Cuts vs investment? Be absolutely clear Lab won't change anything or not much, perhaps tinker round the edges.
Nah. Labour will do what they always do - pi55 billions away on their clients and thereby utterly f*ck the economy, so when the GE comes around, they can campaign on a platform of "Tory cuts".
all the while adding more handout junkies to their core vote.
Buttie bounce, it takes a few weeks to filter through
Populus, like Ashcroft, really need to rethink - their bounces as so irregular that I can't be bothered to cheer when they go up or groan when they go down. Better to poll less often with double the sample size? Or maybe it's the turnout adjustment changing more than VI?
Nick. I'm not sure that this is the case.
Since their methodology change in early Feb, there has been 48 Populus polls.
Over that period there has been little change in the polls overall.
The average poll scores over that period are C 33.4%, L 36.2%, LD 9.2%, UKIP 13.3%.
The standard deviation of these scores is 1.0%, 1.1%, 0.8%, 1.0% respectively. So your 95% confidence limits are +/- 2.1%, 2.1%, 1.7%, 2.0%.
If anything this is a bit low, given that there has been some small movement in the polls over the period, and theory would suggest a greater variance in LD votes.
So I would suggest that the evidence does not support your theory that Populus bounces too much.
I have not look at the Ashcroft data, so I am unable to comment thereon.
That is - with respect - meaningless, because by averaging the scores you conceal the bounces which Nick rightly complains about, before you even start.
I am afraid that I was unable to make my point clear enough to you. Yes averaging the scores conceal bounces, but the standard deviation should be higher as a result of that increased bounce. The point I am making is that the standard deviation is potentially too low, so that the polls are not bouncing around enough.
Gin1138 'Of course we won't know whether 2015 was/is a good one for Labour to lose until about two years into the government, but given Ed Millibands catastrophic lack of support amongst the electorate you can certainly make an argument that as Prime Minister Ed could take Labour to levels of hitherto unheard of unpopularity.... '
The economy is in good shape. There seems no great downside for the winning party. The scene is set for further Labour gerrymandering and pandering to their client base to perpetuate them in power. History tells us there is never a good time to leave the govt in Labours hands. If a tory defeat led to a pandering to the right wing then its safe to say labour could easily stay in power for a long time. I see no benefits at all to sleepwalking to a labour victory.
The economy is a little bit better, but is still very vulnerable, I think. We're certainly not in the great shape we was in when the Tories handed over to Labour in 1997.
Labour's main problem will be that "there's STILL no money left"however. People expecting Labour to turn on the money tree and an end to austerity will have a terrible let-down coming to them.
Then there's Ed Milliband's own personal unpopularity. Of course it's possible he could buck the trend and become more popular in office than he was in Opposition, but I doubt it very much.
Totally O/T but people here might know the answer... If a candidate for local election is disqualified at the time of election can they just resign as a councilor when it becomes known? What happens to the seat - I think that the person who was 'next' in line would be deemed elected, but the Local Authority are taking a different view?
There's a by-election. "Next in line" only works for list systems, i.e. the Euros. After Xmas the council might wait for May to call the by-election.
Thanks Nick. I totally understand that to be correct if a person is validly elected and then becomes disqualified for some reason and that seems fair and correct.
However, in the case in question the person was disqualified from standing in the first place, but nonetheless stood and was duly declared elected (even though that election was not valid due to them being disqualified). It just seems that there is no disadvantage in failing to declare a disqualification in a safe seat as if you get 'found out' then you just have a by-election (at the Local Authorities expense) and either the original candidate can remove the disqualification (if possible) and stand again, or the party in the safe seat just puts someone else in.
But the alternative is that the second placed candidate, who was presumably a long way behind in this safe seat and rejected by the voters, should serve as the Councillor instead.
Holding a by-election, notwithstanding the cost, is the only democratic option. If sufficient electors are indignant about its cause then they may well plump for a different party the scond time round.
Let’s assume that NP’s answer below re a minority Government is what transpires. Mr P asserts that such Government would do what Wilson did in 1974; enact a few popular policies and have another election. However at the moment the election after next is due on 7th May 2020, due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. While I realise, no Parliament can bind it’s successor in practice could a minority Government get a repeal through the HoC in 2015/6? Can’t recall whether Labour voted for it, abstained or supported.
Who would oppose its repeal? You think the Conservatives would rather hang on till 2020 than have another chance at power in late 2015 or early 2016?
We're talking about a situation where the government was popular and the governing party was trying to force a new election where they'd take seats off the opposition. In this situation I think the opposition would rather have the act in place; If they wanted a general election when the governing party did, they could join with them to vote for it.
Gin1138 'Of course we won't know whether 2015 was/is a good one for Labour to lose until about two years into the government, but given Ed Millibands catastrophic lack of support amongst the electorate you can certainly make an argument that as Prime Minister Ed could take Labour to levels of hitherto unheard of unpopularity.... '
The economy is in good shape. There seems no great downside for the winning party. The scene is set for further Labour gerrymandering and pandering to their client base to perpetuate them in power. History tells us there is never a good time to leave the govt in Labours hands. If a tory defeat led to a pandering to the right wing then its safe to say labour could easily stay in power for a long time. I see no benefits at all to sleepwalking to a labour victory.
The economy is a little bit better, but is still very vulnerable, I think. We're certainly not in the great shape we was in when the Tories handed over to Labour in 1997.
