie, I am definitely a fan of Caol ila. Have you tried Talisker Storm or the Glenfiddich 18 Year Old, I got to try both over the festive season, absolutely lovely?
Would you count all UK GE votes as the denominator of the 6%? If so its a bet. My charity would be Diabetes UK. I am also happy with a bottle of single malt, Islay preferred!
"I suspect that they will poll more than 2010, but not more than 6% and most of that will be in safe Tory seats where it makes little difference."
Is that a prediction that UKIP will score less than 6&% of the vote in 2015? If it is I feel I have to ask the good Doctor if he is prepared to put his money where his prediction is.
What about it, Doc, a modest wager, say twenty quid to a favourite charity? If UKIP get less than 6% of the vote at the 2015 general election I'll give £20 to your nominated charity. If they score 6% or more you give £20 to the RNLI. Just to make it interesting we cold have a bottle of single malt on the side.
We have a wager, Doc. I am very partial to the Islay too, Laphroaig for preference.
Caol ila. Here endeth the lesson. Although I have picked up a bottle at the Ben Nevis distillery of a recreation ca 1914 malt, it's meant to be Peary and sublime.
The Normans took Sicily, as well as England, and stirred up rather a bit of trouble in the Balkans (I forget the name precisely, something like the Great Company, a sizeable band of rogues that caused the Byzantines some sleepless nights).
You should read R.H.C. Davis' The Norman Myth, (London, 1976), which destroys nearly all that was written theretofore about the "Normans".
Mr. Eagles, if you're going to fiddle with Wikipedia you could visit Alexander the Great's page and correct the revisionist nonsense about him being a Greek King: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
It's as anachronistic as describing the Normans as Frenchmen, or Constantine the Great as a Yorkshireman.
It's locked for editing. Plenty of nutty debate on the Talk page about it, and I've just added some lovely pedantry about what he was actually called.
Another lead of 1% for Labour with a different pollster? Seriously? I am starting to think that the polling companies are cumulatively taking the Michael.
So near and yet so far. And the consequences if it comes are deeply unpredictable for Labour. Serious but unpredictable.
I like polls with Labour just ahead.
Polls with the Tories ahead may cause Labour to ditch Ed.
This budget has shifted votes, the 2015 General Election campaign begins with the 2015 budget.
I really don't see Labour ditching Ed. Who is the alternative apart from fantasies like his brother coming back and somehow becoming an MP and managing to trigger a leadership contest and winning it and actually acting decisively for the first time in his life and... Man U have more chance of winning the Champions League. A lot more actually since by some miracle they are still in it, at least for another fortnight.
Within Labour's actual ranks there is only Balls and he is a bigger laughing stock than his boss. I don't see anyone else in the Shadow Cabinet who could mount a challenge. Alastair Darling if no wins? Maybe but that will be too late.
In short cross over will leave Labour in a horrible mess with nowhere to go. From a tory perspective I really struggle to see a downside to that.
Mr. Lilburne, the Normans, as I understand it, conquered Normandy and agreed to give a nod to the French king in return for continuing to own it without French efforts to take it back. They were not Frenchmen, any more than Welshmen acknowledging the supremacy of England became English.
Of course, I could be wrong. One cannot be expected to be familiar with such a vulgarly modern period of history (I use the term loosely).
No you are technically right. But surely anyone who accepts the feudal suzerainty of the French king is... French. They adopted the French language and by 1066 had stopped being Norse.
I think not, Mr. Lilburne. One might just as well say people who speak English as their first language are English, which would come as a shock to hundreds of millions of people around the globe.
As for accepting French suzerainity, the number of times the Normans went to war with the French king suggests they didn't in the slightest (didn't William the Bastard actually suffered his fatal injury whilst attacking a French castle?).
The French nation state did not exist in anything like its modern form until hundreds of years after the Conquest. The Normans were allowed to have and to hold Normandy in 911 by the French king Charles the Simple who surrendered the County of Rouen to Rollo, first Duke of Normandy. Charles did so because otherwise he would have been slit up a treat by Rollo.
Charles the Simple? Poor guy to be remembered by history that way. I'm believe there was a Louis the Fat among the French kings as well, although with as many Louis as they had, it was probably hard for historians to attach suitable epithets to them.
If I recall correctly the French kings were preposterously weak in that period, having only direct control over the Ile de France region, and not until Philip Augustus did they really begin to grow in strength again.
Mr. Lilburne, the Normans, as I understand it, conquered Normandy and agreed to give a nod to the French king in return for continuing to own it without French efforts to take it back. They were not Frenchmen, any more than Welshmen acknowledging the supremacy of England became English.
Of course, I could be wrong. One cannot be expected to be familiar with such a vulgarly modern period of history (I use the term loosely).
No you are technically right. But surely anyone who accepts the feudal suzerainty of the French king is... French. They adopted the French language and by 1066 had stopped being Norse.
I think not, Mr. Lilburne. One might just as well say people who speak English as their first language are English, which would come as a shock to hundreds of millions of people around the globe.
As for accepting French suzerainity, the number of times the Normans went to war with the French king suggests they didn't in the slightest (didn't William the Bastard actually suffered his fatal injury whilst attacking a French castle?).
The French nation state did not exist in anything like its modern form until hundreds of years after the Conquest. The Normans were allowed to have and to hold Normandy in 911 by the French king Charles the Simple who surrendered the County of Rouen to Rollo, first Duke of Normandy. Charles did so because otherwise he would have been slit up a treat by Rollo.
