This really is a great insight into the mindset of the intractable far right PB Tories - if you are rich and powerful enough you should be able to get away with anything, whilst the plebs must suffer in silence. Basically the foundation stones of fascism.
Meanwhile PB Lefties as usual are so wrapped up in their idealism that they fail to distinguish what they would like to happen, and possibly even what should happen with what will actually happen. More critically they over look the likely real world effects of their self righteous but badly thought out actions.
It always amuses me when left wingers start ranting about such things because most of those poor plebs who 'must suffer in silence' can be found in seats which have voted Labour solidly for generations. Decades of Labour leadership have got them nowhere but there again its part of Labour's makeup that they like to keep their supporters poor and needy.
Kezia Dugdale's recent "performance" on Question Time was very reassuring as an SNP backer. So too was Danny's for that matter, I mean he was good but the angle won't appeal to Scottish liberals I think.
Kezia was just plain dreadful.
Murphy has bombed as well, not got the reception he thought he would and has resorted to shouty man.
PS: Shows you how dire it is given kezia was their top talent , she is utterly useless.
"I think this should be put to the test and you should do an ad with him Roger."
I've already said that when it comes to advertising ethics is a county where they make TOWIE. As for me I've even shot for BAT but would draw the line at Clarkson. Can you imagine the reprecussions if his pasta was overcooked?
@Indigo Stars should be able to do what they like? Same as any other wealthy, powerful, privileged person? I am glad to see the subservient serf gene still runs strong in our Anglo Saxon relatives.
Christ on a bike.
I didn't say what should happen, I said what will happen. Sacking some one from a high paid job so they can go and take a higher paid job isn't much of a sanction is it ? If you don't want stars to do as they like you need different contracts, if you can get them to sign them. Yes, it sucks, yes its how the world is.
Quick question. Does anyone here subscribe to the Telegraph? I don't and bar Animal Pix Of The Week/Matt, I rarely visit it now that the blogs section has been binned.
I notice that it's rarely referenced here now either. Is this a coincidence or a mistake by the mgt there that's lost an indirect channel of eyeballs?
''I've a really strong view about this whole subject. I may have influenced him to become very successful, but he did it. I'd feel grubby trying to extract £££ from his future life.''
It is impossible to overstress the damage judgements like these are causing. Men are walking away from marriage, and women, not in droves but in corps.
I read some research the other day that claimed 70% of American men between the ages of 20 and 34 remain unmarried. Chr8st knows what that does to the birth rate. No wonder the west is desperately importing people as fast as it can.
It reasons are complex (ubiquitous internet pornography etc.) but part of it is that many men (even those who really want children) are deciding marriage ain't worth it for them. when it breaks up (50% of all US marriages end in failure) the state and the law are foursquare behind the woman
Well it looks like the thread splits down the middle when it comes to Clarkson. Those on the Right-the followers of Guido-think it's OK to smack an underling in the mouth because he hasn't brought your dinner on time and those on the left plus the nicest of Tories such as JohnO disagree
Interesting. Do you have a link to any report that he 'smacked an underling in the mouth'? Everyone else seems to think a punch was merely thrown, without connecting.
It's hardly a 'Prescott', and many on the Left loved that.
(Clarkson is *extremely* litigious BTW).
In the world of meejah, it is well known that "the talent' gets cut slack that others would not get in the workplace. Sport is the same. Football players who punch or kick others in front of thousands of witnesses get a brief suspension even when inflicting severe injury , but then are welcome on BBC MOTD as pundits.
Politics is not far behind. In what other business are people who have cheated on expenses rehabilitated so quickly to the front line, or even peerages.
Clarkson can be a dickhead but a bit of handbags should not be a hanging offence.
Becoming self-reliant and monied would tempt such voters into becoming Tories. So Labour has a vested interest in not doing so.
It's perverse, but accurate.
As accurate as an Assad barrel bomb as usual. The Tories love the poor - so much that they want to make a lot more of them. Their religion of neoliberalism is expressly designed to smash the middle classes, that ultimate totem of modern developed enlightenment civilisation. The greatest periods of social mobility and increases in standard of living in this country's history occurred post war under policies that would now be considered dangerously and unacceptably loony left.
Oh god, debate-gate AGAIN...yawn...I think Cameron is wrong on this, but Ed has already done this to death. There are way more important things to bash Cameron / Tories over.
This really is a great insight into the mindset of the intractable far right PB Tories - if you are rich and powerful enough you should be able to get away with anything, whilst the plebs must suffer in silence. Basically the foundation stones of fascism.