Labour's main problem will be that "there's STILL no money left"however. People expecting Labour to turn on the money tree and an end to austerity will have a terrible let-down coming to them.
Then there's Ed Milliband's own personal unpopularity. Of course it's possible he could buck the trend and become more popular in office than he was in Opposition, but I doubt it very much.
IIRC only 35% of the cuts have happened so far. Ed will have to follow a 65% strategy.
Totally O/T but people here might know the answer... If a candidate for local election is disqualified at the time of election can they just resign as a councilor when it becomes known? What happens to the seat - I think that the person who was 'next' in line would be deemed elected, but the Local Authority are taking a different view?
There's a by-election. "Next in line" only works for list systems, i.e. the Euros. After Xmas the council might wait for May to call the by-election.
Thanks Nick. I totally understand that to be correct if a person is validly elected and then becomes disqualified for some reason and that seems fair and correct.
However, in the case in question the person was disqualified from standing in the first place, but nonetheless stood and was duly declared elected (even though that election was not valid due to them being disqualified). It just seems that there is no disadvantage in failing to declare a disqualification in a safe seat as if you get 'found out' then you just have a by-election (at the Local Authorities expense) and either the original candidate can remove the disqualification (if possible) and stand again, or the party in the safe seat just puts someone else in.
I don't (without knowing the case in question) see much difference between keeping quiet about a disqualification before an election and breaking a rule (inadvertently or otherwise) which forces you to resign. In both cases the fairest thing to voters seems to be to let them vote again with this additional information, which they can weigh up as they think fit.
Let’s assume that NP’s answer below re a minority Government is what transpires. Mr P asserts that such Government would do what Wilson did in 1974; enact a few popular policies and have another election. However at the moment the election after next is due on 7th May 2020, due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. While I realise, no Parliament can bind it’s successor in practice could a minority Government get a repeal through the HoC in 2015/6? Can’t recall whether Labour voted for it, abstained or supported.
We voted against, I think. But IIRC it does allow elections if there's a large majority? So doesn't the government of the day say "We need an election to clarify, let's have it" - in which case the opposition can't possibly say "oo-er, no, we'd rather you carried on".
"A trumped up vote of confidence could be ignored by the opposition parties by the simpe expedient of abstaining."
Not sure that they could, Mr. Path, or that it would be in the interests of anyone that they should.
Suppose a minority government was voted down on a finance bill. They the table a confidence motion which they win because the opposition parties abstain. They then reintroduce the finance bill. Then what happens?
Exactly my point. There’s also the question of how the public would see it. Changing the law for what would be seen as a shameless attempt to fix the system in their favour might not go down to well.
Gin1138 'Of course we won't know whether 2015 was/is a good one for Labour to lose until about two years into the government, but given Ed Millibands catastrophic lack of support amongst the electorate you can certainly make an argument that as Prime Minister Ed could take Labour to levels of hitherto unheard of unpopularity.... '
The economy is in good shape. There seems no great downside for the winning party. The scene is set for further Labour gerrymandering and pandering to their client base to perpetuate them in power. History tells us there is never a good time to leave the govt in Labours hands. If a tory defeat led to a pandering to the right wing then its safe to say labour could easily stay in power for a long time. I see no benefits at all to sleepwalking to a labour victory.
The economy is a little bit better, but is still very vulnerable, I think. We're certainly not in the great shape we was in when the Tories handed over to Labour in 1997.
Labour's main problem will be that "there's STILL no money left"however. People expecting Labour to turn on the money tree and an end to austerity will have a terrible let-down coming to them.
Then there's Ed Milliband's own personal unpopularity. Of course it's possible he could buck the trend and become more popular in office than he was in Opposition, but I doubt it very much.
It's why Miliband needs a majority. If he is minority PM and Labour slide into the low twenties in the polls, the other parties will bring him down and they will be destroyed at the ensuing election. If he's in coalition with the Lib Dems and slides with them recovering, same situation could arise. He needs a four point GE win (approx), given the uselessness of UNS with the Lib Dems down 14.
'Or their corpses being left to rot in fields in high summer while their possessions are stolen. '
Fine but the plane was carrying passengers of many nationalities. Other leaders seem to be less strident in their condemnation.
The Dutch and Australian PMs seem pretty incandescent, too. Even Angela Merkel might have bestirred herself if there had been lots of Germans on the plane.
Done a blog on Gaza, Israel, and the Mystery of the Disappearing Tweets. http://t.co/0fKGXyuEFK
You ought to have tackled the case of the disappearing Middle East peace envoy.
Or even the case of the disappearing Christians: in Mosul where there has been a Christian community for the best part of 2000 years and long before Islam even existed Christians are now faced with 3 unpalatable choices: (a) conversion; (b) death; or (c) paying a protection tax and being treated like 2nd class citizens. So they are leaving.
Ethnic cleansing by those so busy attacking the motes in the eyes of the West and Israel that they've failed to notice the beams in their own. Or, more depressingly, are proud of them.
The Jizya has been a standard feature of Muslim states almost from the founding of the religion. What's missing is the early Muslim tolerance of their dhimma.
Let’s assume that NP’s answer below re a minority Government is what transpires. Mr P asserts that such Government would do what Wilson did in 1974; enact a few popular policies and have another election. However at the moment the election after next is due on 7th May 2020, due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. While I realise, no Parliament can bind it’s successor in practice could a minority Government get a repeal through the HoC in 2015/6? Can’t recall whether Labour voted for it, abstained or supported.