Well most people who speak English used to be ruled by us, we have just let them go. And waging war against the King of France was a national game, see Dukes of Burgundy, Counts of Toulouse, etc.
Comment on Guardian website in response to this poll:
"We've got to get Ed out NOW to even have a prayer at the next election. David could back and dethrone his brother in a powerful and potent coup-sde-famille which would thrill the voters and mark him as ruthless and unstoppable. Let's do it this week"
Some of the comment responses on that article are pretty special. Just out of curiosity, Rod, do you consider yourself totally non-aligned then? For some reason, I recall you might have mentioned voting Labour previously once or twice, and had you down as being naturally on the centre-left?
Doesn't bother me either way, incidentally, just curious.
From a staunch Labour family, I've never voted Labour in my life, and probably never will (but never say never, eh?)
Voted Tory once, in 1997. Sympathy vote for John Major, and protest against the undeserved coming landslide.
Unsually vote LibDem, or, in general for the underdog. Hope my vote never arrives in the winning column nationally....
The Normans took Sicily, as well as England, and stirred up rather a bit of trouble in the Balkans (I forget the name precisely, something like the Great Company, a sizeable band of rogues that caused the Byzantines some sleepless nights).
You should read R.H.C. Davis' The Norman Myth, (London, 1976), which destroys nearly all that was written theretofore about the "Normans".
English feudalism, for example, was almost certainly based on Anglo-Saxon landholding laws, as no doubts codified and bureaucratised by the Norman-French government. The clue? They didn't have it in Normandy or Sicily.
It's an alliteration that newspapers like the Mirror find almost impossible to resist: Mark Menzies MP would not qualify as a 'Top Tory' under any rational definition of the term.
Was PPS to Mark Prisk, Housing and Local Government Minister. A lrare Tory Scottish MP. Independent School on an assisted place then University of Glasgow where he was President of the Conservative Association.
Worked in marketing for Marks and Spencer, being fighting Glasgow Govan in 2001 and Selby in 2005. Thereafter A listed and selected for Fylde.
Although not openly 'out', there appears to be no pretence about his sexuality:
Since becoming an MP Menzies has made appearances at various LGBTory events held in Parliament but has never spoken openly about his sexuality. There is no mention of family life or personal relationships on his website, unlike many other MPs.
So his trangression, if that is what it is, is of contracting with a prostitute rather than being gay, although I guess the Sun won't expect its readers to make so fine a distinction. Apparently David Wooding had four Sun journalists in Brazil to get the story.
Not what Cameron would have wanted on the day that same sex marriages became lawful.
If Dave is brave and there is nothing further in the story to damn Menzies maybe a "refusal to accept resignation" is appropriate.
A difficult decision, especially as the story is not likely to have legs or do much damage.
I met Mark Menzies MP once off the parliamentary estate. I recall him introducing himself to me, not as an MP, just as "Mark". Nothing wrong with that of course. However, when another friend of mine at the time (also an MP) filled me in on that bit of detail, I was surprised. I found him fairly underwhelming, and had assumed he was just another party member.
I absolutely hate prurient sex scandal stories. No place in political discourse. Private matter. Live and let live.
Makes a juicy story of course, the profession to be worthy enough to be granted authority over the people, but involved in scandalous behaviour. But I tend to agree.
On a related matter, sex scandal wise, there was that story of the american General recently who was on trial for various sexual harrassment and assault offences, and while most of those charges were dropped for various reasons, he was found guilty of adultery, which to my amazement is a crime for members of the american military. I've no idea if such a rule is on the books for our military, but it sounds incredibly stupid on the face of it (I'm sure the reasoning behind it is fascinating). Imagine if it was illegal for politicians to committ adultery.
Comment on Guardian website in response to this poll:
"We've got to get Ed out NOW to even have a prayer at the next election. David could back and dethrone his brother in a powerful and potent coup-sde-famille which would thrill the voters and mark him as ruthless and unstoppable. Let's do it this week"
Some of the comment responses on that article are pretty special. Just out of curiosity, Rod, do you consider yourself totally non-aligned then? For some reason, I recall you might have mentioned voting Labour previously once or twice, and had you down as being naturally on the centre-left?
Doesn't bother me either way, incidentally, just curious.
From a staunch Labour family, I've never voted Labour in my life, and probably never will (but never say never, eh?)
Voted Tory once, in 1997. Sympathy vote for John Major, and protest against the undeserved coming landslide.
Unsually vote LibDem, or, in general for the underdog. Hope my vote never arrives in the winning column nationally....
I will second that, dyed woolie, I am definitely a fan of Caol ila. Have you tried Talisker Storm or the Glenfiddich 18 Year Old, I got to try both over the festive season, absolutely lovely?
Would you count all UK GE votes as the denominator of the 6%? If so its a bet. My charity would be Diabetes UK. I am also happy with a bottle of single malt, Islay preferred!
"I suspect that they will poll more than 2010, but not more than 6% and most of that will be in safe Tory seats where it makes little difference."
Is that a prediction that UKIP will score less than 6&% of the vote in 2015? If it is I feel I have to ask the good Doctor if he is prepared to put his money where his prediction is.
What about it, Doc, a modest wager, say twenty quid to a favourite charity? If UKIP get less than 6% of the vote at the 2015 general election I'll give £20 to your nominated charity. If they score 6% or more you give £20 to the RNLI. Just to make it interesting we cold have a bottle of single malt on the side.
