Speccie article - makes an interesting point - the threat of a YES vote got more powers for Scotland.
Surely if an EU referendum was looking like YES (to exit) - then similar concessions could be won - and only in that scenario.
Time to copy the Nats and call the EU's bluff ?
Three problems: 1) The UK isn't an essential part of the EU in the way that Scotland is an essential part of the UK.
2) The EU has at least 28 veto players, maybe 100 depending how you count it, so it can't turn on a sixpence the way three panicking party leaders can.
3) Scotland hasn't actually got anything yet, beyond some vague promises. And the Tory WLQ thing was probably an attempt to wriggle out of those...
1. Tell that to the bean counters in Germany who would have to make up the shortfall
2. Meh - they all bow to Angela in the end.
3. Reneging isn't an option - the WLQ is not an attempt to wriggle out - it's a bonus prize of kicking Labour.
Rafael Behr may of course be a double,or treble agent,but taken at face value the 2-1 on Ukip at Thurrock looks attractive.Or is it a set up? "Meanwhile, Labour campaign strategists are starting to lose hope of winning the Essex constituency of Thurrock, officially number two on the party’s list of target seats. The PPC there is Polly Billington, a former Miliband adviser. She is battling hard and has the support of an unofficial “save Polly” drive from friends on the frontbench. But Ukip is still winning on the ground."
"Ed Miliband is facing demands to impose "all black" shortlists for the selection of Labour candidates in certain constituencies."
#onenation
Labour should go for it, more politicians like David 'Mastermind' Lammy, Chuka Umunna, and Diane Abbott should make them even more unelectable.
I think that's a bit unfair on David Lammy, who I'm never quite sure what to make of. I've heard some excellent things from him; not just on the riots, but on boys growing up without fathers. He gives the impression of having a real connection with his constituency, and a good handle on the problems his constituents face. In short, sometimes he impresses me.
At others, like the 'white smoke' stupidity, and Mastermind, he's awful.
His book: "Out of the ashes" about the riots showed both sides of this to me. Some of it very impressive, other bits awful.
Give him the right ministerial brief, and he *could* be stellar. Or an absolute dud.
"Miliband’s pledge of a cash boost for the NHS actually amounts to less than the budget increase granted by Margaret Thatcher every year she was in power. While Mrs Thatcher was prime minister, the lowest cash increase was 6 per cent – and between 1949 and 2010, the average annual growth in NHS spending was 4 per cent."
Speccie article - makes an interesting point - the threat of a YES vote got more powers for Scotland.
Surely if an EU referendum was looking like YES (to exit) - then similar concessions could be won - and only in that scenario.
Time to copy the Nats and call the EU's bluff ?
Three problems: 1) The UK isn't an essential part of the EU in the way that Scotland is an essential part of the UK.
2) The EU has at least 28 veto players, maybe 100 depending how you count it, so it can't turn on a sixpence the way three panicking party leaders can.
3) Scotland hasn't actually got anything yet, beyond some vague promises. And the Tory WLQ thing was probably an attempt to wriggle out of those...
1. Tell that to the bean counters in Germany who would have to make up the shortfall
2. Meh - they all bow to Angela in the end.
3. Reneging isn't an option - the WLQ is not an attempt to wriggle out - it's a bonus prize of kicking Labour.
Merkel running everything is right-wing sexual fantasy, not actual analysis of how decisions are made. The EU could survive without Britain's net 10 euros a head, and that's assuming the UK didn't end up paying for market access.
"First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond is up next and gets some nice loud music to accompany his walk to the pedestal, drowning out any potentially controversial crowd reaction."
English parliament sounds good so let's have that.
Well to all posters saying this please could you be a bit clearer about what you have in mind for the UK parliament that would co-exist alongside this. Would this contain a new (perhaps smaller) set of elected UK MPs? Or would UK parliamentary business be sufficiently low volume that the UK parliament could contain representatives from the English and Scottish parliaments rather than newly elected officials?
Also would there be a conflict, potential power struggle between the English 1st minister and UK prime minister (assuming they are different people). Would it be possible to have a Scottish UK prime minister under this structure?
The Mail has some heartwarming pictures of a meeting at a mosque in Bolton where the locals are campaigning for Henning's release.
Sadly it will make little difference.
The pigs holding Henning hostage, would likely butcher his many supporters given the opportunity.
You should be careful with your language. Calling Muslims pigs may have the thought police round your door .
Yes calling Muslims pigs would indeed be poor choice of words. But then ISIL aren't Muslims, at least not Muslims that Muhammed (pbuh) would recognise.
It's a bit like saying the Crusaders were Christians. I'm sure they thought they were but, really, they had little in common with their founder's message. Same goes with the lunatics in ISIL.
You're taking the piss presumably? Both ISIL and the Crusaders are / were bang-on certain bits of the message. Didn't Mohammed massacre Jews, too?
To paraphrase Blackadder II, for ISIL the last 1,000 years of progress were something that happened to other people.
Mr. Cable, identical powers for the English Parliament as the Scottish Parliament. Fewer MPs, focus on Treasury, Defence and Foreign affairs. Any MP (from anywhere in the country) could be MP.
Could be Chris Kelly or Brian Binley. Possibly tomorrow to neuter the recall of parliament knocking the UKIP conference off the news?
If true it would be to crash the Conservative conference starting this weekend. If true it would be a poor show by defectors, wanting to embarrass your former mates.
A characteristically thoughtful and (comparatively) direct article. A fudge is, rather amusingly, probably the best approach, and pretty much the only option given the complexities involved and the varied and confused public will on the matters involved.
No Labour leader in UK history could have performed worse than Miliband. He did absolutely nothing to energise the Labour vote. Labour will have real problem with Ed in charge of the 2015 campaign. Watch him stay away from Scotland as much as he dare. The trouble is Labour need the Leader to take on the SNP next May and Ed will lose.
Haven't read the thread yet, but look forward to doing so when I am off my blackberry.
But to develop the "mansion" theme can I point out that Labour's treatment of the Constitution was as delicate and productive as their treatment of Wentworth Woodhouse
They are Muslims, but followers of a radical medieval sect within Islam called Wahhabism. Wherein lies terrorism, suicide bombings, beheadings of infidels, prostitution 'marriages', sharia law, preachers of hate, radicalisation, and basically every aspect of the unnacceptable face of Islam. We need to understand the nature and origins of Wahhabism if we're to combat it's effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement Saying 'it's all of them' is as deep a misunderstanding as saying they're all angels.
It's not medieval: it was formed in the 18th Century. Wahhabism is the equivalent of Lutheranism, reforming the religion to focus primarily on scripture and chucking out all the stuff about a priestly/clerical elite making decisions.
Just because something was thought up in the 18th century doesn't mean it wasn't mediaeval, eg
- UKIP was thought up in the 1990s, but is of the 1950s - Climate alarmism was thought up in the 1970s, but is essentially aeromancy, which is mediaeval - Miliprat proposed rent controls in 2014 but these were an idea that failed in the 1960s - Scargill founded the Socialist Labour Party 100 years after someone else founded the Labour Party
At FMQs this morning Eck was asked when they were going to get on with governing now they were finished fannying about with the neverendum, and he replied "We have delivered the Ryder Cup!"