Aside from repealing it, the obvious move is to decline to provide concessions and/or pork to the minor party, let them vote down the government and hold an election asking for a clearer mandate.
The danger is that, depending on the arithmetic, the minor party might join with the main opposition party and put them in power instead. Since the governing party and the opposition party are basically in a zero-sum game, any time that's good for Con is by definition bad for Lab and vice versa. This was the point of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act: It protects the smaller coalition party by giving them the chance to cut a deal with the other side if the Prime Minister tries to screw them.
Done a blog on Gaza, Israel, and the Mystery of the Disappearing Tweets. http://t.co/0fKGXyuEFK
Broadly speaking, the left is anti-Israeli and the right is pro-Israeli. Is this in truth simply because Communist Russia armed and trained the Arabs, who were utterly thrashed, and the left resents this Communist humiliation because it still thinks Communism a force for good and harmony?
Why is Cameron amongst the vocal world leaders in sticking it to Russia?
It's cynical I know, but what's in that for us?
I think you'll find British PM's don't take too kindly to their citizens being blown out of the skies. They're funny that way.
I've never noticed that "they" give a sh1t to be frank. They didn't exactly cover themselves with glory over Lockerbie.
We ought by rights to get a Congress-of-Vienna resolution against Putin and declare him, like Napoleon, an outlaw. Not Russia, just him and his associates. Then harass him for the rest of his life.
But IIRC it does allow elections if there's a large majority? So doesn't the government of the day say "We need an election to clarify, let's have it" - in which case the opposition can't possibly say "oo-er, no, we'd rather you carried on".
There are two routes to calling an early election:
- If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
- If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".
So you are partly right, but there is one big difference compared with the situation before the Act was passed, which is that the opposition party or parties have the option of trying to form a government without an election being held - it's no longer at the whim of the PM alone.
I think you'll find British PM's don't take too kindly to their citizens being blown out of the skies. They're funny that way.
You repeat the error which Cameron is alleged to have made on the 'phone to President Putin. It is claimed he said that:
Ten of my citizens have just been killed in a plane brought down by a missile fired by Russian separatists.
British Prime Ministers do not have citizens. British citizens are subject to, and owe allegiance to Her Britannic Majesty the Queen, not to the occupant of Number 10 Downing Street.
Done a blog on Gaza, Israel, and the Mystery of the Disappearing Tweets. http://t.co/0fKGXyuEFK
I don't think you add anything to the debate. And you are surely not surprised to see that the first comment you received is:
"A very good article which hints at the true scale of zionist power in the west."
Edit: unless or perhaps because your article itself was hinting about "the true scale of zionist power in the west".
We seem increasingly polarised and hostile to people whose opinion differs from ours. Social media just provides that trend an outlet.
As ever, the USA leads the way - the Republican/Democrat divide looks and sounds increasingly sectarian.
It's not healthy. We can't have rational debate about any number of shibboleths; immigration, the NHS, pensions, climate change, energy security and so on.
Mr. M., there was an article the the Spectator a while back (which I can't now find) about the realisation amongst politicians that some issues need solutions that cannot be implemented in one parliament and therefore there has to be debate to reach a consensus on a course of action that will be perused regardless of the result of a GE. Sounds very sensible to me.
The down side is that these debates have to be held in private so that in public the standard tribal posturing can carry on.
I wish I could find the article, I think there is also a book of essays on the subject and Charles Clark is involved with it. My google-foo is weak.
Mr Llama, thank you for the pointer; I've yet to track it down, but while I was trying, I came across this:
I disagree that it's solely the preserve of the 'left', but the substitution of vitriol for debate seems to be a more widely recognised issue than I'd supposed.
I shall persevere in my attempts to find the relevant Spectator article.
'Or their corpses being left to rot in fields in high summer while their possessions are stolen. '
Fine but the plane was carrying passengers of many nationalities. Other leaders seem to be less strident in their condemnation.
That perhaps says more about them than it does Cameron.
Woolie, I doubt it , perhaps they just do not go in for cheap stunts
Guess we will see what he has to say and if he's saying it alone, or following an agreed strategy. Probably the former, he's got a track record of spouting when angered,
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
Gin1138 'Of course we won't know whether 2015 was/is a good one for Labour to lose until about two years into the government, but given Ed Millibands catastrophic lack of support amongst the electorate you can certainly make an argument that as Prime Minister Ed could take Labour to levels of hitherto unheard of unpopularity.... '
The economy is in good shape. There seems no great downside for the winning party. The scene is set for further Labour gerrymandering and pandering to their client base to perpetuate them in power. History tells us there is never a good time to leave the govt in Labours hands. If a tory defeat led to a pandering to the right wing then its safe to say labour could easily stay in power for a long time. I see no benefits at all to sleepwalking to a labour victory.
The economy is a little bit better, but is still very vulnerable, I think. We're certainly not in the great shape we was in when the Tories handed over to Labour in 1997.
Labour's main problem will be that "there's STILL no money left"however. People expecting Labour to turn on the money tree and an end to austerity will have a terrible let-down coming to them.
Then there's Ed Milliband's own personal unpopularity. Of course it's possible he could buck the trend and become more popular in office than he was in Opposition, but I doubt it very much.