Meanwhile PB Lefties as usual are so wrapped up in their idealism that they fail to distinguish what they would like to happen, and possibly even what should happen with what will actually happen. More critically they over look the likely real world effects of their self righteous but badly thought out actions.
It always amuses me when left wingers start ranting about such things because most of those poor plebs who 'must suffer in silence' can be found in seats which have voted Labour solidly for generations. Decades of Labour leadership have got them nowhere but there again its part of Labour's makeup that they like to keep their supporters poor and needy.
And by giving huge credits (and benefits) for lots of children, and lower wages, they have trapped their voters into dependance on Labours/HMGs charity, which makes it difficult to reduce the deficit but keeps them voting Labour.
Becoming self-reliant and monied would tempt such voters into becoming Tories. So Labour has a vested interest in not doing so.
It's perverse, but accurate.
As accurate as an Assad barrel bomb as usual. The Tories love the poor - so much that they want to make a lot more of them. Their religion of neoliberalism is expressly designed to smash the middle classes, that ultimate totem of modern developed enlightenment civilisation. The greatest periods of social mobility and increases in standard of living in this country's history occurred post war under policies that would now be considered dangerously and unacceptably loony left.
I don't get the strategy here. Cameron clearly isn't for turning, him being "frit" has been discussed for hours already across all the media, and the result is Tories have been ticking up in the polls. What does Ed gain from this line, getting it back in the media, so the BBC can talk for another 5hrs among themselves about debates?
Quite. I say this with a heavy-heart as I know many who are in this trap but have enough self-interest to vote Labour even if they don't feel they're fit to run HMG.
Danny Fink has an excellent piece in The Times today about Fear Of Loss and the consequences for voters. It's spot on.
This really is a great insight into the mindset of the intractable far right PB Tories - if you are rich and powerful enough you should be able to get away with anything, whilst the plebs must suffer in silence. Basically the foundation stones of fascism.
Meanwhile PB Lefties as usual are so wrapped up in their idealism that they fail to distinguish what they would like to happen, and possibly even what should happen with what will actually happen. More critically they over look the likely real world effects of their self righteous but badly thought out actions.
It always amuses me when left wingers start ranting about such things because most of those poor plebs who 'must suffer in silence' can be found in seats which have voted Labour solidly for generations. Decades of Labour leadership have got them nowhere but there again its part of Labour's makeup that they like to keep their supporters poor and needy.
And by giving huge credits (and benefits) for lots of children, and lower wages, they have trapped their voters into dependance on Labours/HMGs charity, which makes it difficult to reduce the deficit but keeps them voting Labour.
Quick question. Does anyone here subscribe to the Telegraph? I don't and bar Animal Pix Of The Week/Matt, I rarely visit it now that the blogs section has been binned.
I notice that it's rarely referenced here now either. Is this a coincidence or a mistake by the mgt there that's lost an indirect channel of eyeballs?
I used to have a paper sub which got you access to the online content but packed it in for three reasons. First, it became too pro-Labour. Second, you can't open a paper that size on the Northern Line anyway. Third, they had this antiquated system where they sent out sheets of little paper chits to subscribers. To get your subscriber copy you had to tear off that day's chit and find a newsagent who'd accept it. If you went out without them or you couldn't find a newsagent who'd accept them you didn't get the paper you'd paid for.
The online version is not much cop now. You can dodge the 20-article limit but the comments are either closed or overwhelmed with foaming kippers, and Disqus is dreadful anyway.
Ed name calling at PMQs, what will his wife think?
Again, I don't get this approach from Ed with all the Flashman / bully stuff. We have been told this for 6 years about Cameron and the public don't really go for it.
Telling that Ed didn't seem to notice. Should have called him out for it straightaway. i.e. he takes so much notice of Scotland that he doesn't even know who the leader of the SNP is.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 38s38 seconds ago Mandelson in helpful mood today: predicts no Labour majority and says broadcasters would be wrong to 'empty chair' Cameron in #tvdebates
This may be just me, but whenever I hear that hectoring/six-form tone - I imagine having a domestic with him. I go cold and think 'what a pillock'.
He just doesn't sound PMish - just petulant and complaining. I hated it when Tony did the same c1995/96. He annoyed me immensely I turned off the radio when he was on. Then he changed his tone and I was converted.
I hate whiners. EdM is a whiner. Until he changes that and becomes a leader he's media toast IMO. I don't give a toss about the supposed Flashman Cameron - he's a leader and full of confidence, I want someone like that standing up for us as a nation.blockquote class="Quote" rel="chestnut">
Ed name calling at PMQs, what will his wife think?