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
Rafael Behr may of course be a double,or treble agent,but taken at face value the 2-1 on Ukip at Thurrock looks attractive.Or is it a set up? "Meanwhile, Labour campaign strategists are starting to lose hope of winning the Essex constituency of Thurrock, officially number two on the party’s list of target seats. The PPC there is Polly Billington, a former Miliband adviser. She is battling hard and has the support of an unofficial “save Polly” drive from friends on the frontbench. But Ukip is still winning on the ground."
A cunning plan afoot.
Dear, oh dear. What a week Ed is having. Hodge is pushing a similar UKIP line over at Telegraph. This is Labour's worst conference week in many a year. They need Alan Johnson urgently before the blood flow from the 35% strategy turns fatal.
I see Shadsy has a Ladbrokes market on who the next Tory MP to defect will be. That 10/1 on George Eustice looks interesting. He previously ran the No campaign against a Euro and was a UKIP candidate 15 years ago in South West European elections. It would be a bit of a disaster for Cameron if George did take the return trip given Eustice's closeness to Downing Street in years gone by. But if George loses faith in Dave's plans then he strikes me as the sort of person who would go with his principles. I understand his beef with the European Union is personal. Worth a few quid.
"Miliband’s pledge of a cash boost for the NHS actually amounts to less than the budget increase granted by Margaret Thatcher every year she was in power. While Mrs Thatcher was prime minister, the lowest cash increase was 6 per cent – and between 1949 and 2010, the average annual growth in NHS spending was 4 per cent."
Is this true?
I suspect it is, but looking at cash increases is a bit harsh on Miliband. Inflation is a lot lower now than in the 80s.
That said, it is a complete work of fiction that the NHS can be "saved" by £2.5bn. Either it will take about an order of magnitude more than that, or you can save it with something other than money.
Perhaps I haven't visited here enough in the last few days, or perhaps too much in the last several years, as I just had a dream about Tory all-women short lists!
"Polly Billington is a former BBC journalist who worked on the Today programme before becoming a special advisor to Ed Miliband. She was the media director for his successful bid in the Labour leadership election, 2010"
A candidate whose background will get them flocking to the polling booths.
English parliament sounds good so let's have that.
Well to all posters saying this please could you be a bit clearer about what you have in mind for the UK parliament that would co-exist alongside this. Would this contain a new (perhaps smaller) set of elected UK MPs? Or would UK parliamentary business be sufficiently low volume that the UK parliament could contain representatives from the English and Scottish parliaments rather than newly elected officials?
Also would there be a conflict, potential power struggle between the English 1st minister and UK prime minister (assuming they are different people). Would it be possible to have a Scottish UK prime minister under this structure?
I would definitely reduce the Lords, perhaps to as low as 100 positions. It would be good if each Lord had enough power that they could make a splash in the news if they campaigned on something big. With the Commons, you could reduce it a bit, but there's a danger of having the executive have too much sway over the legislature through patronage, so you can't do it too much.
The only power struggle between the English first minister and UK PM would be the normal demands for more power you get from the Scottish first minister, Mayor of London etc.
It would be perfectly possible for a Scot to be UK PM - in fact it would be more legitimate for a Scot to do so, as he would no longer be setting policy for English-only issues.
That's why an English parliament is by far the best solution. It gives the English more self-rule, while also reducing their dominance over UK politics. It's "win-win" to use a cliched corporate phrase.
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
You only need to look at the Spanish Hapsburgs. They didn't marry siblings, but they did marry uncle to niece and first cousin to first cousin for several generations. The last of them, Charles II was completely sterile, and could barely feed himself.
Two disabled children out of four is surely an object lesson in why incest is a bad idea.
I'm not saying it's a good idea!
Although as the article says, there is no law against, and I think it would be very controversial to suggest that there should be, two people with hereditary illnesses or disabilities reproducing, and it's possible to make the argument you made against incest for that perhaps?
Two disabled children out of four is surely an object lesson in why incest is a bad idea.
I'm not saying it's a good idea!
Although as the article says, there is no law against, and I think it would be very controversial to suggest that there should be, two people with hereditary illnesses or disabilities reproducing, and it's possible to make the argument you made against incest for that perhaps?
I think it would be entirely legitimate to stop two people with hereditary illnesses reproducing if there was a very high chance it would cause disability in the resultant child.
Two disabled children out of four is surely an object lesson in why incest is a bad idea.
I'm not saying it's a good idea!
Although as the article says, there is no law against, and I think it would be very controversial to suggest that there should be, two people with hereditary illnesses or disabilities reproducing, and it's possible to make the argument you made against incest for that perhaps?
I think it would be entirely legitimate to stop two people with hereditary illnesses reproducing if there was a very high chance it would cause disability in the resultant child.
Perhaps mental defectives could be sterilised by the state too, to prevent them weakening the race. I'm sure some statesman has proposed that before but I can't recall quite which one it was...
Two disabled children out of four is surely an object lesson in why incest is a bad idea.
I'm not saying it's a good idea!
Although as the article says, there is no law against, and I think it would be very controversial to suggest that there should be, two people with hereditary illnesses or disabilities reproducing, and it's possible to make the argument you made against incest for that perhaps?
Most people don't know what potential genetic disorders they may have. We do know, however, that inbreeding between very close relatives (particularly if it occurs over several generations) will cause genetic illnesses.
However, I would say that there is a much stronger case for prohibiting reproduction in the circumstances you mention, than there is for relaxing the law to allow reproduction between siblings.
"Miliband’s pledge of a cash boost for the NHS actually amounts to less than the budget increase granted by Margaret Thatcher every year she was in power. While Mrs Thatcher was prime minister, the lowest cash increase was 6 per cent – and between 1949 and 2010, the average annual growth in NHS spending was 4 per cent."
Is this true?
I suspect it is, but looking at cash increases is a bit harsh on Miliband. Inflation is a lot lower now than in the 80s.
That said, it is a complete work of fiction that the NHS can be "saved" by £2.5bn. Either it will take about an order of magnitude more than that, or you can save it with something other than money.
What the NHS needs is is for clever-clogs know-nothings to stop trying to micro-manage and fine-tune it every 5 minutes. Yes, I know about Stafford, but part of that was at least due, I strongly suspect, to people from Whitehall turning up every few minutes with “targets”.
There’s probably not a lot wrong with the NHS that a few committed top people saying “Go away” (or something similar) to Central Government wouldn’t put right. And I’m prepared to find £5 to say that that’s the same in Wales!
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
The Telegraph article is bizarrely equivocal on that point. It says:
"...it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities."
Believed! Since when did empirical fact become belief?
There is no rush to implement EV4EL, just because Scotland is getting devomax. If Labour win the election and need Scottish MP's to get English/Wales legislation through, then as the UK government they should be able to do this. Why should they stop all non English MP's voting on English laws/divisions ? You can just imagine the Tories putting forward a vote of no confidence in the government in relation to England only, if they have a majority of English MP's.
I think it a non starter to start mucking around with the current HOC rules. I am not sure it is even possible to change the HOC standing orders in relation to MP's voting rights. There needs to be some form of constituitional convention lasting say a max of 2 years and then put the options to the public in a referendum. It may be the public want to move towards more powerful national parliamments, with a Westminster federal parliament. The last time they were asked about regional government, they were not that interested.