IIRC only 35% of the cuts have happened so far. Ed will have to follow a 65% strategy.
Only if he displays fiscal integrity, which he won't. He'll f*ck the economy with debt, tax hikes on the productive sector and handouts to his clients and then he'll campaign on something like "Tory benefit cuts", "Tory pension cuts" or the good old standby, "Tories want to privatise the NHS".
After the shambles of 1997 to 2010 a Labour party of probity and integrity would have disbanded itself as unfit to waste air.
A line we'll be hearing a lot when those tory Paedos get their collars felt.
Just Tories? Lol, hardly. Look left.
Tories. Baby eating. Joke. Got it?
Ahhhhhhhh. Yes. I get it.
A bit like the new rule that teachers are not allowed to prepare handouts for children in lessons anymore, Not through any health and safety concern, it's just every time they do, fifty six thousand Labour voters wearing new sneakers and drinking special brew turn up with their begging bowl out
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
I don't understand this, any more than I understand people who go on holiday and spend a fortune putting their cat into a cattery while they're away.
Why not save money by destroying the cat, and buying a new one when you get back? It's not like there's going to be any difference between one cat and another.
Done a blog on Gaza, Israel, and the Mystery of the Disappearing Tweets. http://t.co/0fKGXyuEFK
I don't think you add anything to the debate. And you are surely not surprised to see that the first comment you received is:
"A very good article which hints at the true scale of zionist power in the west."
Edit: unless or perhaps because your article itself was hinting about "the true scale of zionist power in the west".
We seem increasingly polarised and hostile to people whose opinion differs from ours. Social media just provides that trend an outlet.
As ever, the USA leads the way - the Republican/Democrat divide looks and sounds increasingly sectarian.
It's not healthy. We can't have rational debate about any number of shibboleths; immigration, the NHS, pensions, climate change, energy security and so on.
Mr. M., there was an article the the Spectator a while back (which I can't now find) about the realisation amongst politicians that some issues need solutions that cannot be implemented in one parliament and therefore there has to be debate to reach a consensus on a course of action that will be perused regardless of the result of a GE. Sounds very sensible to me.
The down side is that these debates have to be held in private so that in public the standard tribal posturing can carry on.
I wish I could find the article, I think there is also a book of essays on the subject and Charles Clark is involved with it. My google-foo is weak.
I think you'll find British PM's don't take too kindly to their citizens being blown out of the skies. They're funny that way.
You repeat the error which Cameron is alleged to have made on the 'phone to President Putin. It is claimed he said that:
Ten of my citizens have just been killed in a plane brought down by a missile fired by Russian separatists.
British Prime Ministers do not have citizens. British citizens are subject to, and owe allegiance to Her Britannic Majesty the Queen, not to the occupant of Number 10 Downing Street.
What a quaint notion. Undoubtedly we were once subjects of HMtQ but I thought that was changed not that long ago when we became citizens and, moreover, citizens of the European Union.
If we were still Her Majesty's subjects then we could expect her to protect us from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Cameron's view is that we should be liable to arrest and indefinite imprisonment on the say so of any prosecutor in the the EU as long as they are not British. Astonishingly, parliament seems set to agree with him. Frankly, I would sooner go back to being a subject, at least I had the protection of the Monarch's justice in those days.
The Jizya has been a standard feature of Muslim states almost from the founding of the religion. What's missing is the early Muslim tolerance of their dhimma.
Where's the evidence that the newly-established caliphate is relatively more intolerant of those Christians who pay the jizya than say, any medieval Islamic state? The Christians appear to have fled Mosul, understandably perhaps, before we have had the opportunity to find out.
'Or their corpses being left to rot in fields in high summer while their possessions are stolen. '
Fine but the plane was carrying passengers of many nationalities. Other leaders seem to be less strident in their condemnation.
The Dutch and Australian PMs seem pretty incandescent, too. Even Angela Merkel might have bestirred herself if there had been lots of Germans on the plane.
As a nation, Germany is not unused to its citizens being shot down over Russia, so even if there had been lots of Germans on the plane I don't suppose she'd have been too bothered.
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
Given the BBC is driving Jenni Murray around the country, what difference does it make if the dogs go along for the ride?
Done a blog on Gaza, Israel, and the Mystery of the Disappearing Tweets. http://t.co/0fKGXyuEFK
I don't think you add anything to the debate. And you are surely not surprised to see that the first comment you received is:
"A very good article which hints at the true scale of zionist power in the west."
Edit: unless or perhaps because your article itself was hinting about "the true scale of zionist power in the west".
We seem increasingly polarised and hostile to people whose opinion differs from ours. Social media just provides that trend an outlet.
As ever, the USA leads the way - the Republican/Democrat divide looks and sounds increasingly sectarian.
It's not healthy. We can't have rational debate about any number of shibboleths; immigration, the NHS, pensions, climate change, energy security and so on.
Mr. M., there was an article the the Spectator a while back (which I can't now find) about the realisation amongst politicians that some issues need solutions that cannot be implemented in one parliament and therefore there has to be debate to reach a consensus on a course of action that will be perused regardless of the result of a GE. Sounds very sensible to me.
The down side is that these debates have to be held in private so that in public the standard tribal posturing can carry on.
I wish I could find the article, I think there is also a book of essays on the subject and Charles Clark is involved with it. My google-foo is weak.
