Re expenses for MPs: someone said (apologies cannot remember who) that - "we'd like a system that was fair, simple and honest."
Well, yes: why can't MPs claim expenses which under Inland Revenue rules would be allowable, just like the rest of us? In short, I can't claim for travel to/from my place of work so neither should MPs.
Really, what is the problem with subjecting MPs to the same laws as the rest of us?
That's one of the reasons a flat-salary system might be best, travel expenses excepted.
The other day I mentioned colleagues and associates that travel great distance for work from their homes. But that is their choice; they could choose to be nearer. It is their responsibility to ensure they are in the office when required, and do not get expenses for that travel. Some stay over locally during the week; again, they do not get rent paid.
The problem is that being an MP is not an ordinary job. An MP has two workplaces: the House of Commons and his/her constituency, and these can be at opposite ends of the country. Add in some fairly unsociable working hours (the HoC sittings not being the least), and you have a fairly unusual, or possibly unique, occupation in terms of requirements.
Therefore the HoC and the constituency are both work places, and travel between them should be claimable IMHO.
Let that be decided by the Inland Revenue in accordance with the tax laws which apply to all of us, MPs included. There really is no need to have some special rules for MPs. They get a salary and they claim those expenses which are allowable under our tax laws. Simples.
Honestly, do MPs really think that they are the only people in the country who work unsociable hours? What piffle!
Re expenses for MPs: someone said (apologies cannot remember who) that - "we'd like a system that was fair, simple and honest."
Well, yes: why can't MPs claim expenses which under Inland Revenue rules would be allowable, just like the rest of us? In short, I can't claim for travel to/from my place of work so neither should MPs.
Really, what is the problem with subjecting MPs to the same laws as the rest of us?
That's one of the reasons a flat-salary system might be best, travel expenses excepted.
The other day I mentioned colleagues and associates that travel great distance for work from their homes. But that is their choice; they could choose to be nearer. It is their responsibility to ensure they are in the office when required, and do not get expenses for that travel. Some stay over locally during the week; again, they do not get rent paid.
The problem is that being an MP is not an ordinary job. An MP has two workplaces: the House of Commons and his/her constituency, and these can be at opposite ends of the country. Add in some fairly unsociable working hours (the HoC sittings not being the least), and you have a fairly unusual, or possibly unique, occupation in terms of requirements.
Therefore the HoC and the constituency are both work places, and travel between them should be claimable IMHO.
A sales rep could well have his sales area at the other end of the country from the head office and have therefore 2 workplaces the same as an MP so the latter is neither fairly unusual and certainly not unique .
Even then, it's far from analogous, and I wonder how common that is (at least where he needs to very frequently visit head office). But for those people, they should get travel expenses between the two.
Cameron should also fire Grant Shapps at the same time. Or at least move him from CCHQ immediately. It must be so difficult for senior management to work when they know that someone with new ideas will be coming in in a 6 weeks.
The Tories are making exactly the same mistakes as what cost them the last general election.
Where were you when all the Labour MP's were going to jail?
MPs in Scottish seats are to be removed from the rUK Lower Legislature
why would the likes of Reid, Browne, Forsyth and dozens of others be allowed to remain in the rUK Upper Legislature when they are only there by virtue of the fact they are...
former MPs in Scottish seats?
Some of us DID actually point out at the time the more amusing omissions from Clegg's half-hearted and hastily thought through Lords Reform package. Before it was booted into touch.
MPs in Scottish seats are to be removed from the rUK Lower Legislature
why would the likes of Reid, Browne, Forsyth and dozens of others be allowed to remain in the rUK Upper Legislature when they are only there by virtue of the fact they are...
former MPs in Scottish seats?
It's notable that a large number of Scottish politicians will be placed in difficulty by a Yes vote but it seems that no English, Welsh or Irish politicians are in similar jeopardy. Most odd.
I almost, though not quite, feel sorry for Maria Miller. Many other MPs have done similar or worse, but I think James Kirkip is right in the Telegraph, in that it was her gracelessness and evasiveness (as reported) about the whole affair which has given the story far more legs than it would otherwise have had. I don't like what she did, but I haven't thought it a resignation matter, but I've been surprised how much ire the story has whipped up, so it may well mean she does end up going in the end, like Mitchell (whose 'offense' was far less in any case)
''Considering they know for sure their benefits will be cut if it is a NO vote , but may not be cut on a YES vote it is not a hard decision for them. Labour are a busted flush in Scotland. ''
I wonder what the future is for a country where the benefit vote is decisive...