Again, I don't get this approach from Ed with all the Flashman / bully stuff. We have been told this for 6 years about Cameron and the public don't really go for it.
I think Cameron could have easily waived it aside/ laughed it off. Instead he goes for calling Ed, 'despicable' - and I don't think that will resonate either.
Telling that Ed didn't seem to notice. Should have called him out for it straightaway. i.e. he takes so much notice of Scotland that he doesn't even know who the leader of the SNP is.
It has been noted before that Ed doesn't really ever listen to what Cameron says, he has his set list of questions / replies that he has swatted up on and he just blurts them out. Ed has been caught out quite a few times when Cameron has replied yeah ok you are right to the first question, leaving Ed to fire another 5 saying disgrace this PM never listens, never admits fault etc..He has done the same with the budget response as well.
If I was "debating" Ed, I would employ that tactic a lot more, to kinda of fess up to something and watch him be totally thrown by the fact I have and that his bit of paper with 5 more attack lines working on the presumption I wouldn't admit any fault are now worthless.
Because Salmond will lead the SNP at Westminster. Sturgeon is party leader but an MSP. In terms of who would prop Labour up in a conspiracy of the damned - that would be Salmond.
Telling that Ed didn't seem to notice. Should have called him out for it straightaway. i.e. he takes so much notice of Scotland that he doesn't even know who the leader of the SNP is.
Yeah he should have pulled him, shows he doesn't think on his feet quick enough
Because Salmond will lead the SNP at Westminster. Sturgeon is party leader but an MSP. In terms of who would prop Labour up in a conspiracy of the damned - that would be Salmond.
And Salmond is leader of the SNP in all but title.
Justine is probably depressed after that - those nasty personal attacks. By Ed.
@FrancisUrquhart You don't get it because you don't listen properly, You tend to listen to the noise, rather than the points people are making. Once you get used to listening for the salient points, then you can progress to learning to listen carefully to what they are not saying.
@FrancisUrquhart You don't get it because you don't listen properly, You tend to listen to the noise, rather than the points people are making. Once you get used to listening for the salient points, then you can progress to learning to listen carefully to what they are not saying.
No, I look at it as how most will, they hear the "noise", rather than the points.
As stated before, Labour used to be excellent at getting their points across by using this approach and Tories are pi$$ poor, getting bogged down in the detail that requires somebody to listen carefully.
Those that even realise there was a PMQ's today, will hear DEBATES..two blokes shouting at one another about them, oh that again...and that is about it.
Because Salmond will lead the SNP at Westminster. Sturgeon is party leader but an MSP. In terms of who would prop Labour up in a conspiracy of the damned - that would be Salmond.
They were talking about the debates, and who should be in them. If the SNP are in them it will be sturgeon. Do it was wrong of Dave to reference Salmond
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 38s38 seconds ago Mandelson in helpful mood today: predicts no Labour majority and says broadcasters would be wrong to 'empty chair' Cameron in #tvdebates
LOL! I think Lord M is sharpening the knife for Life After Ed...
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 38s38 seconds ago Mandelson in helpful mood today: predicts no Labour majority and says broadcasters would be wrong to 'empty chair' Cameron in #tvdebates
Ed name calling at PMQs, what will his wife think?
Again, I don't get this approach from Ed with all the Flashman / bully stuff. We have been told this for 6 years about Cameron and the public don't really go for it.
Strange that being a bit Flashman is considered a disadvantage. Flashman was very successful, both as a character and as a source of popularity.
With the ladies all swooning over fifty shades and Poldark (who goes on to rape Elizabeth- I wonder how the BBC will adapt that?), there maynot be a problem with being Flashman.
After all who is the more popular: Dennis the Menace or Walter the Softy? Horrid Henry or Peter Perfect?
"The Indy and Evening Standard are owned by a former senior member of the KGB. Should we equally disregard everything those papers say because of their ownership?"
Never look at the Indy or 'i'. I certainly perceive the editor of the Standard to be an oleaginous toad who's fond of his own face, and wouldn't pick up his paper if it 1) wasn't free, and 2) didn't have the occasional perceptive book and film review, if that helps.
So that's a no then and that you have chosen to edit all the rest of my post out before you responded helps enormously.......
It appears James May lives in a lock-up garage :-)
Given it is London, it is probably a £3 million lock-up garage.
Love the way he starts by saying he has nothing more to add that isn't already in the statement. Then proceeds to answer the interviewer's questions, before realising and then saying "no further comment" - and then answering the next question as he walks back to his lock up.