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
I don't understand this, any more than I understand people who go on holiday and spend a fortune putting their cat into a cattery while they're away.
Why not save money by destroying the cat, and buying a new one when you get back? It's not like there's going to be any difference between one cat and another.
Or, less controversially, have a cat bank at the airport so that inbound cat tolerators pick up the one you have just dropped off, and so on.
I think you'll find British PM's don't take too kindly to their citizens being blown out of the skies. They're funny that way.
You repeat the error which Cameron is alleged to have made on the 'phone to President Putin. It is claimed he said that:
Ten of my citizens have just been killed in a plane brought down by a missile fired by Russian separatists.
British Prime Ministers do not have citizens. British citizens are subject to, and owe allegiance to Her Britannic Majesty the Queen, not to the occupant of Number 10 Downing Street.
What a quaint notion. Undoubtedly we were once subjects of HMtQ but I thought that was changed not that long ago when we became citizens and, moreover, citizens of the European Union.
If we were still Her Majesty's subjects then we could expect her to protect us from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Cameron's view is that we should be liable to arrest and indefinite imprisonment on the say so of any prosecutor in the the EU as long as they are not British. Astonishingly, parliament seems set to agree with him. Frankly, I would sooner go back to being a subject, at least I had the protection of the Monarch's justice in those days.
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
I don't understand this, any more than I understand people who go on holiday and spend a fortune putting their cat into a cattery while they're away.
Why not save money by destroying the cat, and buying a new one when you get back? It's not like there's going to be any difference between one cat and another.
Or, less controversially, have a cat bank at the airport so that inbound cat tolerators pick up the one you have just dropped off, and so on.
'Or their corpses being left to rot in fields in high summer while their possessions are stolen. '
Fine but the plane was carrying passengers of many nationalities. Other leaders seem to be less strident in their condemnation.
That perhaps says more about them than it does Cameron.
Woolie, I doubt it , perhaps they just do not go in for cheap stunts
Two leaders talking on the phone after an airline is shot down - some stunt. What would Eck do - send him a text ?
"U ok hun ?"
Flash, as you well know Cameron could not lace Alex's boots, he is able to debate and does not hide behind the sofa like Cameron. I would bet that if they gave out a real transcript he would have been grovelling and Putin would have been telling him where to go.
What a quaint notion. Undoubtedly we were once subjects of HMtQ but I thought that was changed not that long ago when we became citizens and, moreover, citizens of the European Union.
If we were still Her Majesty's subjects then we could expect her to protect us from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Cameron's view is that we should be liable to arrest and indefinite imprisonment on the say so of any prosecutor in the the EU as long as they are not British. Astonishingly, parliament seems set to agree with him. Frankly, I would sooner go back to being a subject, at least I had the protection of the Monarch's justice in those days.
The meaning of British subject was altered by a series of enactments from the British Nationality Act 1948 on. By virtue of the British Nationality Act 1981, we are all British citizens now. Citizenship of the European Union is in addition to British citizenship, and has not (yet) superseded it entirely. The law of treason remains in force, albeit nowadays omitted from Archbold to save space, and essential to its operation, is the question of who owes allegiance to the sovereign (see Joyce v DPP [1946] AC 347). In that sense, British citizens remain subject to the Queen.
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
Given the BBC is driving Jenni Murray around the country, what difference does it make if the dogs go along for the ride?
Dogs make an excellent curry. Make the Dame drive her fat lazy arse to her own show.
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
Given the BBC is driving Jenni Murray around the country, what difference does it make if the dogs go along for the ride?
Dogs make an excellent curry. Make the Dame drive her fat lazy arse to her own show.
Could the Telegraph have been having a pop at a Daily Mail writer, as well as the BBC?
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
Given the BBC is driving Jenni Murray around the country, what difference does it make if the dogs go along for the ride?
Dogs make an excellent curry. Make the Dame drive her fat lazy arse to her own show.
Could the Telegraph have been having a pop at a Daily Mail writer, as well as the BBC?
Anything is possible in the honest world of the media. But so,embody save the cats, the cats are king
.... I doubt many of us will be terrified at the thought of Ed as PM
Unfortunately Ed's personal numbers indicate that many others have much greater reservations including a substantial minority of Labour supporters.
This situation is toxic for Labour, not only because it undermines Ed but because non Labour and swing voters will be more determined to ensure Ed never becomes PM.
Ed also has to sharply reverse his "weirdo rating". A man that is giving Nigel Farage a run for his money in this area isn't going to occupy Downing Street.
By "us" I was specifically referring to left of centre voters who are switching from the Lib Dems to Labour. Unless you are claiming that those voters will ultimately not vote Labour because the Mail keeps telling us that Ed M is "weird" then I am not sure of the relevance. There are still significant numbers of voters who will vote on what they think the parties might do in government rather than on the basis of a political version of the X-Factor.
Although I am voting Labour I think the Tories will probably get the most votes next May and it will be very tight in terms of seats. Can't see either getting a majority. Part of me would be very interested to see Cameron/Osborn grapple with the economy beyond next May because I believe that all they have done is manufacture another housing-led consumer bubble to get themselves reelected and that the underlying economic situation / debt situation is no better than it was when they came into office. Although I may have been at odds with the politics of Tory leaders in the past most were worthy of respect - Cam & Os are probably the 2 most vacuous and shallow politicians that the country has ever had the misfortune to be governed by IMO.