Since it will be a close decision , every vote is decisive. The future for the country will be bright if the vote is YES. Have to feel sorry for Wales if that is the case.
The most public sector and benefits dependent region of the country is going to vote for independence to stand on its own two feet? Because all of a sudden you're too proud to take English money?
For anyone interested in the Snowden revelations, today's Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner (HC 1184) is mandatory reading.
That's the killer fact for those tories complacent enough to think they can just forget about the kippers after this May's EU and local elections.
Are there any tories that complacent? I think most tories are terrified of UKIP in the Euros.
That's the point. It's not really the Euros you should be worried about. It's afterwards. If the kippers simply do what they did last year and finish higher than they did when they started in VI then the tories are looking at a 2015 general election campaign with the kippers at this level or even a bit above it. The consequences of which would be outright panic from many tory MPs.
There will be a kipper rise and then a kipper fall after this May's elections. That's what happened the last time after all. It's when that all shakes out that you need to worry about where the kippers stand. What the tories do after the EU elections will be of crucial importance.
MPs in Scottish seats are to be removed from the rUK Lower Legislature
why would the likes of Reid, Browne, Forsyth and dozens of others be allowed to remain in the rUK Upper Legislature when they are only there by virtue of the fact they are...
former MPs in Scottish seats?
In technical terms they were appointed as life peers to the UK and would continue as that for the continuing UK. Their background is not a part of their current position as it were.
Since it will be a close decision , every vote is decisive. The future for the country will be bright if the vote is YES. Have to feel sorry for Wales if that is the case.
Scotland has at least a fighting chance of being self supporting, whereas Wales is a supplicant state where more than 60% of the economy is the government. Wales lives or dies on the size of the cheque from westminster each year (currently around 15bn).
Without that cheque the austerity needed to balance the books would make Greece look like a walk in the park.
If Cameron plans to get rid of Maria Miller after the euros he should just do it now.
GIven Cameron's stubborness on such matters, and his own natural indecisiveness, I can understand why he would drag things out even if it ended up being more damaging. After all, some of the same people who criticised him for not sacking Mitchell sooner later criticised him for having sacked him too soon, when it became apparent it was not a simple matter at all (or rather it was, but misconduct clouded the waters), which probably adds to his reluctance even more
This case appears far less complicated (Miller at least actually did do something provably wrong and was forced to apologise for it), but perhaps he feels in such cases if you stick by them as long as you can, they will remain loyal and supportive even after you finally bow to public pressure and sack them, while the case itself may be a handy distraction without too much blowback on the party as a whole (I think that is usually risky, but given the perception is that all MPs are fiddling expenses, more likely to be true in this case than others).
The most public sector and benefits dependent region of the country is going to vote for independence to stand on its own two feet? Because all of a sudden you're too proud to take English money?
When did all that change?
Ha Ha Ha , the mask slips Bond. Does that English money = UK money or is it a different currency you have in mind.
Re expenses for MPs: someone said (apologies cannot remember who) that - "we'd like a system that was fair, simple and honest."
Well, yes: why can't MPs claim expenses which under Inland Revenue rules would be allowable, just like the rest of us? In short, I can't claim for travel to/from my place of work so neither should MPs.
Really, what is the problem with subjecting MPs to the same laws as the rest of us?
MPs in Scottish seats are to be removed from the rUK Lower Legislature
why would the likes of Reid, Browne, Forsyth and dozens of others be allowed to remain in the rUK Upper Legislature when they are only there by virtue of the fact they are...
former MPs in Scottish seats?
In technical terms they were appointed as life peers to the UK and would continue as that for the continuing UK. Their background is not a part of their current position as it were.
Conceivably an independent Scotland could have an upper house of sorts (elected or not) and they may be asked to step down from rUK's upper chamber to contest it.
That's all very well malcolm but what the about witless fools who believe everything they read in the Daily Mail? They need Dacre to tell them what to think about benefit and subsidy myths after all.
For anyone interested in the Snowden revelations, today's Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner (HC 1184) is mandatory reading.
Just glancing at it, some of the language is much more frank than I would expect of an official report, but then I have not read many. eg.
Is the [IOC Commisioner] fully independent of the government and the public authorities?
Yes. I should regard any serious suggestion otherwise as offensive
[Referring to previous reports] A sceptical reader might say or think - and some did - that parts of these reports have been bland, uncriticial and lacking in corroborative detail.
Judging from such excepts, perhaps it is worth a read after all, in that it might actually be readable.
Re expenses for MPs: someone said (apologies cannot remember who) that - "we'd like a system that was fair, simple and honest."