We have a wager, Doc. I am very partial to the Islay too, Laphroaig for preference.
Caol ila. Here endeth the lesson. Although I have picked up a bottle at the Ben Nevis distillery of a recreation ca 1914 malt, it's meant to be Peary and sublime.
I used to be a big fan of Talisker when they used to release it at 8-y-o, less so at 10. What is the Storm like? I assumed it is an attempt to release vatted Scotch without an age statement, and charge more for the privilege.
Tory MP quits as ministerial aide amid rent boy scandal. Exclusive in @TheSunNewspaoer
pic.twitter.com/TMxEe1Sjph
That's a very Sun story. "Top Tory" is a bit overegged for a PPS - when I was a PPS, even I barely noticed. An odd whiff of homophobia still in the "rent boy" phrase, too. It's simply a male prostitute, right?
There is a standing joke in Parliament House that the only way any of us can ever really hope to get referred to as a "top lawyer" is to get caught doing something that we should not. "Top" means absolutely nothing in a red top.
He's in a comfortably slower car which gets off the line poorly. I'd be surprised if he was in the first 2 after the first corner, although as a Lewis fan, I'd love him to hold up Rosberg for a lap or two.
Tory MP quits as ministerial aide amid rent boy scandal. Exclusive in @TheSunNewspaoer
pic.twitter.com/TMxEe1Sjph
That's a very Sun story. "Top Tory" is a bit overegged for a PPS - when I was a PPS, even I barely noticed. An odd whiff of homophobia still in the "rent boy" phrase, too. It's simply a male prostitute, right?
You should have taken my advice on nocturnal roamings in Moscow, Nick.
Could have got The Sun to recognise you as a "Top Labour" politician in no time!
Mr. X, as a non-Wikipedia editor chap, is the Talk open to general viewing?
Greeks trying to claim Alexander for themselves has even less credibility as Chirac claiming out 2003 rugby world cup win as a victory for Europe.
So what was Alexander of Macedon if not Greek? He spoke a language that was either a Greek dialect or closely related. Everywhere he marched his army, ended up speaking Greek as well.
Mr. Lilburne, the Normans, as I understand it, conquered Normandy and agreed to give a nod to the French king in return for continuing to own it without French efforts to take it back. They were not Frenchmen, any more than Welshmen acknowledging the supremacy of England became English.
Of course, I could be wrong. One cannot be expected to be familiar with such a vulgarly modern period of history (I use the term loosely).
No you are technically right. But surely anyone who accepts the feudal suzerainty of the French king is... French. They adopted the French language and by 1066 had stopped being Norse.
I think not, Mr. Lilburne. One might just as well say people who speak English as their first language are English, which would come as a shock to hundreds of millions of people around the globe.
As for accepting French suzerainity, the number of times the Normans went to war with the French king suggests they didn't in the slightest (didn't William the Bastard actually suffered his fatal injury whilst attacking a French castle?).
The French nation state did not exist in anything like its modern form until hundreds of years after the Conquest. The Normans were allowed to have and to hold Normandy in 911 by the French king Charles the Simple who surrendered the County of Rouen to Rollo, first Duke of Normandy. Charles did so because otherwise he would have been slit up a treat by Rollo.
Charles the Simple? Poor guy to be remembered by history that way. I'm believe there was a Louis the Fat among the French kings as well, although with as many Louis as they had, it was probably hard for historians to attach suitable epithets to them.
If I recall correctly the French kings were preposterously weak in that period, having only direct control over the Ile de France region, and not until Philip Augustus did they really begin to grow in strength again.
Oh, the Frogs had also sorts of jolly names for their Kings, most of them awarded whilst the chap was still alive, they even got one of them made a saint (Louis IX 13th Century). To be fair the English did similar (Edward the Confessor being the most obvious example), but we grew out of it long before the Frogs managed to.
The French Kings were preposterously weak mainly because they did not actually control France or I suppose you could say the Ile De France was France. The rest of the place was owned by Burgundy, Brittany, some odds and sods counts and, of course, the English (post 1066). That situation lasted centuries, even Napoleon was forced to send troops areas of France to get them to join in with his project.
@fitalass No, neither, will check them out, I enjoy standard Talisker and sell it in the pub. I have a bottle of 18 year Glenlivet and two bottles of Arran founders reserve, both marvellous
If you do want to contribute to the discussion, then I suggest you create an account (if you don't have one) by going here, and follow the steps to put some basic information on your userpage. At least one word, really, or part of a word; then your userpage will show up as a nice blue link rather than a red one, and people will take you more seriously.
However it does seem to be a point that has been heavily discussed recently and I doubt you will over-turn that consensus although consensus can change.
While I'm here, the annual megaconference for Wikipedians (and users of similar projects) is being hosted in London in the first week of August (8th to 10th, IIRC). The original bid did have some political support, so when I can I'll let pbers know if it may be of interest.
English feudalism, for example, was almost certainly based on Anglo-Saxon landholding laws, as no doubts codified and bureaucratised by the Norman-French government. The clue? They didn't have it in Normandy or Sicily.
Jeremy Johns has done similar excellent work on Sicily, see his groundbreaking Arabic Administration, (Cambridge, 2002) for details. The days when David C. Douglas or Lord Norwich could be cited as authoritative are fortunately long gone.