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
Given the BBC is driving Jenni Murray around the country, what difference does it make if the dogs go along for the ride?
Dogs make an excellent curry. Make the Dame drive her fat lazy arse to her own show.
Having travel paid for by her employer would be a benefit-in-kind and, therefore, taxable. That is, assuming Ms Murray is an employee of the Beeb and not self-employed and charging everything through some company.
I couldn't care less about the dogs - other than deploring her lamentable taste - provided the public are not being charged for the cost of ferrying them about or feeding or looking after them. If she wants to have them with her she ought to pay for it.
.... I doubt many of us will be terrified at the thought of Ed as PM
Unfortunately Ed's personal numbers indicate that many others have much greater reservations including a substantial minority of Labour supporters.
This situation is toxic for Labour, not only because it undermines Ed but because non Labour and swing voters will be more determined to ensure Ed never becomes PM.
Ed also has to sharply reverse his "weirdo rating". A man that is giving Nigel Farage a run for his money in this area isn't going to occupy Downing Street.
By "us" I was specifically referring to left of centre voters who are switching from the Lib Dems to Labour. Unless you are claiming that those voters will ultimately not vote Labour because the Mail keeps telling us that Ed M is "weird" then I am not sure of the relevance. There are still significant numbers of voters who will vote on what they think the parties might do in government rather than on the basis of a political version of the X-Factor.
Although I am voting Labour I think the Tories will probably get the most votes next May and it will be very tight in terms of seats. Can't see either getting a majority. Part of me would be very interested to see Cameron/Osborn grapple with the economy beyond next May because I believe that all they have done is manufacture another housing-led consumer bubble to get themselves reelected and that the underlying economic situation / debt situation is no better than it was when they came into office. Although I may have been at odds with the politics of Tory leaders in the past most were worthy of respect - Cam & Os are probably the 2 most vacuous and shallow politicians that the country has ever had the misfortune to be governed by IMO.
Yes, but no politician has been so incompetent as Brown who used his power mainly for political purposes and none so self-serving as Blair who was/is only interested in money and wealth and was quite prepared to lie to achieve that objective.
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
Given the BBC is driving Jenni Murray around the country, what difference does it make if the dogs go along for the ride?
'Another driver collects the dogs and takes them to a friend’s house to be cared for as Murray spends the night in the Salford Quays Hotel. '
I think the implication is that extra is spend as a result..
Why is Cameron amongst the vocal world leaders in sticking it to Russia?
It's cynical I know, but what's in that for us?
In the de-dollarization warm war that's going on the sides are BRICs plus allies led by Pooty vs US plus allies.
### France/Germany (and by extension the EU) has been moving towards siding with Russia/China against the US in the de-dollarization war.
Venom over MH17 is designed to influence public opinion in those countries to the extent the politicians feel obliged to get back in the pro-US camp. ###
The list of active US allies has grown very thin in the last few years hence the need for the few that are left e.g. UK, to make a lot of noise to compensate.
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
Given the BBC is driving Jenni Murray around the country, what difference does it make if the dogs go along for the ride?
Dogs make an excellent curry. Make the Dame drive her fat lazy arse to her own show.
Could the Telegraph have been having a pop at a Daily Mail writer, as well as the BBC?
Anything is possible in the honest world of the media. But so,embody save the cats, the cats are king
Indubitably. I spend £500 a year on cat food, and I don't even have a cat.
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
Given the BBC is driving Jenni Murray around the country, what difference does it make if the dogs go along for the ride?
Dogs make an excellent curry. Make the Dame drive her fat lazy arse to her own show.
Could the Telegraph have been having a pop at a Daily Mail writer, as well as the BBC?
I've met Jenni Murray: she just OOZES upper middle class, feminist, Me Generation, Guardianista entitlement.
She writes for the Mail, not the Guardian. The rest may be true -- I've never read or listened to her output. I gather it is not uncommon in the broadcasting field for presenters to be delivered to studios though, in commercial radio as well as on Her Majesty's BBC.
Totally O/T but people here might know the answer... If a candidate for local election is disqualified at the time of election can they just resign as a councilor when it becomes known? What happens to the seat - I think that the person who was 'next' in line would be deemed elected, but the Local Authority are taking a different view?
There's a by-election. "Next in line" only works for list systems, i.e. the Euros. After Xmas the council might wait for May to call the by-election.
Thanks Nick. I totally understand that to be correct if a person is validly elected and then becomes disqualified for some reason and that seems fair and correct.
However, in the case in question the person was disqualified from standing in the first place, but nonetheless stood and was duly declared elected (even though that election was not valid due to them being disqualified). It just seems that there is no disadvantage in failing to declare a disqualification in a safe seat as if you get 'found out' then you just have a by-election (at the Local Authorities expense) and either the original candidate can remove the disqualification (if possible) and stand again, or the party in the safe seat just puts someone else in.
But the alternative is that the second placed candidate, who was presumably a long way behind in this safe seat and rejected by the voters, should serve as the Councillor instead.
Holding a by-election, notwithstanding the cost, is the only democratic option. If sufficient electors are indignant about its cause then they may well plump for a different party the scond time round.
Thanks to both you and Nick Palmer for your consistent responses - I can see the logic of what you are saying and can see circumstances where it would be correct.