Well, yes: why can't MPs claim expenses which under Inland Revenue rules would be allowable, just like the rest of us? In short, I can't claim for travel to/from my place of work so neither should MPs.
Really, what is the problem with subjecting MPs to the same laws as the rest of us?
That's one of the reasons a flat-salary system might be best, travel expenses excepted.
The other day I mentioned colleagues and associates that travel great distance for work from their homes. But that is their choice; they could choose to be nearer. It is their responsibility to ensure they are in the office when required, and do not get expenses for that travel. Some stay over locally during the week; again, they do not get rent paid.
The problem is that being an MP is not an ordinary job. An MP has two workplaces: the House of Commons and his/her constituency, and these can be at opposite ends of the country. Add in some fairly unsociable working hours (the HoC sittings not being the least), and you have a fairly unusual, or possibly unique, occupation in terms of requirements.
Therefore the HoC and the constituency are both work places, and travel between them should be claimable IMHO.
Let that be decided by the Inland Revenue in accordance with the tax laws which apply to all of us, MPs included. There really is no need to have some special rules for MPs. They get a salary and they claim those expenses which are allowable under our tax laws. Simples.
Honestly, do MPs really think that they are the only people in the country who work unsociable hours? What piffle!
What 'unsociable hours'? No more late night sittings, no early starts, fewer week days in the HoC to spend more time in constituencies.
It's a bit like the moaning GPs who 'negotiated' more money for fewer hours.
Can Life Peers voluntarily give up their Peerages as Hereditary Peers are able to do? Those appointed on the basis of public service in Scotland could choose to remain in place in the Parliament to which they were appointed, or give up their right to sit there to contest some other upper house arrangement (if Scotland would have one, I do not recall if they have decided on unicameralism or bicameralism), or just stick around in both? I would guess there is a rule that you cannot be an MP in the UK if you are an MP in another country, though I do not know that for a fact, but appointed title in one country and elected official in another seems more likely to be acceptable.
In truth I would find such questions fascinating were they not dependent on the fracturing of my own sense of national identity.
The main question is why not get rid of Shapps now? You can't run an organisation when people know you are on the way out.
Long term decisions important for the general election won't be being made now - delay will prove devastating.
That one is indeed a better question. I would guess Cameron's grip on the party is so slight he is not able to make a major shift unless the co-ordinator is proven unequivocally to not be working, as the party coming third in the Euros. Or he really thinks Shapps is doing a fine job, which given the delusions of some Tories of being more likely to get a plurality than Labour a majority, may well be the case.
Re expenses for MPs: someone said (apologies cannot remember who) that - "we'd like a system that was fair, simple and honest."
Well, yes: why can't MPs claim expenses which under Inland Revenue rules would be allowable, just like the rest of us? In short, I can't claim for travel to/from my place of work so neither should MPs.
Really, what is the problem with subjecting MPs to the same laws as the rest of us?
Not sure I understand the question. In most cases the criticism is not of their tax returns but the expenses allowed by their employers (technically the House). Travel is a relatively minor part of it for many MPs, though it does seem to me that the MP for the Western Isles is entitled to claim a travel allowance that the MP for Westminster cannot. There aren't many jobs which require you to commute weekly the length of Britain.
The main issue, as ever, is housing. Under the current system, MPs can only claim for rent, and only up to sometghing like £11,000/year (forgotten the exact figure), which will rent a very small flat in London (e.g. my 1-bed flat in Holloway is £15000/year), and only if they're not within reasonable commute of London. I'm not convinced that's unreasonable. The cases that are attracting attention, such as Ms Miller (on whom I'm not commenting as I've not followed the details and am wary of press frenzies), relate to the old system.
That's all very well malcolm but what the about witless fools who believe everything they read in the Daily Mail? They need Dacre to tell them what to think about benefit and subsidy myths after all.
But Cameron has allowed briefing against Shapps. So he obviously doesn't rate him. Or rather Crosby doesn't rate him. Shapps obviously wants to run the mechanics of CCHQ on a day to day basis which will obviously cut across Crosby.
Get in a northern women who is just a figure head and everyone is happy...
Can Life Peers voluntarily give up their Peerages as Hereditary Peers are able to do? Those appointed on the basis of public service in Scotland could choose to remain in place in the Parliament to which they were appointed, or give up their right to sit there to contest some other upper house arrangement (if Scotland would have one, I do not recall if they have decided on unicameralism or bicameralism), or just stick around in both? I would guess there is a rule that you cannot be an MP in the UK if you are an MP in another country, though I do not know that for a fact, but appointed title in one country and elected official in another seems more likely to be acceptable.