Well I'm sticking by my position which is that devo-max makes EV4EL irresistible in the medium term which creates a de facto English parliament. It does not make sense to me to have a UK Prime Minister who is a different person from the English 1st minister who would surely wield much more power. Practically a Scot would never be PM under this system which I think leads to the slow death of the union. Since the Scots voted to keep the union that makes devo-max itself undemocratic.
Two disabled children out of four is surely an object lesson in why incest is a bad idea.
I'm not saying it's a good idea!
Although as the article says, there is no law against, and I think it would be very controversial to suggest that there should be, two people with hereditary illnesses or disabilities reproducing, and it's possible to make the argument you made against incest for that perhaps?
I think it would be entirely legitimate to stop two people with hereditary illnesses reproducing if there was a very high chance it would cause disability in the resultant child.
Perhaps mental defectives could be sterilised by the state too, to prevent them weakening the race. I'm sure some statesman has proposed that before but I can't recall quite which one it was...
That's a clearly ridiculously comparison. There are literally billions of other people in the world that someone with a hereditary illness could mate with without causing deformity in their child. Preventing them from breeding with a tiny minority that would cause deformity is thus nowhere near in comparison with sterilising them.
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
The Telegraph article is bizarrely equivocal on that point. It says:
"...it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities."
Believed! Since when did empirical fact become belief?
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
The Telegraph article is bizarrely equivocal on that point. It says:
"...it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities."
Believed! Since when did empirical fact become belief?
It's also worth noting that there's a very strong tendency for incestuous relationships to be abusive ones, "It's our little secret" etc.
I went into a Ladbrokes shop and the max stake on Phillip Hollobone to be next ukip defector is a tenner!!!! What's the point?!
I wouldn't mind an explanation from Shadsy as to the logic of such low maximum stakes. Do they assume every political punter will take money off them?
To be fair, on markets like that they are very vulnerable to someone having inside information. It's not like betting on an election.
Just had a small wager with Ladbrokes on Thurrock going UKIP, based on the background of Labour's candidate (Tories don't even appear to have one). 7/4. It's 2s at Paddy, but I don't have an account.
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
The Telegraph article is bizarrely equivocal on that point. It says:
"...it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities."
Believed! Since when did empirical fact become belief?
I assume their science editor has never heard of double recessives.
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
The Telegraph article is bizarrely equivocal on that point. It says:
"...it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities."
Believed! Since when did empirical fact become belief?
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
The Telegraph article is bizarrely equivocal on that point. It says:
"...it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities."
Believed! Since when did empirical fact become belief?
It's also worth noting that there's a very strong tendency for incestuous relationships to be abusive ones, "It's our little secret" etc.
You have to remember that Telegraph readers are more familiar with horse and dog breeding where one is actually looking for genetic abnormalities.
There is no rush to implement EV4EL, just because Scotland is getting devomax. If Labour win the election and need Scottish MP's to get English/Wales legislation through, then as the UK government they should be able to do this. Why should they stop all non English MP's voting on English laws/divisions ? You can just imagine the Tories putting forward a vote of no confidence in the government in relation to England only, if they have a majority of English MP's.
I think it a non starter to start mucking around with the current HOC rules. I am not sure it is even possible to change the HOC standing orders in relation to MP's voting rights. There needs to be some form of constituitional convention lasting say a max of 2 years and then put the options to the public in a referendum. It may be the public want to move towards more powerful national parliamments, with a Westminster federal parliament. The last time they were asked about regional government, they were not that interested.
This sounds like kicking the whole matter into the long grass for political purposes. I believe that the SNP MPs do not vote on English and Welsh devolved matters, so why cannot an agreement be made with the other Scots, Welsh and Irish MPs on such matters.
Or are you proposing that English MPs vote on Scots, Welsh and Irish devolve matters.
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
AIDs and other STDs. A host of social pathologies, abuse both personal and towards others, as well as the underming of marriage as one of the fundamental building blocks of society.
Two disabled children out of four is surely an object lesson in why incest is a bad idea.
I'm not saying it's a good idea!
Although as the article says, there is no law against, and I think it would be very controversial to suggest that there should be, two people with hereditary illnesses or disabilities reproducing, and it's possible to make the argument you made against incest for that perhaps?
There's a difference of scale. Almost everyone in the world will have a close relation with whom it would be unwise for them to procreate, so there's no limit to the scale of the potential problem.
The numbers of people with sever hereditary illnesses who you might consider advising not to reproduce with each other are quite small, so it's simply less of an issue due to the numbers involved.
Two disabled children out of four is surely an object lesson in why incest is a bad idea.
I'm not saying it's a good idea!
Although as the article says, there is no law against, and I think it would be very controversial to suggest that there should be, two people with hereditary illnesses or disabilities reproducing, and it's possible to make the argument you made against incest for that perhaps?
I think it would be entirely legitimate to stop two people with hereditary illnesses reproducing if there was a very high chance it would cause disability in the resultant child.
Perhaps mental defectives could be sterilised by the state too, to prevent them weakening the race. I'm sure some statesman has proposed that before but I can't recall quite which one it was...
Unfortunately long before that gentleman came along it was also popular amongst many otherwise respectable scientists at the start of the 20th century.
I went into a Ladbrokes shop and the max stake on Phillip Hollobone to be next ukip defector is a tenner!!!! What's the point?!
I wouldn't mind an explanation from Shadsy as to the logic of such low maximum stakes. Do they assume every political punter will take money off them?
To be fair, on markets like that they are very vulnerable to someone having inside information. It's not like betting on an election.
Just had a small wager with Ladbrokes on Thurrock going UKIP, based on the background of Labour's candidate (Tories don't even appear to have one). 7/4. It's 2s at Paddy, but I don't have an account.
Parents teachers and worked her way though a redbrick university? From my recollection of Thurrock a lot of people would relate to that!
At FMQs this morning Eck was asked when they were going to get on with governing now they were finished fannying about with the neverendum, and he replied "We have delivered the Ryder Cup!"
The Mail has some heartwarming pictures of a meeting at a mosque in Bolton where the locals are campaigning for Henning's release.
Sadly it will make little difference.
The pigs holding Henning hostage, would likely butcher his many supporters given the opportunity.
You should be careful with your language. Calling Muslims pigs may have the thought police round your door .
Yes calling Muslims pigs would indeed be poor choice of words. But then ISIL aren't Muslims, at least not Muslims that Muhammed (pbuh) would recognise.
It's a bit like saying the Crusaders were Christians. I'm sure they thought they were but, really, they had little in common with their founder's message. Same goes with the lunatics in ISIL.
You're taking the piss presumably? Both ISIL and the Crusaders are / were bang-on certain bits of the message. Didn't Mohammed massacre Jews, too?
To paraphrase Blackadder II, for ISIL the last 1,000 years of progress were something that happened to other people.
To take the last bit first, the Muslim world was of course behind many of the great advances of civilisation. During the so-called Dark Ages it was the Muslim east which pushed advances in science and technology, discovering techniques which we still use today.