I really don't see Labour ditching Ed. Who is the alternative apart from fantasies like his brother coming back and somehow becoming an MP and managing to trigger a leadership contest and winning it and actually acting decisively for the first time in his life and... Man U have more chance of winning the Champions League. A lot more actually since by some miracle they are still in it, at least for another fortnight.
Within Labour's actual ranks there is only Balls and he is a bigger laughing stock than his boss. I don't see anyone else in the Shadow Cabinet who could mount a challenge. Alastair Darling if no wins? Maybe but that will be too late.
In short cross over will leave Labour in a horrible mess with nowhere to go. From a tory perspective I really struggle to see a downside to that.
I still maintain that Ed himself is not really the problem. On the rare occasions he's acted decisively and done something populist, all the complaints about him being too weird and having a funny voice go away. On the other hand, when he gives in to the Blairites and is too scared to actually oppose anything the Tories do and lets the party drift, all the complaints about him come back - because if he's not saying anything interesting, there's nothing to notice BUT his weirdness and funny voice. I still believe the situation is redeemable if he actually defines clearly what he's about and what the purpose of Labour is today, but it would involve him growing a backbone, saying "no" to the idiot NewLabourites like Ed Balls who still insist the way for the party to win is by screwing over their core voters and backing spending cuts, and being willing to bear the chants of "Red Ed!!!11" from the media rather than giving in and making a U-turn whenever a Times editorial criticises him.
I agree that a leadership change would not be an automatic panacea, because frankly most of the shadow cabinet are even worse at speaking like humanbeings than Ed is. The only exceptions are Alan Johnson and Andy Burnham. I think the public would quite like Johnson as a personality (despite the sneering from the Westminster media about him being "too stupid" when he was shadow chancellor, which to this day I still think was class-based snobbishness), but he doesn't really seem to stand anything in particular and thus would probably suffer the same problems of drift that Ed has and not driving home any real role or definition for Labour. My choice would be Burnham since he can actually speak like a humanbeing and seems to actually have a clear idea of what Labour should be for (an idea which seems to be- gasp! - quite leftwing).
If you do want to contribute to the discussion, then I suggest you create an account (if you don't have one) by going here, and follow the steps to put some basic information on your userpage. At least one word, really, or part of a word; then your userpage will show up as a nice blue link rather than a red one, and people will take you more seriously.
However it does seem to be a point that has been heavily discussed recently and I doubt you will over-turn that consensus although consensus can change.
While I'm here, the annual megaconference for Wikipedians (and users of similar projects) is being hosted in London in the first week of August (8th to 10th, IIRC). The original bid did have some political support, so when I can I'll let pbers know if it may be of interest.
Thanks for that, had no idea about the blue/red thing. Doh!
My Mum sold a 25 year old bottle of Macallan that was given to my late Dad back in the 80's not long ago, she gave the proceeds of the sale to a deserving cause my Dad would have approved of rather than leave it to continue gathering dust in its box. We never could persuade my Dad to open it despite many years of lobbying, and the fact that Macallan was his favourite dram.
My Mum sold a 25 year old bottle of Macallan that was given to my late Dad back in the 80's not long ago, she gave the proceeds of the sale to a deserving cause my Dad would have approved of rather than leave it to continue gathering dust in its box. We could never persuade Dad to open it despite many years of lobbying.
And saw today a bottle of 33 year Laphroaig in sale at £1950!
On account of the single malt avarice noted on PB I shall not be giving away the whereabouts of my collection sited in the upper bins of the middle left vault of my wine cellar at Auchentennach Castle.
So it all rests on Monday's polls for the cross over Q1 punters, lets hope that Populus can deliver them a win as it could take a couple of days for tonight's YouGov outlier to be ironed out.
So it all rests on Monday's polls for the cross over Q1 punters, lets hope that Populus can deliver them a win as it could take a couple of days for tonight's YouGov outlier to be ironed out.
He's in a comfortably slower car which gets off the line poorly. I'd be surprised if he was in the first 2 after the first corner, although as a Lewis fan, I'd love him to hold up Rosberg for a lap or two.
As the race is in the middle of the night here (clocks went forward the first weekend in March) I just need to check Morris's race review and delete it from my DirecTv dvr.
I'm looking forward to the extra hour of daylight in the evening tomorrow. Maybe this will be the last time the clocks go forward.
Presumably it will be in Scotland, as they want independence I can only presume they want the freedom to be in their own time zone. Just as they want to be able to have their own currency. Oh, wait a minute...
I agree that Andy Burnham is the best of the front bench at communicating, and also has a reasonably clear direction of travel. I do not see Balls as a Blairite at all, he is a Brownite even if he pretends otherwise.
Liz Kendall is the one to watch though, a star in the making.
I really don't see Labour ditching Ed. Who is the alternative apart from fantasies like his brother coming back and somehow becoming an MP and managing to trigger a leadership contest and winning it and actually acting decisively for the first time in his life and... Man U
Within Labour's actual ranks there is only Balls and he is a bigger laughing stock than his boss. I don't see anyone else in the Shadow Cabinet who could mount a challenge. Alastair Darling if no wins? Maybe but that will be too late.
In short cross over will leave Labour in a horrible mess with nowhere to go. From a tory perspective I really struggle to see a downside to that.