In truth I would find such questions fascinating were they not dependent on the fracturing of my own sense of national identity.
The main question is why not get rid of Shapps now? You can't run an organisation when people know you are on the way out.
Long term decisions important for the general election won't be being made now - delay will prove devastating.
Why would you ditch a man who can reduce the usual suspects to near apoplexy over beer and bingo? It was amusing as the "new media" that certain posters on here are so taken by, was in paroxysms of outrage, and how much did it register with the great British public? Nanda, nothing. All that wasted energy mounting high horses was delightful to watch.
If you think the "no" voters are weak-spined losers that are happy to be serfs, presumably that means, if there's a no vote, the Scots as a nation are majority weak-spined serfs?
Cameron wants him gone not me. I am just marveling at the incompetence of his leadership. A change of senior leadership of that magnitude is not what you want 10 months out from a general.
Re expenses for MPs: someone said (apologies cannot remember who) that - "we'd like a system that was fair, simple and honest."
Well, yes: why can't MPs claim expenses which under Inland Revenue rules would be allowable, just like the rest of us? In short, I can't claim for travel to/from my place of work so neither should MPs.
Really, what is the problem with subjecting MPs to the same laws as the rest of us?
Not sure I understand the question. In most cases the criticism is not of their tax returns but the expenses allowed by their employers (technically the House). Travel is a relatively minor part of it for many MPs, though it does seem to me that the MP for the Western Isles is entitled to claim a travel allowance that the MP for Westminster cannot. There aren't many jobs which require you to commute weekly the length of Britain.
The main issue, as ever, is housing. Under the current system, MPs can only claim for rent, and only up to sometghing like £11,000/year (forgotten the exact figure), which will rent a very small flat in London (e.g. my 1-bed flat in Holloway is £15000/year), and only if they're not within reasonable commute of London. I'm not convinced that's unreasonable. The cases that are attracting attention, such as Ms Miller (on whom I'm not commenting as I've not followed the details and am wary of press frenzies), relate to the old system.
That we are still seeing cases under the old system only just being determined is a sorry tale in of itself. Such matters can be surprisingly complex, especially when the old system was, it appears, not fit for purpose and many of those who partook of it not truly repentent (the criticism of MPs in general does reach absurd heights and the hard work of MPs is not recognised, but far far too many clearly did not believe they had done anything wrong, relying on the 'was within the rules' defence for clear acts of unreasonable claiming) but given how much parliamentarians must wish for the country to move on from the affair and go from derisive contempt to the more normal unfair stygma politicians operate under, why so far into this parliament are cases under the old system only just reaching their apex and punishments?
Your wariness of press frenzies is certainly commendable, although given they are a weapon used against and by the political classes (or at least the leadership of those classes) against their opponents, you may be in the wrong line of work in that case.
If you think the "no" voters are weak-spined losers that are happy to be serfs, presumably that means, if there's a no vote, the Scots as a nation are majority weak-spined serfs?
Yes it would mean more than 50% vote to let another country make their decisions for them and that is pathetic in my estimation.
If you think the "no" voters are weak-spined losers that are happy to be serfs, presumably that means, if there's a no vote, the Scots as a nation are majority weak-spined serfs?
Yes it would mean more than 50% vote to let another country make their decisions for them and that is pathetic in my estimation.
Lol but your voting for that anyway with currency union and EU membership.
Remember you'll be sat 20 places away from Mrs Merkel on that top table. Cameron will still be sat alongside her.
Cameron wants him gone not me. I am just marveling at the incompetence of his leadership. A change of senior leadership of that magnitude is not what you want 10 months out from a general.
Of course you are. How do you think Labour's election machine is getting on? Douglas Alexander et al aren't exactly setting the world on fire are they. Who should be sacked?
If you think the "no" voters are weak-spined losers that are happy to be serfs, presumably that means, if there's a no vote, the Scots as a nation are majority weak-spined serfs?
Yes it would mean more than 50% vote to let another country make their decisions for them and that is pathetic in my estimation.
You pity them and you would find them pathetic for what they believe about the future of Scotland. I'll grant SeanT extrapolated too far by taking the pity line to meaning you despise them as traitors, but your description of them above does contain a high level of contempt (fortuantely there appears to be mutual contempt in play, so at least it isn't one sided).
Given the bitterness that already exists on both sides of this fight and which will intensify yet further whatever the result, perhaps we could all agree that on certain days we'll refer to our opponents as merely deeply misguided instead (for instance, I very much doubt those who vote to stay would agree they were letting another country make their decisions for them). We could alternate which side takes the high road on specific days.