Re. the first part, no I'm serious. I think both Jesus and Mohammed (pbuh) were very great people. For his time the prophet was an astonishing peace maker, in a manner almost unheard of in his day. He brokered peace amongst warring factions of Bedouin with great diplomacy and seems to have been a remarkable, humble, person. There was an incident, yes, re. the massacre of Banu Qurayza but that seems to happened as a last resort and under extreme provocation. Unfortunately it is partly that from which the jihadists draw their apparent reasoning for massacring innocent people, something expressly forbidden in the Qur'an.
Jesus, similarly, was an astonishing radical in his day but more has been written about him so I hopefully don't need to elaborate.
They were both great men, very great men. Unfortunately some of their alleged followers are assholes.
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
AIDs and other STDs. A host of social pathologies, abuse both personal and towards others, as well as the underming of marriage as one of the fundamental building blocks of society.
So you are proposing that we should outlaw all sex entirely then? Given that, with the exception of your ludicrous claims about marriage, the risks you describe apply equally as well to hetrosexual sex.
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
AIDs and other STDs. A host of social pathologies, abuse both personal and towards others, as well as the underming of marriage as one of the fundamental building blocks of society.
AIDS and STDs are also widespread among the straight population. I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of social pathologies. In terms of abuse towards other people, it seems like homophobic people have far more form than gay people do. As for the undermining of marriage, I have to say I haven't noticed any change in my relationship with Missus Socrates - perhaps you have an example of a straight marriage that fell apart due to those damn gays?
Two disabled children out of four is surely an object lesson in why incest is a bad idea.
I'm not saying it's a good idea!
Although as the article says, there is no law against, and I think it would be very controversial to suggest that there should be, two people with hereditary illnesses or disabilities reproducing, and it's possible to make the argument you made against incest for that perhaps?
There's a difference of scale. Almost everyone in the world will have a close relation with whom it would be unwise for them to procreate, so there's no limit to the scale of the potential problem.
The numbers of people with sever hereditary illnesses who you might consider advising not to reproduce with each other are quite small, so it's simply less of an issue due to the numbers involved.
The difficulty on here with issues like this is that I'm going to sound like I am pro incest! I can as suture you I'm not, biput still, I wouldn't rule out it being legal in 20 years time
Should two people with AIDS be allowed to procreate?
I went into a Ladbrokes shop and the max stake on Phillip Hollobone to be next ukip defector is a tenner!!!! What's the point?!
I wouldn't mind an explanation from Shadsy as to the logic of such low maximum stakes. Do they assume every political punter will take money off them?
To be fair, on markets like that they are very vulnerable to someone having inside information. It's not like betting on an election.
Just had a small wager with Ladbrokes on Thurrock going UKIP, based on the background of Labour's candidate (Tories don't even appear to have one). 7/4. It's 2s at Paddy, but I don't have an account.
Parents teachers and worked her way though a redbrick university? From my recollection of Thurrock a lot of people would relate to that!
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
AIDs and other STDs. A host of social pathologies, abuse both personal and towards others, as well as the underming of marriage as one of the fundamental building blocks of society.
Heterosexual people spread STDs too.
I don't see what bearing homosexuality has on the strength of my marriage.
To take the last bit first, the Muslim world was of course behind many of the great advances of civilisation. During the so-called Dark Ages it was the Muslim east which pushed advances in science and technology, discovering techniques which we still use today.
Re. the first part, no I'm serious. I think both Jesus and Mohammed (pbuh) were very great people. For his time the prophet was an astonishing peace maker, in a manner almost unheard of in his day. He brokered peace amongst warring factions of Bedouin with great diplomacy and seems to have been a remarkable, humble, person. There was an incident, yes, re. the massacre of Banu Qurayza but that seems to happened as a last resort and under extreme provocation. Unfortunately it is partly that from which the jihadists draw their apparent reasoning for massacring innocent people, something expressly forbidden in the Qur'an.
Jesus, similarly, was an astonishing radical in his day but more has been written about him so I hopefully don't need to elaborate.
They were both great men, very great men. Unfortunately some of their alleged followers are assholes.
I would have thought a man in his 30s having sex with a child would be enough to qualify someone as an asshole...
Just had a chance to watch the speech from Harry Leslie Smith to Labour conference. Very moving stuff, surely that's the making of a Party Political Broadcast for 2015? If Labour make the NHS No.1 or No.2 issue of the campaign they'll win convincingly.
Just as everything they do turns into a catastrophe, there are two points that will absolutely kill the Labour NHS camapign stone dead:
1. Wales 2. Mid-Staffs
There, that was easy.
If this were the case Labour wouldn't be the most trusted on Healthcare. I'm not denying the points you are making, just the effect (or lack of) they will have on peoples perceptions of party competency when it comes to healthcare.
There is no rush to implement EV4EL, just because Scotland is getting devomax. If Labour win the election and need Scottish MP's to get English/Wales legislation through, then as the UK government they should be able to do this. Why should they stop all non English MP's voting on English laws/divisions ? You can just imagine the Tories putting forward a vote of no confidence in the government in relation to England only, if they have a majority of English MP's.
I think it a non starter to start mucking around with the current HOC rules. I am not sure it is even possible to change the HOC standing orders in relation to MP's voting rights. There needs to be some form of constituitional convention lasting say a max of 2 years and then put the options to the public in a referendum. It may be the public want to move towards more powerful national parliamments, with a Westminster federal parliament. The last time they were asked about regional government, they were not that interested.
This sounds like kicking the whole matter into the long grass for political purposes. I believe that the SNP MPs do not vote on English and Welsh devolved matters, so why cannot an agreement be made with the other Scots, Welsh and Irish MPs on such matters.
Or are you proposing that English MPs vote on Scots, Welsh and Irish devolve matters.
Perhaps the Tories should try harder to win seats in Scotland. They might even think about moving towards PR, as they won 16.7% of the vote in Scotland, but only have 1 MP in Scotland.
You just have to accept that Westminster is a UK parliament. If England wants to have their own parliament, then let them. I am not against it. We can have an English first minister and a UK PM The UK PM at Westminster would be more powerful, as they would still look after Defence, Foreign Office and other UK wide issues.
I'll not comment on the content of the article except to say that any such article that does not include the word 'democracy' is little more than a superficial examination. The reality is that the establishment parties can continue to turn cartwheels and spin on pinheads to try and fudge this issue and risk further tainting their already discredited reputations or they can attempt to resolve the issue properly.
1) EVfEL is 'fools democracy, as beyond the potentially soluble issues of Ministerial control over devolved areas, it provides no English control over funding (when Barnett is a core issue) and potentially does not stop any English proposal being blocked in the HoL
2) The Labour balkanisation of England will fall foul of the NHS and other of its statist bureaucratic creations. How can the Labour Party break up its precious sacred cows as it must if regional devolution is to be taken seriously?
3) Beyond that in the regional model there is no way of stopping regions grouping together and its easy to envisage a situation where the Southern, Eastern, East Midlands and London Regions (an English confederacy? with easily more than half the population of England) together to challenge Westminster over issues like Barnett. The problem for Westminster is any regional division of England will eventually evolve into a representation of the political landscape and the national political landscape is clearly divided north/south roughly along the humber severn line.
4) Of course Westminster could try and abolish the Home Nation assemblies but that would likely kill the Union once and for all.