Thanx for that. I used to buy the paper version every day - and did so for about 30yrs, then just wasn't engaged enough recently. The Blogs/Weird/Animal Pix sections were the only things that kept me onboard.
I just don't bother to even look unless prompted on here or Twitter. The Kippers put me off a lot re the comments - but TBH, it's the killing off the blogs that's done it.
Quick question. Does anyone here subscribe to the Telegraph? I don't and bar Animal Pix Of The Week/Matt, I rarely visit it now that the blogs section has been binned.
I notice that it's rarely referenced here now either. Is this a coincidence or a mistake by the mgt there that's lost an indirect channel of eyeballs?
I used to have a paper sub which got you access to the online content but packed it in for three reasons. First, it became too pro-Labour. Second, you can't open a paper that size on the Northern Line anyway. Third, they had this antiquated system where they sent out sheets of little paper chits to subscribers. To get your subscriber copy you had to tear off that day's chit and find a newsagent who'd accept it. If you went out without them or you couldn't find a newsagent who'd accept them you didn't get the paper you'd paid for.
The online version is not much cop now. You can dodge the 20-article limit but the comments are either closed or overwhelmed with foaming kippers, and Disqus is dreadful anyway.
Ed name calling at PMQs, what will his wife think?
Again, I don't get this approach from Ed with all the Flashman / bully stuff. We have been told this for 6 years about Cameron and the public don't really go for it.
Strange that being a bit Flashman is considered a disadvantage. Flashman was very successful, both as a character and as a source of popularity.
With the ladies all swooning over fifty shades and Poldark (who goes on to rape Elizabeth- I wonder how the BBC will adapt that?), there maynot be a problem with being Flashman.
After all who is the more popular: Dennis the Menace or Walter the Softy? Horrid Henry or Peter Perfect?
Well, and maybe that partly why the attack doesn't work? Not necessarily because people know who Flashman is, but rather the strong character vs wimp.
Cameron's position on debates is nonsense, but Ed whinging over and over again sounds well whiny, just because of how Ed is. The attack probably work better with a different character.
Because if his reply is broadcast, the electorate will recognise the name of Salmond as the big bad farmer Jones - and we don't want Jones back do we? (c) J Orwell Animal Farm
Ed can't think on his feet. In fact he can't think at all. He can feel very well, and he can opine. But he can't think (in the input -> process -> output sense).
Ed name calling at PMQs, what will his wife think?
Again, I don't get this approach from Ed with all the Flashman / bully stuff. We have been told this for 6 years about Cameron and the public don't really go for it.
Strange that being a bit Flashman is considered a disadvantage. Flashman was very successful, both as a character and as a source of popularity.
With the ladies all swooning over fifty shades and Poldark (who goes on to rape Elizabeth- I wonder how the BBC will adapt that?), there maynot be a problem with being Flashman.
After all who is the more popular: Dennis the Menace or Walter the Softy? Horrid Henry or Peter Perfect?
Telling that Ed didn't seem to notice. Should have called him out for it straightaway. i.e. he takes so much notice of Scotland that he doesn't even know who the leader of the SNP is.
Yeah he should have pulled him, shows he doesn't think on his feet quick enough
Bad error by Cameron
Cameron's associating the SNP with Salmond because Alex Salmond is the public face of the SNP south of the border.
I doubt many people in England would know who Nicola Sturgeon is, where-as Alex is recognizable. I suppose the other reason is that Slamond will be one in and out of Downing Street should the Lab/SNP deal be done.
I think polls show that voters across all parties in England are very unhappy with the prospect of the SNP getting into government at Westminster.
''I've a really strong view about this whole subject. I may have influenced him to become very successful, but he did it. I'd feel grubby trying to extract £££ from his future life.''
It is impossible to overstress the damage judgements like these are causing. Men are walking away from marriage, and women, not in droves but in corps.
I read some research the other day that claimed 70% of American men between the ages of 20 and 34 remain unmarried. Chr8st knows what that does to the birth rate. No wonder the west is desperately importing people as fast as it can.
It reasons are complex (ubiquitous internet pornography etc.) but part of it is that many men (even those who really want children) are deciding marriage ain't worth it for them. when it breaks up (50% of all US marriages end in failure) the state and the law are foursquare behind the woman
There are at least five issues with marriage that make divorce an unacceptably costly risk from the perspective of men.
First, lies told to induce the contract don't void it. If your spouse concealed a criminal record of violence, or dishonesty, or prostitution, or debt, or gambling addiction, for example, finding this out later does not entitle you to have the marriage cancelled. You have to divorce, with all the exposures.