For my part, I'll try to sound less smugly self-satisfied tomorrow, though it won't be easy. Calling attention to it in an attempt to deflate it is difficult enough.
If you think the "no" voters are weak-spined losers that are happy to be serfs, presumably that means, if there's a no vote, the Scots as a nation are majority weak-spined serfs?
Yes it would mean more than 50% vote to let another country make their decisions for them and that is pathetic in my estimation.
I now seem to be Britain's most influential commenter on Scottish independence, or, if malcomg is reading: Ah noo seem tae be th' most influential commentatur oan scottash independence ain bri'ain.
So the potential break up of the UK has been good for me personally, which is surely the main thing.
You missed point number 5(which should actually should be no 1) The cr@p campaign by Alistair Darling and the NO team,even today we get more negative stories,this time by George Robertson,unbelievable.
Scottish independence: Lord Robertson says Yes vote 'would be cataclysmic'
I would guess there is a rule that you cannot be an MP in the UK if you are an MP in another country, though I do not know that for a fact.
It is lawful to be simultaneously a Westminster MP and a Commonwealth legislature MP... Although I don't think there's been one.
Damn, I was about to make a joke about the former PM of Thailand being an Old Etonian, which is about the same thing as being a Westminster MP, but it turns out Thailand is not in the Commonwealth! Curses.
In all seriousness that is a very interesting rule, which I would like to see in operation one day, not to mention in keeping with our increasingly global world.
In all seriousness that is a very interesting rule, which I would like to see in operation one day, not to mention in keeping with our increasingly global world.
blockquote class="Quote" rel="Bond_James_Bond">It's unclear whom the Yessers hate more: the English or the Noers.
You're conveniently forgetting that the SNP and the Yes campaign have plenty of English (or at any rate people born down south who have come up here to live and work).
I know the No campaign is always going on about foreigner this, foreigner that, but it doesn't mean their opponents are.
In all seriousness that is a very interesting rule, which I would like to see in operation one day, not to mention in keeping with our increasingly global world.
Really? Think of the expenses man! The Expenses!
Hey, if we want to compete in a global world, that means our corruption has to keep up too. None of this fiddling to pay for packets of biscuits and second home allowance or house flipping; I'm talking millions! (Again being serious, my wish to see it happen is more out of academic curiousity than anything else)
On another subject, Cameron, Clegg and Milband all sat togehter for the visit of the Irish president, and of course wearing blue tie, yellow tie and red tie respectively (Cameron's may have been slightly purplely, couldn't tell from the brief clip). It's becoming a pet peeve of mine that the leaders do sometimes appear to be making the case for their opponents that there is literally no distinction between them other than the colour of their party rosette on election day, as they feel the need to make it clear via sartorial choices which is which, as I guess we could not tell otherwise?
I now seem to be Britain's most influential commenter on Scottish independence, or, if malcomg is reading: Ah noo seem tae be th' most influential commentatur oan scottash independence ain bri'ain.
So the potential break up of the UK has been good for me personally, which is surely the main thing.
You missed point number 5(which should actually should be no 1) The cr@p campaign by Alistair Darling and the NO team,even today we get more negative stories,this time by George Robertson,unbelievable.
Scottish independence: Lord Robertson says Yes vote 'would be cataclysmic'
BT have really surpassed themselves today. They seem to be determine to take the mistakes of the 1997 Think Twice campaign and chuck in the election losing tactics of the 2007 and 2011 Labour Holyrood campaigns, just to be on the safe side.
Brian Monteith's woeful and negative campaign in '97 led to 75% Yes - some people going hell for leather on 'Project Fear' would do well to reflect on this.
I think you misunderstand what the role of people like Alexander is. The last thing they should be doing is setting the world on fire. They should we managing a large bureaucracy towards a stated aim.
Alexander is good at this sort of stuff though. I rate him.
Frankly, I think it's outrageous that Commonwealth citizens get to vote in our elections. If you're not even British, why should be part of our demos when it comes to our democracy? This is even worse when in most cases it's not a reciprocal right. I'd like to think UKIP could take this up as a campaign.
Ed Balls appears to have no other idea on how to respond to good UK growth numbers from the IMF....
Ed Balls@edballsmp·7 hrs These IMF forecasts are welcome after 3 damaging years when our economy has flatlined & GDP forecasts have been repeatedly downgraded..
Hercule de Fool@TransAlpUK·6 hrs Every time the IMF brings us good news, @edballsmp makes the same comment:
I think you misunderstand what the role of people like Alexander is. The last thing they should be doing is setting the world on fire. They should we managing a large bureaucracy towards a stated aim.