5) According to the 2011 census probably 2 in every 3 people in England and Wales no longer identify as being British at all they identifying either with their home nation or nation of origin and we know that 45% of Scots approximately completely reject British Identity. Failure to resolve the English Question likely further damages the British brand and at some point that damage will become so great that the Union will disintegrate.
6) By default an English Parliament is the only realistic answer with a chance of resolving the current mess. Westminster will just have to swallow the consequences and suck it up. They may consider it 'messy' but as I've been told many times by Westminster supporters that is the nature of our democracy. If they don't move toward an English Parliament things will continue to fracture.
"Polly Billington is a former BBC journalist who worked on the Today programme before becoming a special advisor to Ed Miliband. She was the media director for his successful bid in the Labour leadership election, 2010"
A candidate whose background will get them flocking to the polling booths.
Haha, you got there before me! Wonder if she was named after La Polyana?
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
The Telegraph article is bizarrely equivocal on that point. It says:
"...it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities."
Believed! Since when did empirical fact become belief?
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
The Telegraph article is bizarrely equivocal on that point. It says:
"...it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities."
Believed! Since when did empirical fact become belief?
It's also worth noting that there's a very strong tendency for incestuous relationships to be abusive ones, "It's our little secret" etc.
You have to remember that Telegraph readers are more familiar with horse and dog breeding where one is actually looking for genetic abnormalities.
Some acquaintances of mine have rudely taken to calling a very attractive pair of twins in their twenties who live near them "Cersei and Jaime".
They are Muslims, but followers of a radical medieval sect within Islam called Wahhabism. Wherein lies terrorism, suicide bombings, beheadings of infidels, prostitution 'marriages', sharia law, preachers of hate, radicalisation, and basically every aspect of the unnacceptable face of Islam. We need to understand the nature and origins of Wahhabism if we're to combat it's effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement Saying 'it's all of them' is as deep a misunderstanding as saying they're all angels.
Wahhabism developed in the 18th century. Its founder thought he was going back to the essence of Islam. Whether that's so I wouldn't know. But its roots lie in an Islamic reaction to some of the changes which animated the world in the 18th century.
Mrs Free, the Wahhabist sect followers remind me of the fundamentalist Christians of the the 17th century and, in lesser numbers, through to the near present day, (there was a strict Baptist Chapel in Hurstpiepoint until very recently - had about 4 members). Those strict sects though fell off because they didn't match the peoples' experience of life and, most importantly, they couldn't raise the funds to keep them going.
So how can the Wahhabi sect continue to cause such problems for all in the 21st century? Simples - money from Saudi Arabia. Turn that off and Wahhabism (and thus a great deal of terrorism) will go away, quite quickly. However that would mean upsetting the Saudi Royal Family and we are not allowed to do that.
I am of the view that neither Saudi Arabia nor Pakistan are our friends, whatever they may say, and we are deluded in thinking so. We should sup with them with very long spoons indeed.
I went into a Ladbrokes shop and the max stake on Phillip Hollobone to be next ukip defector is a tenner!!!! What's the point?!
I wouldn't mind an explanation from Shadsy as to the logic of such low maximum stakes. Do they assume every political punter will take money off them?
To be fair, on markets like that they are very vulnerable to someone having inside information. It's not like betting on an election.
Just had a small wager with Ladbrokes on Thurrock going UKIP, based on the background of Labour's candidate (Tories don't even appear to have one). 7/4. It's 2s at Paddy, but I don't have an account.
Parents teachers and worked her way though a redbrick university? From my recollection of Thurrock a lot of people would relate to that!
Blimey how long since you've been there?
About ten years. I worked around there, and many of my family lived there, although admittedly all have moved on now.
When I tipped up,Thurrock I thought it was about a 4/1 shot, so 16s looked great. Since then, the euro and local elections, plus ashcroft polling and the rise of ukip in. The polls nationally make me think it should be odds on , so 2/1 a good bet
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
The Telegraph article is bizarrely equivocal on that point. It says:
"...it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities."
Believed! Since when did empirical fact become belief?
Now that we bow to the God, "choice", there are few boundaries to what is coming.
A stupid ruling. There's a critical difference between homosexuality and incest, in that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, while incest can easily cause deformed children.
The Telegraph article is bizarrely equivocal on that point. It says:
"...it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities."
Believed! Since when did empirical fact become belief?
It's also worth noting that there's a very strong tendency for incestuous relationships to be abusive ones, "It's our little secret" etc.
You have to remember that Telegraph readers are more familiar with horse and dog breeding where one is actually looking for genetic abnormalities.
Some acquaintances of mine have rudely taken to calling a very attractive pair of twins in their twenties who live near them "Cersei and Jaime".
Let's hope they don't have any male teenagers living with them.
Two disabled children out of four is surely an object lesson in why incest is a bad idea.
I'm not saying it's a good idea!
Although as the article says, there is no law against, and I think it would be very controversial to suggest that there should be, two people with hereditary illnesses or disabilities reproducing, and it's possible to make the argument you made against incest for that perhaps?
There's a difference of scale. Almost everyone in the world will have a close relation with whom it would be unwise for them to procreate, so there's no limit to the scale of the potential problem.
The numbers of people with sever hereditary illnesses who you might consider advising not to reproduce with each other are quite small, so it's simply less of an issue due to the numbers involved.
The difficulty on here with issues like this is that I'm going to sound like I am pro incest!
One of the perils of the internet in general I'm afraid!
I can as suture you I'm not, biput still, I wouldn't rule out it being legal in 20 years time
Should two people with AIDS be allowed to procreate?
There's a lot that has been written elsewhere about the advisability of having sex - let alone procreating - with someone known to have AIDS when you do not. Some people will be willing to take that risk.
Similarly, the question of whether a woman with AIDS should attempt to have children is not a simple one because of the risk of transmission. So it's certainly something that I would be inclined to dissuade people from doing.
I think the distinction here is that genetic disorders are much harder to cure than viral diseases. In principle a cure could be discovered for AIDS such that any child born with the disease could become free of the disease, and preventing mother-to-baby transmission.
If gene therapy ever became effective then it would be something that might challenge the taboo on incest.
They are Muslims, but followers of a radical medieval sect within Islam called Wahhabism. Wherein lies terrorism, suicide bombings, beheadings of infidels, prostitution 'marriages', sharia law, preachers of hate, radicalisation, and basically every aspect of the unnacceptable face of Islam. We need to understand the nature and origins of Wahhabism if we're to combat it's effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement Saying 'it's all of them' is as deep a misunderstanding as saying they're all angels.
Wahhabism developed in the 18th century. Its founder thought he was going back to the essence of Islam. Whether that's so I wouldn't know. But its roots lie in an Islamic reaction to some of the changes which animated the world in the 18th century.
Mrs Free, the Wahhabist sect followers remind me of the fundamentalist Christians of the the 17th century and, in lesser numbers, through to the near present day, (there was a strict Baptist Chapel in Hurstpiepoint until very recently - had about 4 members). Those strict sects though fell off because they didn't match the peoples' experience of life and, most importantly, they couldn't raise the funds to keep them going.