I still maintain that Ed himself is not really the problem. On the rare occasions he's acted decisively and done something populist, all the complaints about him being too weird and having a funny voice go away. On the other hand, when he gives in to the Blairites and is too scared to actually oppose anything the Tories do and lets the party drift, all the complaints about him come back - because if he's not saying anything interesting, there's nothing to notice BUT his weirdness and funny voice. I still believe the situation is redeemable if he actually defines clearly what he's about and what the purpose of Labour is today, but it would involve him growing a backbone, saying "no" to the idiot NewLabourites like Ed Balls who still insist the way for the party to win is by screwing over their core voters and backing spending cuts, and being willing to bear the chants of "Red Ed!!!11" from the media rather than giving in and making a U-turn whenever a Times editorial criticises him.
I agree that a leadership change would not be an automatic panacea, because frankly most of the shadow cabinet are even worse at speaking like humanbeings than Ed is. The only exceptions are Alan Johnson and Andy Burnham. I think the public would quite like Johnson as a personality (despite the sneering from the Westminster media about him being "too stupid" when he was shadow chancellor, which to this day I still think was class-based snobbishness), but he doesn't really seem to stand anything in particular and thus would probably suffer the same problems of drift that Ed has and not driving home any real role or definition for Labour. My choice would be Burnham since he can actually speak like a humanbeing and seems to actually have a clear idea of what Labour should be for (an idea which seems to be- gasp! - quite leftwing).
I still maintain that Ed himself is not really the problem. On the rare occasions he's acted decisively and done something populist, all the complaints about him being too weird and having a funny voice go away. On the other hand, when he gives in to the Blairites and is too scared to actually oppose anything the Tories do and lets the party drift, all the complaints about him come back - because if he's not saying anything interesting, there's nothing to notice BUT his weirdness and funny voice. I still believe the situation is redeemable if he actually defines clearly what he's about and what the purpose of Labour is today, but it would involve him growing a backbone, saying "no" to the idiot NewLabourites like Ed Balls who still insist the way for the party to win is by screwing over their core voters and backing spending cuts, and being willing to bear the chants of "Red Ed!!!11" from the media rather than giving in and making a U-turn whenever a Times editorial criticises him.
(snip) My choice would be Burnham since he can actually speak like a humanbeing and seems to actually have a clear idea of what Labour should be for (an idea which seems to be- gasp! - quite leftwing).
I agree with much of that. I have no doubt at all that Labour got the right brother, David deserved all he got for failing to attack the lunatic when Darling told him to. Ed strikes me as clever but in a very intelligensia kind of way. He does not come across as a people person although there are many reports of him being personally charming.
He struggles to relate to traditional Labour supporters but he is by no means alone in that in the leadership stakes. I think it is increasingly difficult for anyone "normal" to make it to the top of the greasy pole. It simply requires too much focus and too many compromises for a normal person to stomach.
My mother in law is a Labour supporter of 50 years plus standing. She told me that she voted for Burnham for much the reasons you say. His sense of direction made, in my view, relatively little sense but at least he had one.
Labour has, in my view, completely failed to come to terms with the Brown disaster. It was a disaster of such magnitude that it is hard for anyone to come to terms with but for Labour it means living and seeking to rule a country that will be cutting and cutting for the rest of these politicians' lives, making horrible choices and hurting the weak. It is a dismal prospect and denial is an understandable response.
I'm looking forward to the extra hour of daylight in the evening tomorrow. Maybe this will be the last time the clocks go forward.
Eh???
I though the talk wasn't of scrapping BST, but rather of moving onto DOUBLE BST - which would also have the advantage of aligning the UK with most of the rest of Western Europe.
Odd that you should mention that book: I bought it at a jumble sale about a year or two ago, and found it very interesting because it was a subject I knew little about before. BUT it's not about Byzantium; it's mainly about France, Germany and Italy (despite the title) and has relatively little detail about Britain, Byzantium, Russia, Scandinavia etc. Its occasional references to Byzantium did however inspire me to go and buy a book about Byzantium ("Byzantium" by Judith Herrin) which gave me more detail, and which made me realise that Byzantium was the proper Roman Empire, richer in culture and wealth and administration compared with the western backwater centred around Rome.
Anecdote - Oldest son has always been a Man Utd fan while his Dad and son No2 are avid Man City fans, so he was glad he wasn't at home to witness the last Man City vs Man Utd outing.... Anyhoos, he was instead staying near Newcastle for a few days last week while he caddied for a good mate who was in a wee golf tournament (students!). They decided to stay in the rather plush club house to catch the game after the days golfing, and while sat at the bar chatting to the barman before the game started he told him that he was a Man Utd fan. 44 seconds into the game when Man City scored, the barman quick as a flash and with a deadpan expression simple asked 'would you like something stronger sir'.
So it all rests on Monday's polls for the cross over Q1 punters, lets hope that Populus can deliver them a win as it could take a couple of days for tonight's YouGov outlier to be ironed out.
I think it's YouGov only that counts with Paddy's but could be wrong.
I absolutely hate prurient sex scandal stories. No place in political discourse. Private matter. Live and let live.
Makes a juicy story of course, the profession to be worthy enough to be granted authority over the people, but involved in scandalous behaviour. But I tend to agree.
On a related matter, sex scandal wise, there was that story of the american General recently who was on trial for various sexual harrassment and assault offences, and while most of those charges were dropped for various reasons, he was found guilty of adultery, which to my amazement is a crime for members of the american military. I've no idea if such a rule is on the books for our military, but it sounds incredibly stupid on the face of it (I'm sure the reasoning behind it is fascinating). Imagine if it was illegal for politicians to committ adultery.