For reference, the specific case is Knights Hill in Lambeth - where a prospective Labour councilor failed to recognise that she was employed by the council and so was technically disqualified from standing. Nonetheless she was duly elected in May, and now that it has been noticed she has resigned from her job claiming that it was a 'silly mistake', and is standing again in a by-election. It is a safe Labour seat and I have no doubt that she will inevitably be elected, so there is no consequence for her, her agent or the party that I can see of making a false declaration on her original nomination form (be this knowingly or otherwise). As a candidate for a small party which tries really hard to ensure that we comply with all the rules and complete all the paperwork correctly etc. despite not having a professional organisation behind us this grates somewhat - hence just wanting to check what others views were.
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
Given the BBC is driving Jenni Murray around the country, what difference does it make if the dogs go along for the ride?
Dogs make an excellent curry. Make the Dame drive her fat lazy arse to her own show.
Could the Telegraph have been having a pop at a Daily Mail writer, as well as the BBC?
I've met Jenni Murray: she just OOZES upper middle class, feminist, Me Generation, Guardianista entitlement.
She writes for the Mail, not the Guardian. The rest may be true -- I've never read or listened to her output. I gather it is not uncommon in the broadcasting field for presenters to be delivered to studios though, in commercial radio as well as on Her Majesty's BBC.
You might loathe Blair & Brown politically but vacuous & shallow they were not. Cameron is the ultimate PR politician, doubt he has a principle in his head that couldn't be altered by a good focus group.
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
Given the BBC is driving Jenni Murray around the country, what difference does it make if the dogs go along for the ride?
'Another driver collects the dogs and takes them to a friend’s house to be cared for as Murray spends the night in the Salford Quays Hotel. '
I think the implication is that extra is spend as a result..
Can't she find a hotel that accepts pets if she's so keen not to be parted from them?
Maybe, Financier, but had Osborn had been Chancellor when the international financial crisis hit in 2008 I think we would have seen the meaning of the word "incompetent" taken to a completely new level. We may yet get to see him in action in a major crisis and when we do I for one will be running for cover.
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
Given the BBC is driving Jenni Murray around the country, what difference does it make if the dogs go along for the ride?
'Another driver collects the dogs and takes them to a friend’s house to be cared for as Murray spends the night in the Salford Quays Hotel. '
I think the implication is that extra is spend as a result..
It turns out not to be the case. From the Telegraph article: "A BBC spokesperson said Murray reimburses the corporation for any personal expenses and the car which drops the dogs off."
Maybe, Financier, but had Osborn had been Chancellor when the international financial crisis hit in 2008 I think we would have seen the meaning of the word "incompetent" taken to a completely new level. We may yet get to see him in action in a major crisis and when we do I for one will be running for cover.
He's been in action for four years of the most difficult world economic conditions since the 1930s and has proved to be a superb Chancellor.
If you want to know the meaning of the word 'incompetent' in this context, you only have to look at Gordon Brown, starting with his eye-wateringly incompetent 1997 decision to dismantle the supervisory framework of the UK banking system, leaving literally no-one in charge - with exactly the consequences Peter Lilley warned of at the time.
Comments
Fine but the plane was carrying passengers of many nationalities. Other leaders seem to be less strident in their condemnation.
Labour's main problem will be that "there's STILL no money left"however. People expecting Labour to turn on the money tree and an end to austerity will have a terrible let-down coming to them.
Then there's Ed Milliband's own personal unpopularity. Of course it's possible he could buck the trend and become more popular in office than he was in Opposition, but I doubt it very much.
T-Minus 289.
Holding a by-election, notwithstanding the cost, is the only democratic option. If sufficient electors are indignant about its cause then they may well plump for a different party the scond time round.
''Fair weather poster of the year''
Its already in the bag for you, isn't it compouter....???
If he's in coalition with the Lib Dems and slides with them recovering, same situation could arise.
He needs a four point GE win (approx), given the uselessness of UNS with the Lib Dems down 14.
Same danger for Cam and the Tories.
And Labour MP Grahame Morris told the newspaper Mr Clegg had demonstrated a "alarming, cavalier indifference" to the situation in Ukraine.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28399379
I wonder what he has to say about Ed going to America rather than being in the HoC this afternoon? Anything? Bl##y hypocrites the lot of them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-28403066
A line we'll be hearing a lot when those tory Paedos get their collars felt.
The danger is that, depending on the arithmetic, the minor party might join with the main opposition party and put them in power instead. Since the governing party and the opposition party are basically in a zero-sum game, any time that's good for Con is by definition bad for Lab and vice versa. This was the point of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act: It protects the smaller coalition party by giving them the chance to cut a deal with the other side if the Prime Minister tries to screw them.
The world is waiting for him to speak.
We ought by rights to get a Congress-of-Vienna resolution against Putin and declare him, like Napoleon, an outlaw. Not Russia, just him and his associates. Then harass him for the rest of his life.
- If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
- If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".
So you are partly right, but there is one big difference compared with the situation before the Act was passed, which is that the opposition party or parties have the option of trying to form a government without an election being held - it's no longer at the whim of the PM alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011#Provisions
However, the Labour accused, claims he doesn't remember anything, literally, about anything.
Anybody who thinks this is going to be about a single party of paedos is utterly deluded. The investigation is already going all over the place.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9187741/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-2/
I disagree that it's solely the preserve of the 'left', but the substitution of vitriol for debate seems to be a more widely recognised issue than I'd supposed.