So how can the Wahhabi sect continue to cause such problems for all in the 21st century? Simples - money from Saudi Arabia. Turn that off and Wahhabism (and thus a great deal of terrorism) will go away, quite quickly. However that would mean upsetting the Saudi Royal Family and we are not allowed to do that.
I am of the view that neither Saudi Arabia nor Pakistan are our friends, whatever they may say, and we are deluded in thinking so. We should sup with them with very long spoons indeed.
And one political party in the UK is committed to mass immigration from one of these countries.
Well I'm sticking by my position which is that devo-max makes EV4EL irresistible in the medium term which creates a de facto English parliament. It does not make sense to me to have a UK Prime Minister who is a different person from the English 1st minister who would surely wield much more power. Practically a Scot would never be PM under this system which I think leads to the slow death of the union. Since the Scots voted to keep the union that makes devo-max itself undemocratic.
The UK PM would have the power of war and peace, so it's hard to say the English one would have more power than that. But even if you determined it differently, why would that matter? Each leader would have their own jurisdiction.
Most crucially, a Scot could easily become PM in a system with a proper English parliament. An English parliament is required to maintain the union. Those politicians failing to do that now are inevitably leading to another Scottish referendum in twenty years time, just as those politicians in the 1990s caused this one. Only next time, it will likely be successful.
To take the last bit first, the Muslim world was of course behind many of the great advances of civilisation. During the so-called Dark Ages it was the Muslim east which pushed advances in science and technology, discovering techniques which we still use today.
Re. the first part, no I'm serious. I think both Jesus and Mohammed (pbuh) were very great people. For his time the prophet was an astonishing peace maker, in a manner almost unheard of in his day. He brokered peace amongst warring factions of Bedouin with great diplomacy and seems to have been a remarkable, humble, person. There was an incident, yes, re. the massacre of Banu Qurayza but that seems to happened as a last resort and under extreme provocation. Unfortunately it is partly that from which the jihadists draw their apparent reasoning for massacring innocent people, something expressly forbidden in the Qur'an.
Jesus, similarly, was an astonishing radical in his day but more has been written about him so I hopefully don't need to elaborate.
They were both great men, very great men. Unfortunately some of their alleged followers are assholes.
I would have thought a man in his 30s having sex with a child would be enough to qualify someone as an asshole...
Socrates, you really do take the biscuit. One gets used to the occasional imbecile on any site but it's the fact you use the name 'Socrates' which somehow makes it so much worse. I would also be wary about being quite so rude about the founder of Islam. That obviously isn't a threat, just an observation about courtesy. It would be like drinking alcohol in Medina high street during Ramadan. There are just some things for which the word you used might bounce back on you, with some justification.
No-one can be sure how old ‘Ā’ishah bint Abī Bakr was. You really ought, however, to do some learning about this. Marriages of the day were always political and this was certainly a political union. They were also often married off young, with consummation frequently taking place a lot later. Aisha stayed with him for the remainder of his life and by all accounts it was a happy union.
He was a great, a very great, man with the distinction of not claiming to be anything other than a man unlike Jesus (or his followers). But then you dismissed the doctrine of the Trinity in one sentence the other day so you obviously know your stuff on that as you do with Islam.
Gosh, pb.com is terribly lucky to have you around.
Just had a chance to watch the speech from Harry Leslie Smith to Labour conference. Very moving stuff, surely that's the making of a Party Political Broadcast for 2015? If Labour make the NHS No.1 or No.2 issue of the campaign they'll win convincingly.
Just as everything they do turns into a catastrophe, there are two points that will absolutely kill the Labour NHS camapign stone dead:
1. Wales 2. Mid-Staffs
There, that was easy.
If this were the case Labour wouldn't be the most trusted on Healthcare. I'm not denying the points you are making, just the effect (or lack of) they will have on peoples perceptions of party competency when it comes to healthcare.
For much of the post-war period, British politics and the Labour party in particular took a mystical approach to coal.
Now that coal mines have gone, that mystical approach has been transferred to the NHS.
It is the enemy of clear thinking about how best to provide a good health service to all at reasonable cost.
Faffing around with mansion taxes which will raise ca. 1% of the total NHS budget is a frivolously adolescent and shallow approach to the issue.
2) The Labour balkanisation of England will fall foul of the NHS and other of its statist bureaucratic creations. How can the Labour Party break up its precious sacred cows as it must if regional devolution is to be taken seriously?
The NHS is already divided countless times into various levels of organisation, although I don't know whether the Coalition abolished the Strategic Health Authorities or not. Having "NHS Yorkshire" is not a barrier to devolution to English regions.
I went into a Ladbrokes shop and the max stake on Phillip Hollobone to be next ukip defector is a tenner!!!! What's the point?!
I wouldn't mind an explanation from Shadsy as to the logic of such low maximum stakes. Do they assume every political punter will take money off them?
To be fair, on markets like that they are very vulnerable to someone having inside information. It's not like betting on an election.
Just had a small wager with Ladbrokes on Thurrock going UKIP, based on the background of Labour's candidate (Tories don't even appear to have one). 7/4. It's 2s at Paddy, but I don't have an account.
Parents teachers and worked her way though a redbrick university? From my recollection of Thurrock a lot of people would relate to that!
Blimey how long since you've been there?
About ten years. I worked around there, and many of my family lived there, although admittedly all have moved on now.
Why do I get the sense that behind all this talk of constituitional issues, is a fear of Tories and others on the right, that Labour will win in 2015. They will then have to put up with a Labour government implementing devomax to Scotland, extra powers to Wales, not having a referendum on EU and meanwhile using non English MP's votes to implement policies they don't agree with.
Well that is the democracy we live in. Labour have to put up with Tories when they are in government. If the Tories want to be a UK government, they have to try harder in Scotland and Wales. They have to concentrate on trying to win the election with a majority and then they can then try to implement the changes they want to see.
The Mail has some heartwarming pictures of a meeting at a mosque in Bolton where the locals are campaigning for Henning's release.
Sadly it will make little difference.
The pigs holding Henning hostage, would likely butcher his many supporters given the opportunity.
You should be careful with your language. Calling Muslims pigs may have the thought police round your door .
Yes calling Muslims pigs would indeed be poor choice of words. But then ISIL aren't Muslims, at least not Muslims that Muhammed (pbuh) would recognise.
It's a bit like saying the Crusaders were Christians. I'm sure they thought they were but, really, they had little in common with their founder's message. Same goes with the lunatics in ISIL.
You're taking the piss presumably? Both ISIL and the Crusaders are / were bang-on certain bits of the message. Didn't Mohammed massacre Jews, too?
To paraphrase Blackadder II, for ISIL the last 1,000 years of progress were something that happened to other people.
To take the last bit first, the Muslim world was of course behind many of the great advances of civilisation. During the so-called Dark Ages it was the Muslim east which pushed advances in science and technology, discovering techniques which we still use today.
Re. the first part, no I'm serious. I think both Jesus and Mohammed (pbuh) were very great people. For his time the prophet was an astonishing peace maker, in a manner almost unheard of in his day. He brokered peace amongst warring factions of Bedouin with great diplomacy and seems to have been a remarkable, humble, person. There was an incident, yes, re. the massacre of Banu Qurayza but that seems to happened as a last resort and under extreme provocation. Unfortunately it is partly that from which the jihadists draw their apparent reasoning for massacring innocent people, something expressly forbidden in the Qur'an.