Thankfully I think these nasty stories are just losing their teeth now. The social liberals won, it's just that the tabloids haven't got the memo.
Incredible poll from the Times if true. Outlier, or the bounce fading?
Yes. They have showed a clear tightening in recent days so Labour back on 40 is interesting. It could well be an outlier - let's wait for the internals.
Presumably this improved polling for the Tories will mean Clegg will start to rein in his Labour bashing and his coalition championing? Surely he realises that the main beneficiary of this is the Tories? As I've said before it's quite possible that he knows this and it's a deliberate strategy. Admit the Lib Dem vote share is stuffed and try to equalise the Lab/Tory shares to bring about a hung parliament.
There's clearly been a shift since the budget. Presumaby the Tories have boosted their lead amongst pensioners but we need a poll with a proper breakdown. I was sceptical of that tactic, trying to squeeze more juice out of the orange, but maybe it's worked.
So it all rests on Monday's polls for the cross over Q1 punters, lets hope that Populus can deliver them a win as it could take a couple of days for tonight's YouGov outlier to be ironed out.
I think it's YouGov only that counts with Paddy's but could be wrong.
My bets with PP placed last year do indeed relate only to YouGov polls, but relate to a crossover first taking place in H1 or H2 2014, rather than to any quarterly measurement.
If you compare the Populus and Opinium polls over the last 24 hrs with Thursday's YouGov poll, what are the chances that this evening's outside margin of error YouGov swing in the polling lead is an outlier rather than a bounce fading?
Incredible poll from the Times if true. Outlier, or the bounce fading?
Yes. They have showed a clear tightening in recent days so Labour back on 40 is interesting. It could well be an outlier - let's wait for the internals.
I'm looking forward to the extra hour of daylight in the evening tomorrow. Maybe this will be the last time the clocks go forward.
Presumably it will be in Scotland, as they want independence I can only presume they want the freedom to be in their own time zone. Just as they want to be able to have their own currency. Oh, wait a minute...
The Greenwich Meridian nowhere passes through Scotland. If they want our time they'll have to pay for it.
Amusing YG but take with a pinch of salt. However, to echo SeanT's extrapolation of this morning, if this direction of travel continues, we can expect to be ahead by over 2000% by next year.
If you compare the Populus and Opinium polls over the last 24 hrs with Thursday's YouGov poll, what are the chances that this evening's outside margin of error YouGov swing in the polling lead is an outlier rather than a bounce fading?
Incredible poll from the Times if true. Outlier, or the bounce fading?
Yes. They have showed a clear tightening in recent days so Labour back on 40 is interesting. It could well be an outlier - let's wait for the internals.
Not long ago I did some an end-product assessment of the likely margin of error in YouGov, which at 95% confidence was +/- 5.6, if I recall correctly.
Turkey bans Twitter, Turkey bans Youtube. The pretext is explosive revelations that the Turkish government is looking an excuse to load into Syria and, potentially, tip the balance.
As it stands, they are already providing their most forceful support for insurgents yet, one of the reasons why the civil war suddenly turned up in the Alawite stronghold of Latakia via a narrow corridor leading all the way to Turkish/Syrian border. Assad's forces, panicked by progress and fearing both a severing of their route to the North East and a sustainable break into their coastal heartland have thrown considerable resources into the fight and the battle is finely balanced.
It was this that offered the wider context in which the Turkish shot down a Syrian warplane last week. The aircraft wasn't taken out by ground to air, it was taken out by Turkish air force fighters as the Turkish seek to restrict the actions of the Syrian airforce close to the border and provide a stronger logistical base for the insurgent assault.
The question is why now? Turkey has had a hokey cokey policy that rivalled that of the US. Two reasons are being put forward, Turkish domestic politics and/or developments to the Turkish north in Ukraine.
The problem is that the Turkish government may be at odds with its own military. Some of the generals who have been on the wrong end of Prime Minister Erdogan before, are reportedly very cool on getting too directly involved....hence the leaks on Youtube of reported conversations between senior Turkish officials suggesting a Tonkin moment.
I agree that Andy Burnham is the best of the front bench at communicating, and also has a reasonably clear direction of travel. I do not see Balls as a Blairite at all, he is a Brownite even if he pretends otherwise.
Liz Kendall is the one to watch though, a star in the making.
I'm using "Blairite" and "NewLabourite" interchangeably. There's still a cult of people at the top of the party from the New Labour years (whether they were "Blairites" or "Brownites" and the paper-thin differences that were between them ideologically) who refuse to accept the New Labour method, of triangulating and bullshitting and playing short-term tactical games and trying to shrink the difference to pander to a 1990s idea of the "centre ground" and speaking in stale and formulaic soundbites, is now at best ineffective and at worst actively turns people off because people can see through it and KNOW the politicians in question are just out to get their votes rather than saying what they believe.
I don't mean ALL people who were big in the New Labour years are like that by the way, there do seem to be SOME who've woken up and realised what the public think of it. I suspect Ed Miliband is one of those who realises a New Labour "formula" is absolutely not the way to go, but he's either too weak and/or too reluctant to stir up divisions in the party to stand up to the New Labour irreconcilables like Ed Balls who are still stuck in their Westminster thinktank bubble.
It's an alliteration that newspapers like the Mirror find almost impossible to resist: Mark Menzies MP would not qualify as a 'Top Tory' under any rational definition of the term.