Second, the alleged starting point of a 50:50 split is rare, because the partner who earns less gets the children and thus gets typically 70 to 80%. So one partner is required to fund the other, far beyond what their actual earning ability amounts to. This is no doubt why family lawyers advise women to get married and men not to.
Third, the terms under which you can divorce are constantly being retrospectively altered by a third party. So if a court decides that an ex-spouse should get a third of the pension, this is applied not to only new marriages contracted after that date, but to all those currently in existence. It is, therefore, wholly unclear what your actual exposures are from being married. You can only be sure that, if you came into the marriage as the better-off spouse, they will get worse.
Fourth, something like 80% of divorces are initiated by women. This strongly suggests that there is something abut divorce that is disproportionately advantageous to women, otherwise you'd expect something closer to a 50:50 split. If 80% were initiated by women I expect we'd hear about this on the BBC every day.
Fifth, when you ask people what are the actual advantages to men of being married, nobody can ever cite any that are not, in reality, financial advantages to his dependents when he dies.
Because if his reply is broadcast, the electorate will recognise the name of Salmond as the big bad farmer Jones - and we don't want Jones back do we? (c) J Orwell Animal Farm
If all goes well for the SNP and badly for labour than Salmond will be the one dealing in Parliament with Miliband - unless we vote Tory.
Quick question. Does anyone here subscribe to the Telegraph? I don't and bar Animal Pix Of The Week/Matt, I rarely visit it now that the blogs section has been binned.
I notice that it's rarely referenced here now either. Is this a coincidence or a mistake by the mgt there that's lost an indirect channel of eyeballs?
I would never buy a subscription from the Telegraph. It has gone down the toilet in recent months. I'm not even sure it is supposed to be a conservative paper anymore given much of the rabble they have brought together there. The quality of a lot of the journalism is sub Daily Mail standard. The thirty free articles a month is more than enough (especially if you have multiple machines).
This may be just me, but whenever I hear that hectoring/six-form tone - I imagine having a domestic with him. I go cold and think 'what a pillock'.
He just doesn't sound PMish - just petulant and complaining. I hated it when Tony did the same c1995/96. He annoyed me immensely I turned off the radio when he was on. Then he changed his tone and I was converted.
I hate whiners. EdM is a whiner. Until he changes that and becomes a leader he's media toast IMO. I don't give a toss about the supposed Flashman Cameron - he's a leader and full of confidence, I want someone like that standing up for us as a nation.blockquote class="Quote" rel="chestnut">
Because Salmond will lead the SNP at Westminster. Sturgeon is party leader but an MSP. In terms of who would prop Labour up in a conspiracy of the damned - that would be Salmond.
They were talking about the debates, and who should be in them. If the SNP are in them it will be sturgeon. Do it was wrong of Dave to reference Salmond
Wrong - your idol Mr. Miliband was talking about debates - while the Prime minister was talking about running the country. Would do you good to think about that.
Telling that Ed didn't seem to notice. Should have called him out for it straightaway. i.e. he takes so much notice of Scotland that he doesn't even know who the leader of the SNP is.
Yeah he should have pulled him, shows he doesn't think on his feet quick enough
Bad error by Cameron
Don't be daft. Everyone has heard of Salmond and links him with the SNP. No one has heard of the other wee lady. Bad errors are when a leader blames immigrants for traffic jams going to Wales when in fact the ratio of car ownership has shot up over the last 20 years - with more women driving than ever.
If you reset your cookies - the DT has no limit. I certainly wouldn't pay for Peter Oborne as was or just Boris. I read the DT for Tim Stanley, Dan Hodges and Ruth Dudley-Edwards.
I met Christina Odone years ago and was really surprised by her - not at all what I expected. I had a lot of Leftish journo friends and they were lovely and loyal. Sometimes I think some Lefty posters on here totally miss the point simply because I vote Tory now. It's weirdly blinkered.
Quick question. Does anyone here subscribe to the Telegraph? I don't and bar Animal Pix Of The Week/Matt, I rarely visit it now that the blogs section has been binned.
I notice that it's rarely referenced here now either. Is this a coincidence or a mistake by the mgt there that's lost an indirect channel of eyeballs?
I would never buy a subscription from the Telegraph. It has gone down the toilet in recent months. I'm not even sure it is supposed to be a conservative paper anymore given much of the rabble they have brought together there. The quality of a lot of the journalism is sub Daily Mail standard. The thirty free articles a month is more than enough (especially if you have multiple machines).
Fourth, something like 80% of divorces are initiated by women.