I shall persevere in my attempts to find the relevant Spectator article.
Probably the former, he's got a track record of spouting when angered,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10979139/BBC-spending-thousands-on-first-class-travel-for-Radio-4-presenter-Jenni-Murrays-dogs.html
"The BBC has been accused of spending thousands of pounds on providing first class travel and a chauffeur service to two Chihuahuas.
BBC Radio 4’s presenter Dame Jenni Murray refuses to leave her pets and insists on them accompanying her when she travels to broadcast her weekly show in Salford, which is due to move south to London.
The pet Chihuahuas, Butch and Frida, have been treated to a lavish lifestyle at a time when the corporation is axing more than 400 jobs."
"U ok hun ?"
Only if he displays fiscal integrity, which he won't. He'll f*ck the economy with debt, tax hikes on the productive sector and handouts to his clients and then he'll campaign on something like "Tory benefit cuts", "Tory pension cuts" or the good old standby, "Tories want to privatise the NHS".
After the shambles of 1997 to 2010 a Labour party of probity and integrity would have disbanded itself as unfit to waste air.
A bit like the new rule that teachers are not allowed to prepare handouts for children in lessons anymore,
Not through any health and safety concern, it's just every time they do, fifty six thousand Labour voters wearing new sneakers and drinking special brew turn up with their begging bowl out
Why not save money by destroying the cat, and buying a new one when you get back? It's not like there's going to be any difference between one cat and another.
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/the-too-difficult-box-hardback
What a quaint notion. Undoubtedly we were once subjects of HMtQ but I thought that was changed not that long ago when we became citizens and, moreover, citizens of the European Union.
If we were still Her Majesty's subjects then we could expect her to protect us from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Cameron's view is that we should be liable to arrest and indefinite imprisonment on the say so of any prosecutor in the the EU as long as they are not British. Astonishingly, parliament seems set to agree with him. Frankly, I would sooner go back to being a subject, at least I had the protection of the Monarch's justice in those days.
Needs must
If we were still Her Majesty's subjects then we could expect her to protect us from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Cameron's view is that we should be liable to arrest and indefinite imprisonment on the say so of any prosecutor in the the EU as long as they are not British. Astonishingly, parliament seems set to agree with him. Frankly, I would sooner go back to being a subject, at least I had the protection of the Monarch's justice in those days.
Big brother is displeased with citizen Llama
Just keep laying the favourite...
I would bet that if they gave out a real transcript he would have been grovelling and Putin would have been telling him where to go.
Wicket goes down soon and they will be 4s..
Make the Dame drive her fat lazy arse to her own show.
But so,embody save the cats, the cats are king
Although I am voting Labour I think the Tories will probably get the most votes next May and it will be very tight in terms of seats. Can't see either getting a majority. Part of me would be very interested to see Cameron/Osborn grapple with the economy beyond next May because I believe that all they have done is manufacture another housing-led consumer bubble to get themselves reelected and that the underlying economic situation / debt situation is no better than it was when they came into office. Although I may have been at odds with the politics of Tory leaders in the past most were worthy of respect - Cam & Os are probably the 2 most vacuous and shallow politicians that the country has ever had the misfortune to be governed by IMO.
I couldn't care less about the dogs - other than deploring her lamentable taste - provided the public are not being charged for the cost of ferrying them about or feeding or looking after them. If she wants to have them with her she ought to pay for it.
I think the implication is that extra is spend as a result..
###
France/Germany (and by extension the EU) has been moving towards siding with Russia/China against the US in the de-dollarization war.
Venom over MH17 is designed to influence public opinion in those countries to the extent the politicians feel obliged to get back in the pro-US camp.
###
The list of active US allies has grown very thin in the last few years hence the need for the few that are left e.g. UK, to make a lot of noise to compensate.
Horrid.
For reference, the specific case is Knights Hill in Lambeth - where a prospective Labour councilor failed to recognise that she was employed by the council and so was technically disqualified from standing. Nonetheless she was duly elected in May, and now that it has been noticed she has resigned from her job claiming that it was a 'silly mistake', and is standing again in a by-election. It is a safe Labour seat and I have no doubt that she will inevitably be elected, so there is no consequence for her, her agent or the party that I can see of making a false declaration on her original nomination form (be this knowingly or otherwise). As a candidate for a small party which tries really hard to ensure that we comply with all the rules and complete all the paperwork correctly etc. despite not having a professional organisation behind us this grates somewhat - hence just wanting to check what others views were.
just saying...
Who would you pick instead? What does county cricket tell us about who the next cab on the rank might be?
Precisely nothing. Ask the selectors. Anybody who comes in is a huge gamble because the gap between county and test is cavernous
Make him or Root captain
Ramprakash mark 2
Get rid.
Buttler as keeper.
He is no Ramprakash.
Or...... Activate Kevin
Utter poppycock, Mr. T. Cameron deserves much criticism in various areas but no PM has been quite so vacuous as Blair.
If you want to know the meaning of the word 'incompetent' in this context, you only have to look at Gordon Brown, starting with his eye-wateringly incompetent 1997 decision to dismantle the supervisory framework of the UK banking system, leaving literally no-one in charge - with exactly the consequences Peter Lilley warned of at the time.
The New Bearded Wonder. Not Bill Frindall
Ooops!
If you took up carpentry you'd make Jesus look like a GCSE grade F chippy