Was PPS to Mark Prisk, Housing and Local Government Minister. A rare Tory Scot as MP, albeit for an English constituency. Independent School on an assisted place then University of Glasgow where he was President of the Conservative Association.
Worked in marketing for Marks and Spencer, being fighting Glasgow Govan in 2001 and Selby in 2005. Thereafter A listed and selected for Fylde.
Although not openly 'out', there appears to be no pretence about his sexuality:
Since becoming an MP Menzies has made appearances at various LGBTory events held in Parliament but has never spoken openly about his sexuality. There is no mention of family life or personal relationships on his website, unlike many other MPs.
So his trangression, if that is what it is, is of contracting with a prostitute rather than being gay, although I guess the Sun won't expect its readers to make so fine a distinction. Apparently David Wooding had four Sun journalists in Brazil to get the story.
Not what Cameron would have wanted on the day that same sex marriages became lawful.
If Dave is brave and there is nothing further in the story to damn Menzies maybe a "refusal to accept resignation" is appropriate.
A difficult decision, especially as the story is not likely to have legs or do much damage.
My Mum sold a 25 year old bottle of Macallan that was given to my late Dad back in the 80's not long ago, she gave the proceeds of the sale to a deserving cause my Dad would have approved of rather than leave it to continue gathering dust in its box. We never could persuade my Dad to open it despite many years of lobbying, and the fact that Macallan was his favourite dram.
Amusing YG but take with a pinch of salt. However, to echo SeanT's extrapolation of this morning, if this direction of travel continues, we can expect to be ahead by over 2000% by next year.
tut tut, fitting a trend using just two data points. ;-)
Comments
Doesn't bother me either way, incidentally, just curious.
As for accepting French suzerainity, the number of times the Normans went to war with the French king suggests they didn't in the slightest (didn't William the Bastard actually suffered his fatal injury whilst attacking a French castle?).
The French nation state did not exist in anything like its modern form until hundreds of years after the Conquest. The Normans were allowed to have and to hold Normandy in 911 by the French king Charles the Simple who surrendered the County of Rouen to Rollo, first Duke of Normandy. Charles did so because otherwise he would have been slit up a treat by Rollo.
Scottish secretary slams complacency in unionist camp and says: 'By the time we wake up it may be too late'
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/29/alistair-carmichael-scottish-independence-poll-losing
Thus all French people would be considered English until 1707 and British post 1707
Just saying, the OE Chronicle reckoned they were French rather than Norse (by which they would have recognised Harald Hardrada & his army)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10730787/The-people-feel-ignored-and-they-are-angry.html
BTW, UKIP have revamped its web site with a major upgrade. Now works like a charm.
Worked in marketing for Marks and Spencer, being fighting Glasgow Govan in 2001 and Selby in 2005. Thereafter A listed and selected for Fylde.
Although not openly 'out', there appears to be no pretence about his sexuality:
Since becoming an MP Menzies has made appearances at various LGBTory events held in Parliament but has never spoken openly about his sexuality. There is no mention of family life or personal relationships on his website, unlike many other MPs.
So his trangression, if that is what it is, is of contracting with a prostitute rather than being gay, although I guess the Sun won't expect its readers to make so fine a distinction. Apparently David Wooding had four Sun journalists in Brazil to get the story.
Not what Cameron would have wanted on the day that same sex marriages became lawful.
If Dave is brave and there is nothing further in the story to damn Menzies maybe a "refusal to accept resignation" is appropriate.
A difficult decision, especially as the story is not likely to have legs or do much damage.
Within Labour's actual ranks there is only Balls and he is a bigger laughing stock than his boss. I don't see anyone else in the Shadow Cabinet who could mount a challenge. Alastair Darling if no wins? Maybe but that will be too late.
In short cross over will leave Labour in a horrible mess with nowhere to go. From a tory perspective I really struggle to see a downside to that.
If I recall correctly the French kings were preposterously weak in that period, having only direct control over the Ile de France region, and not until Philip Augustus did they really begin to grow in strength again.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Medieval-Europe-Constantine-Saint/dp/058278462X/
Greeks trying to claim Alexander for themselves has even less credibility as Chirac claiming out 2003 rugby world cup win as a victory for Europe.
Voted Tory once, in 1997. Sympathy vote for John Major, and protest against the undeserved coming landslide.
Unsually vote LibDem, or, in general for the underdog. Hope my vote never arrives in the winning column nationally....
John Bradley @JBcommentator 2m
I can't believe this nugget lives in my town pic.twitter.com/0msy7PiRjg
Here's the direct link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexander_the_Great
On a related matter, sex scandal wise, there was that story of the american General recently who was on trial for various sexual harrassment and assault offences, and while most of those charges were dropped for various reasons, he was found guilty of adultery, which to my amazement is a crime for members of the american military. I've no idea if such a rule is on the books for our military, but it sounds incredibly stupid on the face of it (I'm sure the reasoning behind it is fascinating). Imagine if it was illegal for politicians to committ adultery.
For the non-golfists among you, Phil Mickelson has withdrawn from the third round of the Valero Texas Open with an oblique problem.
He is flying home to California tomorrow to have it checked out.
Tiger is fighting a back problem wth a bulging disc, so The Masters in a couple of weeks could be interesting.
Anyway, I am off for the night. Don't forget about the clocks going forward and the race starting at 9am.