Giving the lie to the specious statement that men are somehow 'afraid of commitment'.
Another reason young men aren't marrying is they see their forty and fifty something fathers/uncles turned into grease spots by women who decide they've had enough of Mr boring dependable
Because if his reply is broadcast, the electorate will recognise the name of Salmond as the big bad farmer Jones - and we don't want Jones back do we? (c) J Orwell Animal Farm
Eh? If you're going to crowbar in an Animal Farm analogy, you presumably accept Cameron & Milliband as Napoleon & Snowball, and a denoument where pigs & humans come to an 'arrangement'.
The voters outside looked from ConLibLab to Nat, and from Nat to ConLibLab, and from ConLibLab to Nat again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Fifth, when you ask people what are the actual advantages to men of being married, nobody can ever cite any that are not, in reality, financial advantages to his dependents when he dies.
If your partner is a foreign national, especially one that has a hard time getting a visa you have no choice, you either need to get married and apply for a spousal visa, or apply for a fiancée visa and get married within 6 months.... unless your immigrant partner is from the EU, then you are al right.....
Because if his reply is broadcast, the electorate will recognise the name of Salmond as the big bad farmer Jones - and we don't want Jones back do we? (c) J Orwell Animal Farm
If all goes well for the SNP and badly for labour than Salmond will be the one dealing in Parliament with Miliband - unless we vote Tory.
All those ifs buts and maybes. Mr Salmond is not the party leader in Scotland and will not necessarily be the party leader in the Commons - Angus Robertson is.
Mr Salmond is being used as a deliberage bogey figure to whip up hysteria. As seen on PB today, as Dr Spyn rightly comments.
Because Salmond will lead the SNP at Westminster. Sturgeon is party leader but an MSP. In terms of who would prop Labour up in a conspiracy of the damned - that would be Salmond.
They were talking about the debates, and who should be in them. If the SNP are in them it will be sturgeon. Do it was wrong of Dave to reference Salmond
Wrong - your idol Mr. Miliband was talking about debates - while the Prime minister was talking about running the country. Would do you good to think about that.
Haha you shown your mindset for all to see... If you don't worship Dave you must be a lover of Ed
This may be just me, but whenever I hear that hectoring/six-form tone - I imagine having a domestic with him. I go cold and think 'what a pillock'.
He just doesn't sound PMish - just petulant and complaining. I hated it when Tony did the same c1995/96. He annoyed me immensely I turned off the radio when he was on. Then he changed his tone and I was converted.
I hate whiners. EdM is a whiner. Until he changes that and becomes a leader he's media toast IMO. I don't give a toss about the supposed Flashman Cameron - he's a leader and full of confidence, I want someone like that standing up for us as a nation.blockquote class="Quote" rel="chestnut">
Well it looks like the thread splits down the middle when it comes to Clarkson. Those on the Right-the followers of Guido-think it's OK to smack an underling in the mouth because he hasn't brought your dinner on time and those on the left plus the nicest of Tories such as JohnO disagree
Interesting. Do you have a link to any report that he 'smacked an underling in the mouth'? Everyone else seems to think a punch was merely thrown, without connecting.
It's hardly a 'Prescott', and many on the Left loved that.
(Clarkson is *extremely* litigious BTW).
In the world of meejah, it is well known that "the talent' gets cut slack that others would not get in the workplace. Sport is the same. Football players who punch or kick others in front of thousands of witnesses get a brief suspension even when inflicting severe injury , but then are welcome on BBC MOTD as pundits.
Politics is not far behind. In what other business are people who have cheated on expenses rehabilitated so quickly to the front line, or even peerages.
Clarkson can be a dickhead but a bit of handbags should not be a hanging offence.
Various people, MPs Lords, are in jail or went to jail for illegally claiming expenses. No one actually claimed for duck houses or moat cleaning. The one other obvious blatant lie I can immediately recall was Smith claiming her sister's back bedroom was her first home. But even here this was allowed by the expenses office. So called 'flipping' was allowed by the expenses office. As I recall when the drunken Labour MP punched someone the police were called in and he was sacked from the Labour Party.
Telling that Ed didn't seem to notice. Should have called him out for it straightaway. i.e. he takes so much notice of Scotland that he doesn't even know who the leader of the SNP is.
Yeah he should have pulled him, shows he doesn't think on his feet quick enough
Bad error by Cameron
Don't be daft. Everyone has heard of Salmond and links him with the SNP. No one has heard of the other wee lady. Bad errors are when a leader blames immigrants for traffic jams going to Wales when in fact the ratio of car ownership has shot up over the last 20 years - with more women driving than ever.