Alexander is good at this sort of stuff though. I rate him.
What about all the people who brief against him? Do you rate them or despite stating that anyone who briefed against colleagues would be sacked, as Ed did, do you just ignore them?
Louise Mensch@LouiseMensch·19 secs Balls, 2014 "After three damaging years flatlining, any growth is both welcome & long overdue. But this the slowest recovery for 100 years" Expand Reply
Louise Mensch@LouiseMensch·2 mins Balls, 2013 "After three wasted years flatlining it’s good that we finally have some growth. But this is the slowest recovery for 100 yrs"
They need a three pronged approach, 1. lots of Labour and LD grandees like Charles Kennedy and Gordon Brown making passionate positive pleas for the union - 300 years of history, NHS and empire, culture and Olympics - then 2. some nastier types (John Reid?) ALSO making the negative case (because it is effective; esp relentless focus on the currency, deficit, and EU).
And finally, perhaps most importantly, 3: Labour need to get off their butts and go knocking on humble doors, day after day, in Govan and the Gorbals, scaring the bejasus out of Labour voters as to their future benefits, tax credits and pensions, with an impoverished indy Scotland facing declining oil revenues.
And maybe 4. HMG should start secretly and illegally funelling loads of money into the NO campaign. Millions and millions. This is the future of the country we're talking about. Let the Nats sue. F*ck em.
I've said from the beginning that the Unionist argument had to always be routed in shared heritage and common identity. For years and years, Westminster politicians have tried to make the case based on economics alone. Economics matters of course, but people ultimately make these decisions long term on where they feel their allegiance lies. But the big unionist parties have always been scared to do so, because they're all Europhiles and a proud British identity would get in the way of that. The result has been a precipitous drop off in British identity in Scotland.
I actually think, following a no vote, we'll have one last chance to resurrect British nationhood in the eyes of people across this island. But we'll need politicians who actually believe in it, rather than the current careerist, poll-focused muppets we currently have in there.
Just watching it, you can see he passionately believes in something, follows the issues in depth because of his care for them, and is worried great harm will come to people if his warnings aren't heeded. When do you ever feel that listening to polished spads like Clegg, Cameron and Miliband?
Minor disagreements are natural and productive. Played up by the press which is all part of the game. What Alexander has done is side line community organising. With 3 big elections in 14 months this is a good thing.
If you think the "no" voters are weak-spined losers that are happy to be serfs, presumably that means, if there's a no vote, the Scots as a nation are majority weak-spined serfs?
Yes it would mean more than 50% vote to let another country make their decisions for them and that is pathetic in my estimation.
You think that rather than them disagreeing with you that the UK counts as 'another country' to them.
Minor disagreements are natural and productive. Played up by the press which is all part of the game. What Alexander has done is side line community organising. With 3 big elections in 14 months this is a good thing.
Ahh, got it, Labour minor disagreements = a good thing, Tory minor disagreements = chaos worthy of sackings.
They need a three pronged approach, 1. lots of Labour and LD grandees like Charles Kennedy and Gordon Brown making passionate positive pleas for the union - 300 years of history, NHS and empire, culture and Olympics - then 2. some nastier types (John Reid?) ALSO making the negative case (because it is effective; esp relentless focus on the currency, deficit, and EU).
And finally, perhaps most importantly, 3: Labour need to get off their butts and go knocking on humble doors, day after day, in Govan and the Gorbals, scaring the bejasus out of Labour voters as to their future benefits, tax credits and pensions, with an impoverished indy Scotland facing declining oil revenues.
And maybe 4. HMG should start secretly and illegally funelling loads of money into the NO campaign. Millions and millions. This is the future of the country we're talking about. Let the Nats sue. F*ck em.
I've said from the beginning that the Unionist argument had to always be routed in shared heritage and common identity. For years and years, Westminster politicians have tried to make the case based on economics alone. Economics matters of course, but people ultimately make these decisions long term on where they feel their allegiance lies. But the big unionist parties have always been scared to do so, because they're all Europhiles and a proud British identity would get in the way of that. The result has been a precipitous drop off in British identity in Scotland.
I actually think, following a no vote, we'll have one last chance to resurrect British nationhood in the eyes of people across this island. But we'll need politicians who actually believe in it, rather than the current careerist, poll-focused muppets we currently have in there.
Just watching it, you can see he passionately believes in something, follows the issues in depth because of his care for them, and is worried great harm will come to people if his warnings aren't heeded. When do you ever feel that listening to polished spads like Clegg, Cameron and Miliband?