Jesus, similarly, was an astonishing radical in his day but more has been written about him so I hopefully don't need to elaborate.
They were both great men, very great men. Unfortunately some of their alleged followers are assholes.
There are grounds for believing that Islamic science was other people's and that once they'd appropriated it all they created no more: http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm
Miss Anne, going from Gibbon, didn't early Islam just conquer its way to power, taking advantage of the weakness and madness of the latter day Heraclius (alas) and Chosroes?
I went into a Ladbrokes shop and the max stake on Phillip Hollobone to be next ukip defector is a tenner!!!! What's the point?!
I wouldn't mind an explanation from Shadsy as to the logic of such low maximum stakes. Do they assume every political punter will take money off them?
To be fair, on markets like that they are very vulnerable to someone having inside information. It's not like betting on an election.
Just had a small wager with Ladbrokes on Thurrock going UKIP, based on the background of Labour's candidate (Tories don't even appear to have one). 7/4. It's 2s at Paddy, but I don't have an account.
Parents teachers and worked her way though a redbrick university? From my recollection of Thurrock a lot of people would relate to that!
Blimey how long since you've been there?
About ten years. I worked around there, and many of my family lived there, although admittedly all have moved on now.
It's known as Chafrica now
I must go and have a drive around. Visit a few pubs. The cricket season’s over, so I have a little more time.
To be fair, South Ockendon was never my favourite place.
euan mccolm @euanmccolm 11m asked at a dinner with editors whether he'd rather push Farage or Salmond off beachy head, Cameron said "Salmond. business before pleasure."
Socrates, you really do take the biscuit. One gets used to the occasional imbecile on any site but it's the fact you use the name 'Socrates' which somehow makes it so much worse. I would also be wary about being quite so rude about the founder of Islam. That obviously isn't a threat, just an observation about courtesy. It would be like drinking alcohol in Medina high street during Ramadan. There are just some things for which the word you used might bounce back on you, with some justification.
No-one can be sure how old ‘Ā’ishah bint Abī Bakr was. You really ought, however, to do some learning about this. Marriages of the day were always political and this was certainly a political union. She stayed with him for the remainder of his life and by all accounts it was a happy union.
He was a great, a very great, man with the distinction of not claiming to be anything other than a man unlike Jesus (or his followers). But then you dismissed the Trinity in one sentence the other day so you obviously know your stuff on that as you do with Islam. Pb.com is terribly lucky to have you around.
Why should one be courteous to something one holds in such utter contempt? Your claims about Mo (let's write some fatuous letters in brackets after his name) are based entirely upon a hagiography designed to make us think he had some special connection to a Middle Eastern Sky Fairy. The idea that he was a 'very great man' is completely unsupportable given what we know about him.
I suppose he does have the one advantage that, unlike Jesus, we can be fairly certain he existed but beyond that ascribing any great virtues to him is a real non-starter.
I went into a Ladbrokes shop and the max stake on Phillip Hollobone to be next ukip defector is a tenner!!!! What's the point?!
I wouldn't mind an explanation from Shadsy as to the logic of such low maximum stakes. Do they assume every political punter will take money off them?
To be fair, on markets like that they are very vulnerable to someone having inside information. It's not like betting on an election.
Just had a small wager with Ladbrokes on Thurrock going UKIP, based on the background of Labour's candidate (Tories don't even appear to have one). 7/4. It's 2s at Paddy, but I don't have an account.
Parents teachers and worked her way though a redbrick university? From my recollection of Thurrock a lot of people would relate to that!
Blimey how long since you've been there?
About ten years. I worked around there, and many of my family lived there, although admittedly all have moved on now.
It's known as Chafrica now
I must go and have a drive around. Visit a few pubs. The cricket season’s over, so I have a little more time.
To be fair, South Ockendon was never my favourite place.
Thats probably the nicest part now!
My dad used to play for Aveley and was also the manager of tilbury town so I was there a lot growing up
Comments
2. Meh - they all bow to Angela in the end.
3. Reneging isn't an option - the WLQ is not an attempt to wriggle out - it's a bonus prize of kicking Labour.
Marvellous.
"Meanwhile, Labour campaign strategists are starting to lose hope of winning the Essex constituency of Thurrock, officially number two on the party’s list of target seats. The PPC there is Polly Billington, a former Miliband adviser. She is battling hard and has the support of an unofficial “save Polly” drive from friends on the frontbench. But Ukip is still winning on the ground."
A cunning plan afoot.
At others, like the 'white smoke' stupidity, and Mastermind, he's awful.
His book: "Out of the ashes" about the riots showed both sides of this to me. Some of it very impressive, other bits awful.
Give him the right ministerial brief, and he *could* be stellar. Or an absolute dud.
I went into a Ladbrokes shop and the max stake on Phillip Hollobone to be next ukip defector is a tenner!!!! What's the point?!
Is this true?
"First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond is up next and gets some nice loud music to accompany his walk to the pedestal, drowning out any potentially controversial crowd reaction."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11119062/Incest-a-fundamental-right-German-committee-says.html?WT.mc_id=e_3565701&WT.tsrc=email&etype=frontpage&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FPM_New_2014_9_25&utm_campaign=3565701
Well to all posters saying this please could you be a bit clearer about what you have in mind for the UK parliament that would co-exist alongside this. Would this contain a new (perhaps smaller) set of elected UK MPs? Or would UK parliamentary business be sufficiently low volume that the UK parliament could contain representatives from the English and Scottish parliaments rather than newly elected officials?
Also would there be a conflict, potential power struggle between the English 1st minister and UK prime minister (assuming they are different people). Would it be possible to have a Scottish UK prime minister under this structure?
To paraphrase Blackadder II, for ISIL the last 1,000 years of progress were something that happened to other people.
Thank Heaven for small mercies. There's not enough mind bleach to deal with an EdM sex scandal.
3.9 Bn Euros
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union
Mind you, I suspect the eurozone sovereign debt crisis will flare up again before we get any chance to vote to leave.
Sooner or later I'm just going to give up and work with whatever Betfair offer me.
What chance have you got?
But to develop the "mansion" theme can I point out that Labour's treatment of the Constitution was as delicate and productive as their treatment of Wentworth Woodhouse
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wentworth_Woodhouse
Joyous.
https://fullfact.org/economy/cost_eu_membership_gross_net_contribution-30887
- UKIP was thought up in the 1990s, but is of the 1950s
- Climate alarmism was thought up in the 1970s, but is essentially aeromancy, which is mediaeval
- Miliprat proposed rent controls in 2014 but these were an idea that failed in the 1960s
- Scargill founded the Socialist Labour Party 100 years after someone else founded the Labour Party
etc
Numpty.
That said, it is a complete work of fiction that the NHS can be "saved" by £2.5bn. Either it will take about an order of magnitude more than that, or you can save it with something other than money.
Not a man who finds it easy to walk past a mirror methinks.....
*pours self a stiff drink*
"Polly Billington is a former BBC journalist who worked on the Today programme before becoming a special advisor to Ed Miliband. She was the media director for his successful bid in the Labour leadership election, 2010"
A candidate whose background will get them flocking to the polling booths.