Ah ok, the prime Minister deliberately makes mistakes to mislead the public I get it
Get your tongue out of his bum ting tong, everyone makes mistakes
This may be just me, but whenever I hear that hectoring/six-form tone - I imagine having a domestic with him. I go cold and think 'what a pillock'.
He just doesn't sound PMish - just petulant and complaining. I hated it when Tony did the same c1995/96. He annoyed me immensely I turned off the radio when he was on. Then he changed his tone and I was converted.
I hate whiners. EdM is a whiner. Until he changes that and becomes a leader he's media toast IMO. I don't give a toss about the supposed Flashman Cameron - he's a leader and full of confidence, I want someone like that standing up for us as a nation.blockquote class="Quote" rel="chestnut">
I can only see Farage, Clegg and Bennett signing up to the digital debates. Farage and Bennett to enthuse their large band of online supporters and Clegg because he just loves debates.
Because Salmond will lead the SNP at Westminster. Sturgeon is party leader but an MSP. In terms of who would prop Labour up in a conspiracy of the damned - that would be Salmond.
They were talking about the debates, and who should be in them. If the SNP are in them it will be sturgeon. Do it was wrong of Dave to reference Salmond
Wrong - your idol Mr. Miliband was talking about debates - while the Prime minister was talking about running the country. Would do you good to think about that.
Haha you shown your mindset for all to see... If you don't worship Dave you must be a lover of Ed
Times have changed old chap, get with it
Remind us the last time you criticized EdM at PMQs.
Comments
It's perverse, but accurate.
PS: Shows you how dire it is given kezia was their top talent , she is utterly useless.
"I think this should be put to the test and you should do an ad with him Roger."
I've already said that when it comes to advertising ethics is a county where they make TOWIE. As for me I've even shot for BAT but would draw the line at Clarkson. Can you imagine the reprecussions if his pasta was overcooked?
I didn't say what should happen, I said what will happen. Sacking some one from a high paid job so they can go and take a higher paid job isn't much of a sanction is it ? If you don't want stars to do as they like you need different contracts, if you can get them to sign them. Yes, it sucks, yes its how the world is.
I notice that it's rarely referenced here now either. Is this a coincidence or a mistake by the mgt there that's lost an indirect channel of eyeballs?
It is impossible to overstress the damage judgements like these are causing. Men are walking away from marriage, and women, not in droves but in corps.
I read some research the other day that claimed 70% of American men between the ages of 20 and 34 remain unmarried. Chr8st knows what that does to the birth rate. No wonder the west is desperately importing people as fast as it can.
It reasons are complex (ubiquitous internet pornography etc.) but part of it is that many men (even those who really want children) are deciding marriage ain't worth it for them. when it breaks up (50% of all US marriages end in failure) the state and the law are foursquare behind the woman
Politics is not far behind. In what other business are people who have cheated on expenses rehabilitated so quickly to the front line, or even peerages.
Clarkson can be a dickhead but a bit of handbags should not be a hanging offence.
The Tories love the poor - so much that they want to make a lot more of them. Their religion of neoliberalism is expressly designed to smash the middle classes, that ultimate totem of modern developed enlightenment civilisation.
The greatest periods of social mobility and increases in standard of living in this country's history occurred post war under policies that would now be considered dangerously and unacceptably loony left.
And Salmond isn't leader of the SNP Dave
No surprise that EdM is going to batter him on this every time they have a confrontation.
And by giving huge credits (and benefits) for lots of children, and lower wages, they have trapped their voters into dependance on Labours/HMGs charity, which makes it difficult to reduce the deficit but keeps them voting Labour.
Salmond again tut tut
Dave crawled into power with the LD didn't he?
Name a good joke? Nick Clegg, he said... Then the rose garden
Horrible horrible hypocrite
I don't get the strategy here. Cameron clearly isn't for turning, him being "frit" has been discussed for hours already across all the media, and the result is Tories have been ticking up in the polls. What does Ed gain from this line, getting it back in the media, so the BBC can talk for another 5hrs among themselves about debates?
"Can you imagine the reprecussions if his pasta was overcooked?"
I think that's what Mr Brooke was banking on (but obviously in a non-threatening, non-violent way).
And as been said before on here, we need to see the actual circumstances to make a judgement, and we may never know.
I've signed the petition even though he can be a bit of a knob head. Just my perverse old- gitteryness coming out.
Danny Fink has an excellent piece in The Times today about Fear Of Loss and the consequences for voters. It's spot on.