Rarely. The problem with their professional polish, naturally, is that because they are so aware of how they want each statement to be perceived, they manage each statement with great care. That does not mean that when they adopt a 'serious and sincere' face and tone that they do not mean it of course, but they are very very very aware of how they want that serious and sincere message put across, which works fine one on one, for the most part, but if everyone is doing it in a PPB or debate, it looks fake even when it isn't.
A new YouGov survey finds that unprompted, most people (62%) do indeed think that Maria Miller should resign; however the majority (52%) say the same of Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.
To the questions: "Should remain in current Role" and "Should resign from their role and be replaced"
Maria Miller: 9 remain and 63 resign Nick Clegg: 23/52 Michael Gove: 27/47 Ed Milliband: 33/46 Vince Cable: 30/40 Ed Balls: 35/40 IDS: 38/37 George Osborn: 42/37 David Cameron: 51/32 Theresa May: 43/30
Comments
Honestly, do MPs really think that they are the only people in the country who work unsociable hours? What piffle!
UKIP in Thurrock 3.4%
UKIP Nationally 1.5%
GE 2005
Thurrock 3.4%
National 2.2%
GE 2010
Thurrock 7.4%
National 3.3%
So roughly about double the national vote, 2.25 times in fact in 2010
http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/11129715.Basingstoke_MP_Maria_Miller_under_pressure_to__quit-or-resign/
Speechless. Nearly.
The most public sector and benefits dependent region of the country is going to vote for independence to stand on its own two feet? Because all of a sudden you're too proud to take English money?
When did all that change?
There will be a kipper rise and then a kipper fall after this May's elections. That's what happened the last time after all. It's when that all shakes out that you need to worry about where the kippers stand. What the tories do after the EU elections will be of crucial importance.
Scotland has at least a fighting chance of being self supporting, whereas Wales is a supplicant state where more than 60% of the economy is the government. Wales lives or dies on the size of the cheque from westminster each year (currently around 15bn).
Without that cheque the austerity needed to balance the books would make Greece look like a walk in the park.
This case appears far less complicated (Miller at least actually did do something provably wrong and was forced to apologise for it), but perhaps he feels in such cases if you stick by them as long as you can, they will remain loyal and supportive even after you finally bow to public pressure and sack them, while the case itself may be a handy distraction without too much blowback on the party as a whole (I think that is usually risky, but given the perception is that all MPs are fiddling expenses, more likely to be true in this case than others).
Con, Basingstoke: Maria Miller.
http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/11134268.Maria_Miller__will_not_resign__say_Hampshire_Conservatives/?ref=var_0
That's all very well malcolm but what the about witless fools who believe everything they read in the Daily Mail? They need Dacre to tell them what to think about benefit and subsidy myths after all.
Is the [IOC Commisioner] fully independent of the government and the public authorities?
Yes. I should regard any serious suggestion otherwise as offensive
[Referring to previous reports] A sceptical reader might say or think - and some did - that parts of these reports have been bland, uncriticial and lacking in corroborative detail.
Judging from such excepts, perhaps it is worth a read after all, in that it might actually be readable.
It's a bit like the moaning GPs who 'negotiated' more money for fewer hours.
The main question is why not get rid of Shapps now? You can't run an organisation when people know you are on the way out.
Long term decisions important for the general election won't be being made now - delay will prove devastating.
In truth I would find such questions fascinating were they not dependent on the fracturing of my own sense of national identity.
The main issue, as ever, is housing. Under the current system, MPs can only claim for rent, and only up to sometghing like £11,000/year (forgotten the exact figure), which will rent a very small flat in London (e.g. my 1-bed flat in Holloway is £15000/year), and only if they're not within reasonable commute of London. I'm not convinced that's unreasonable. The cases that are attracting attention, such as Ms Miller (on whom I'm not commenting as I've not followed the details and am wary of press frenzies), relate to the old system.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/04/01/douglas-alexander-in-the-firing-line-cui-bono/
http://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/browse/council-and-democracy/councillors-democracy-and-elections/elections/results/2013/default.htm
But Cameron has allowed briefing against Shapps. So he obviously doesn't rate him. Or rather Crosby doesn't rate him. Shapps obviously wants to run the mechanics of CCHQ on a day to day basis which will obviously cut across Crosby.
Get in a northern women who is just a figure head and everyone is happy...
The Four Streets by Nadine Dorries, review: 'the worst novel I've read in 10 years'
If you think the "no" voters are weak-spined losers that are happy to be serfs, presumably that means, if there's a no vote, the Scots as a nation are majority weak-spined serfs?