The only power struggle between the English first minister and UK PM would be the normal demands for more power you get from the Scottish first minister, Mayor of London etc.
It would be perfectly possible for a Scot to be UK PM - in fact it would be more legitimate for a Scot to do so, as he would no longer be setting policy for English-only issues.
That's why an English parliament is by far the best solution. It gives the English more self-rule, while also reducing their dominance over UK politics. It's "win-win" to use a cliched corporate phrase.
Although as the article says, there is no law against, and I think it would be very controversial to suggest that there should be, two people with hereditary illnesses or disabilities reproducing, and it's possible to make the argument you made against incest for that perhaps?
However, I would say that there is a much stronger case for prohibiting reproduction in the circumstances you mention, than there is for relaxing the law to allow reproduction between siblings.
Bookies get inside info as well, they don't stop betting then out of "fairness"
There’s probably not a lot wrong with the NHS that a few committed top people saying “Go away” (or something similar) to Central Government wouldn’t put right. And I’m prepared to find £5 to say that that’s the same in Wales!
"...it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities."
Believed! Since when did empirical fact become belief?
I think it a non starter to start mucking around with the current HOC rules. I am not sure it is even possible to change the HOC standing orders in relation to MP's voting rights. There needs to be some form of constituitional convention lasting say a max of 2 years and then put the options to the public in a referendum. It may be the public want to move towards more powerful national parliamments, with a Westminster federal parliament. The last time they were asked about regional government, they were not that interested.
Or are you proposing that English MPs vote on Scots, Welsh and Irish devolve matters.
The numbers of people with sever hereditary illnesses who you might consider advising not to reproduce with each other are quite small, so it's simply less of an issue due to the numbers involved.
Re. the first part, no I'm serious. I think both Jesus and Mohammed (pbuh) were very great people. For his time the prophet was an astonishing peace maker, in a manner almost unheard of in his day. He brokered peace amongst warring factions of Bedouin with great diplomacy and seems to have been a remarkable, humble, person. There was an incident, yes, re. the massacre of Banu Qurayza but that seems to happened as a last resort and under extreme provocation. Unfortunately it is partly that from which the jihadists draw their apparent reasoning for massacring innocent people, something expressly forbidden in the Qur'an.
Jesus, similarly, was an astonishing radical in his day but more has been written about him so I hopefully don't need to elaborate.
They were both great men, very great men. Unfortunately some of their alleged followers are assholes.
Should two people with AIDS be allowed to procreate?
I don't see what bearing homosexuality has on the strength of my marriage.
You just have to accept that Westminster is a UK parliament. If England wants to have their own parliament, then let them. I am not against it. We can have an English first minister and a UK PM The UK PM at Westminster would be more powerful, as they would still look after Defence, Foreign Office and other UK wide issues.
I'll not comment on the content of the article except to say that any such article that does not include the word 'democracy' is little more than a superficial examination. The reality is that the establishment parties can continue to turn cartwheels and spin on pinheads to try and fudge this issue and risk further tainting their already discredited reputations or they can attempt to resolve the issue properly.
1) EVfEL is 'fools democracy, as beyond the potentially soluble issues of Ministerial control over devolved areas, it provides no English control over funding (when Barnett is a core issue) and potentially does not stop any English proposal being blocked in the HoL
2) The Labour balkanisation of England will fall foul of the NHS and other of its statist bureaucratic creations. How can the Labour Party break up its precious sacred cows as it must if regional devolution is to be taken seriously?
3) Beyond that in the regional model there is no way of stopping regions grouping together and its easy to envisage a situation where the Southern, Eastern, East Midlands and London Regions (an English confederacy? with easily more than half the population of England) together to challenge Westminster over issues like Barnett. The problem for Westminster is any regional division of England will eventually evolve into a representation of the political landscape and the national political landscape is clearly divided north/south roughly along the humber severn line.
4) Of course Westminster could try and abolish the Home Nation assemblies but that would likely kill the Union once and for all.
5) According to the 2011 census probably 2 in every 3 people in England and Wales no longer identify as being British at all they identifying either with their home nation or nation of origin and we know that 45% of Scots approximately completely reject British Identity. Failure to resolve the English Question likely further damages the British brand and at some point that damage will become so great that the Union will disintegrate.
6) By default an English Parliament is the only realistic answer with a chance of resolving the current mess. Westminster will just have to swallow the consequences and suck it up. They may consider it 'messy' but as I've been told many times by Westminster supporters that is the nature of our democracy. If they don't move toward an English Parliament things will continue to fracture.
Haha, you got there before me!
Wonder if she was named after La Polyana?
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
The man was no more or less moral than your typical ruthless medieval leader.
When I tipped up,Thurrock I thought it was about a 4/1 shot, so 16s looked great. Since then, the euro and local elections, plus ashcroft polling and the rise of ukip in. The polls nationally make me think it should be odds on , so 2/1 a good bet
Similarly, the question of whether a woman with AIDS should attempt to have children is not a simple one because of the risk of transmission. So it's certainly something that I would be inclined to dissuade people from doing.
I think the distinction here is that genetic disorders are much harder to cure than viral diseases. In principle a cure could be discovered for AIDS such that any child born with the disease could become free of the disease, and preventing mother-to-baby transmission.
If gene therapy ever became effective then it would be something that might challenge the taboo on incest.
And one political party in the UK is committed to mass immigration from one of these countries.
Most crucially, a Scot could easily become PM in a system with a proper English parliament. An English parliament is required to maintain the union. Those politicians failing to do that now are inevitably leading to another Scottish referendum in twenty years time, just as those politicians in the 1990s caused this one. Only next time, it will likely be successful.
No-one can be sure how old ‘Ā’ishah bint Abī Bakr was. You really ought, however, to do some learning about this. Marriages of the day were always political and this was certainly a political union. They were also often married off young, with consummation frequently taking place a lot later. Aisha stayed with him for the remainder of his life and by all accounts it was a happy union.
He was a great, a very great, man with the distinction of not claiming to be anything other than a man unlike Jesus (or his followers). But then you dismissed the doctrine of the Trinity in one sentence the other day so you obviously know your stuff on that as you do with Islam.
Gosh, pb.com is terribly lucky to have you around.
Now that coal mines have gone, that mystical approach has been transferred to the NHS.
It is the enemy of clear thinking about how best to provide a good health service to all at reasonable cost.
Faffing around with mansion taxes which will raise ca. 1% of the total NHS budget is a frivolously adolescent and shallow approach to the issue.
Well that is the democracy we live in. Labour have to put up with Tories when they are in government. If the Tories want to be a UK government, they have to try harder in Scotland and Wales. They have to concentrate on trying to win the election with a majority and then they can then try to implement the changes they want to see.
http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm
To be fair, South Ockendon was never my favourite place.
asked at a dinner with editors whether he'd rather push Farage or Salmond off beachy head, Cameron said "Salmond. business before pleasure."
Arf.
I suppose he does have the one advantage that, unlike Jesus, we can be fairly certain he existed but beyond that ascribing any great virtues to him is a real non-starter.
My dad used to play for Aveley and was also the manager of tilbury town so I was there a lot growing up