Could have got The Sun to recognise you as a "Top Labour" politician in no time!
Honestly, me waking up before 9am on a Sunday is a rare occurrence.
The French Kings were preposterously weak mainly because they did not actually control France or I suppose you could say the Ile De France was France. The rest of the place was owned by Burgundy, Brittany, some odds and sods counts and, of course, the English (post 1066). That situation lasted centuries, even Napoleon was forced to send troops areas of France to get them to join in with his project.
No, neither, will check them out, I enjoy standard Talisker and sell it in the pub.
I have a bottle of 18 year Glenlivet and two bottles of Arran founders reserve, both marvellous
However it does seem to be a point that has been heavily discussed recently and I doubt you will over-turn that consensus although consensus can change.
While I'm here, the annual megaconference for Wikipedians (and users of similar projects) is being hosted in London in the first week of August (8th to 10th, IIRC). The original bid did have some political support, so when I can I'll let pbers know if it may be of interest.
I agree that a leadership change would not be an automatic panacea, because frankly most of the shadow cabinet are even worse at speaking like humanbeings than Ed is. The only exceptions are Alan Johnson and Andy Burnham. I think the public would quite like Johnson as a personality (despite the sneering from the Westminster media about him being "too stupid" when he was shadow chancellor, which to this day I still think was class-based snobbishness), but he doesn't really seem to stand anything in particular and thus would probably suffer the same problems of drift that Ed has and not driving home any real role or definition for Labour. My choice would be Burnham since he can actually speak like a humanbeing and seems to actually have a clear idea of what Labour should be for (an idea which seems to be- gasp! - quite leftwing).
I understand the rest of the UK is following suit. Where PB leads ....
Tonight's @YouGov poll has Labour on 40 with Tories on 33 (Opinium has Lab 33, Tories 32.)
STimes so unsure of their own pollster's results that they quote the Observer's Opinium lead of 1% in the very next line!
Oh bugger !!!!!!!!!!
Once Mark Senior has looked at the internals, we will know why YouGov has delivered an outllier.
Extends Basil's quality end-of-life care. Just don't expect too much of him in the circumstances.
If by voting Labour we could really go back to the 1970s they would probably win a landslide.
Off to order another box of tramadol.
Liz Kendall is the one to watch though, a star in the making.
He struggles to relate to traditional Labour supporters but he is by no means alone in that in the leadership stakes. I think it is increasingly difficult for anyone "normal" to make it to the top of the greasy pole. It simply requires too much focus and too many compromises for a normal person to stomach.
My mother in law is a Labour supporter of 50 years plus standing. She told me that she voted for Burnham for much the reasons you say. His sense of direction made, in my view, relatively little sense but at least he had one.
Labour has, in my view, completely failed to come to terms with the Brown disaster. It was a disaster of such magnitude that it is hard for anyone to come to terms with but for Labour it means living and seeking to rule a country that will be cutting and cutting for the rest of these politicians' lives, making horrible choices and hurting the weak. It is a dismal prospect and denial is an understandable response.
I though the talk wasn't of scrapping BST, but rather of moving onto DOUBLE BST - which would also have the advantage of aligning the UK with most of the rest of Western Europe.
No other parties scores listed.
New members sign up still goes thru Dataware online
http://www.subscriber.co.uk/Subscriber/Online-Services
While the footer of each page carries a Nationware boilerplate, so presumably the new website is built on that.
http://nationbuilder.com
EDIT
Donations and volunteer sign up seem to be going thru Nationbuilder.
There's clearly been a shift since the budget. Presumaby the Tories have boosted their lead amongst pensioners but we need a poll with a proper breakdown. I was sceptical of that tactic, trying to squeeze more juice out of the orange, but maybe it's worked.
Turkey bans Twitter, Turkey bans Youtube. The pretext is explosive revelations that the Turkish government is looking an excuse to load into Syria and, potentially, tip the balance.
As it stands, they are already providing their most forceful support for insurgents yet, one of the reasons why the civil war suddenly turned up in the Alawite stronghold of Latakia via a narrow corridor leading all the way to Turkish/Syrian border. Assad's forces, panicked by progress and fearing both a severing of their route to the North East and a sustainable break into their coastal heartland have thrown considerable resources into the fight and the battle is finely balanced.
It was this that offered the wider context in which the Turkish shot down a Syrian warplane last week. The aircraft wasn't taken out by ground to air, it was taken out by Turkish air force fighters as the Turkish seek to restrict the actions of the Syrian airforce close to the border and provide a stronger logistical base for the insurgent assault.
The question is why now? Turkey has had a hokey cokey policy that rivalled that of the US. Two reasons are being put forward, Turkish domestic politics and/or developments to the Turkish north in Ukraine.
The problem is that the Turkish government may be at odds with its own military. Some of the generals who have been on the wrong end of Prime Minister Erdogan before, are reportedly very cool on getting too directly involved....hence the leaks on Youtube of reported conversations between senior Turkish officials suggesting a Tonkin moment.
I don't mean ALL people who were big in the New Labour years are like that by the way, there do seem to be SOME who've woken up and realised what the public think of it. I suspect Ed Miliband is one of those who realises a New Labour "formula" is absolutely not the way to go, but he's either too weak and/or too reluctant to stir up divisions in the party to stand up to the New Labour irreconcilables like Ed Balls who are still stuck in their Westminster thinktank bubble.
I fear standards are slipping at the Sunday Sport.