Cameron wants him gone not me. I am just marveling at the incompetence of his leadership. A change of senior leadership of that magnitude is not what you want 10 months out from a general.
Your wariness of press frenzies is certainly commendable, although given they are a weapon used against and by the political classes (or at least the leadership of those classes) against their opponents, you may be in the wrong line of work in that case.
Although I don't think there's been one.
Remember you'll be sat 20 places away from Mrs Merkel on that top table. Cameron will still be sat alongside her.
Given the bitterness that already exists on both sides of this fight and which will intensify yet further whatever the result, perhaps we could all agree that on certain days we'll refer to our opponents as merely deeply misguided instead (for instance, I very much doubt those who vote to stay would agree they were letting another country make their decisions for them). We could alternate which side takes the high road on specific days.
For my part, I'll try to sound less smugly self-satisfied tomorrow, though it won't be easy. Calling attention to it in an attempt to deflate it is difficult enough.
Scottish independence: Lord Robertson says Yes vote 'would be cataclysmic'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26933998
No balaclava in sight.
In all seriousness that is a very interesting rule, which I would like to see in operation one day, not to mention in keeping with our increasingly global world.
blockquote class="Quote" rel="Bond_James_Bond">It's unclear whom the Yessers hate more: the English or the Noers.
You're conveniently forgetting that the SNP and the Yes campaign have plenty of English (or at any rate people born down south who have come up here to live and work).
I know the No campaign is always going on about foreigner this, foreigner that, but it doesn't mean their opponents are.
[edited to sort out quotes]
On another subject, Cameron, Clegg and Milband all sat togehter for the visit of the Irish president, and of course wearing blue tie, yellow tie and red tie respectively (Cameron's may have been slightly purplely, couldn't tell from the brief clip). It's becoming a pet peeve of mine that the leaders do sometimes appear to be making the case for their opponents that there is literally no distinction between them other than the colour of their party rosette on election day, as they feel the need to make it clear via sartorial choices which is which, as I guess we could not tell otherwise?
Brian Monteith's woeful and negative campaign in '97 led to 75% Yes - some people going hell for leather on 'Project Fear' would do well to reflect on this.
I think you misunderstand what the role of people like Alexander is. The last thing they should be doing is setting the world on fire. They should we managing a large bureaucracy towards a stated aim.
Alexander is good at this sort of stuff though. I rate him.
Ed Balls@edballsmp·7 hrs
These IMF forecasts are welcome after 3 damaging years when our economy has flatlined & GDP forecasts have been repeatedly downgraded..
Hercule de Fool@TransAlpUK·6 hrs
Every time the IMF brings us good news, @edballsmp makes the same comment:
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/91601/ed_balls_repsonse_to_imf’s_world_economic_outlook_.html … http://www.edballs.co.uk/blog/?p=4512
Louise Mensch@LouiseMensch·19 secs
Balls, 2014 "After three damaging years flatlining, any growth is both welcome & long overdue. But this the slowest recovery for 100 years"
Expand Reply
Louise Mensch@LouiseMensch·2 mins
Balls, 2013 "After three wasted years flatlining it’s good that we finally have some growth. But this is the slowest recovery for 100 yrs"
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/ukip-vote-percentage
Under 10% was a combined 1/5 when I laid @tim 4/6 a year ago I believe.. 8/11 now
The 15-20% range is 6/1.. If that cops I think they win Thurrock.. which is 16/1
I actually think, following a no vote, we'll have one last chance to resurrect British nationhood in the eyes of people across this island. But we'll need politicians who actually believe in it, rather than the current careerist, poll-focused muppets we currently have in there.
Here's a clip of Farage from a few years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gm9q8uabTs
Just watching it, you can see he passionately believes in something, follows the issues in depth because of his care for them, and is worried great harm will come to people if his warnings aren't heeded. When do you ever feel that listening to polished spads like Clegg, Cameron and Miliband?
Minor disagreements are natural and productive. Played up by the press which is all part of the game. What Alexander has done is side line community organising. With 3 big elections in 14 months this is a good thing.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/04/08/most-people-think-clegg-should-resign-too/
A new YouGov survey finds that unprompted, most people (62%) do indeed think that Maria Miller should resign; however the majority (52%) say the same of Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.
To the questions: "Should remain in current Role" and "Should resign from their role and be replaced"
Maria Miller: 9 remain and 63 resign
Nick Clegg: 23/52
Michael Gove: 27/47
Ed Milliband: 33/46
Vince Cable: 30/40
Ed Balls: 35/40
IDS: 38/37
George Osborn: 42/37
David Cameron: 51/32
Theresa May: 43/30