Twice today. #mysoginy
Con o/u 285.5
Lab o/u 265.5
Con maj back out to 5/1
Con most votes now 1/3
The online version is not much cop now. You can dodge the 20-article limit but the comments are either closed or overwhelmed with foaming kippers, and Disqus is dreadful anyway.
Again, I don't get this approach from Ed with all the Flashman / bully stuff. We have been told this for 6 years about Cameron and the public don't really go for it.
Mandelson in helpful mood today: predicts no Labour majority and says broadcasters would be wrong to 'empty chair' Cameron in #tvdebates
He just doesn't sound PMish - just petulant and complaining. I hated it when Tony did the same c1995/96. He annoyed me immensely I turned off the radio when he was on. Then he changed his tone and I was converted.
I hate whiners. EdM is a whiner. Until he changes that and becomes a leader he's media toast IMO. I don't give a toss about the supposed Flashman Cameron - he's a leader and full of confidence, I want someone like that standing up for us as a nation.blockquote class="Quote" rel="chestnut"> Loses his temper every week now.
If I was "debating" Ed, I would employ that tactic a lot more, to kinda of fess up to something and watch him be totally thrown by the fact I have and that his bit of paper with 5 more attack lines working on the presumption I wouldn't admit any fault are now worthless.
Bad error by Cameron
So an error by Dave, Ed should've had him on that
Justine is probably depressed after that - those nasty personal attacks. By Ed.
You don't get it because you don't listen properly, You tend to listen to the noise, rather than the points people are making.
Once you get used to listening for the salient points, then you can progress to learning to listen carefully to what they are not saying.
As stated before, Labour used to be excellent at getting their points across by using this approach and Tories are pi$$ poor, getting bogged down in the detail that requires somebody to listen carefully.
Those that even realise there was a PMQ's today, will hear DEBATES..two blokes shouting at one another about them, oh that again...and that is about it.
With the ladies all swooning over fifty shades and Poldark (who goes on to rape Elizabeth- I wonder how the BBC will adapt that?), there maynot be a problem with being Flashman.
After all who is the more popular: Dennis the Menace or Walter the Softy? Horrid Henry or Peter Perfect?
Good old Captain Slow!
Legend...
Yes, the noise does tend to mask a lot, and is why Dave wants to micro manage and stifle any proper debate.
I just don't bother to even look unless prompted on here or Twitter. The Kippers put me off a lot re the comments - but TBH, it's the killing off the blogs that's done it.
Cameron's position on debates is nonsense, but Ed whinging over and over again sounds well whiny, just because of how Ed is. The attack probably work better with a different character.
Ed can't think on his feet. In fact he can't think at all. He can feel very well, and he can opine. But he can't think (in the input -> process -> output sense).
I doubt many people in England would know who Nicola Sturgeon is, where-as Alex is recognizable. I suppose the other reason is that Slamond will be one in and out of Downing Street should the Lab/SNP deal be done.
I think polls show that voters across all parties in England are very unhappy with the prospect of the SNP getting into government at Westminster.
What a desperate attempt at trolling me. Do try much harder.
First, lies told to induce the contract don't void it. If your spouse concealed a criminal record of violence, or dishonesty, or prostitution, or debt, or gambling addiction, for example, finding this out later does not entitle you to have the marriage cancelled. You have to divorce, with all the exposures.
Second, the alleged starting point of a 50:50 split is rare, because the partner who earns less gets the children and thus gets typically 70 to 80%. So one partner is required to fund the other, far beyond what their actual earning ability amounts to. This is no doubt why family lawyers advise women to get married and men not to.
Third, the terms under which you can divorce are constantly being retrospectively altered by a third party. So if a court decides that an ex-spouse should get a third of the pension, this is applied not to only new marriages contracted after that date, but to all those currently in existence. It is, therefore, wholly unclear what your actual exposures are from being married. You can only be sure that, if you came into the marriage as the better-off spouse, they will get worse.
Fourth, something like 80% of divorces are initiated by women. This strongly suggests that there is something abut divorce that is disproportionately advantageous to women, otherwise you'd expect something closer to a 50:50 split. If 80% were initiated by women I expect we'd hear about this on the BBC every day.
Fifth, when you ask people what are the actual advantages to men of being married, nobody can ever cite any that are not, in reality, financial advantages to his dependents when he dies.
I concur. Ed's scweam and scweam and scweam approach is completely off putting.
Con 27.5
Lab 27
LD 5.7
UKIP 11.7
Yougov "Unweighed 10" Latest average
Con 25.7
Lab 26.3
LD 5.2
UKIP 13.3
I met Christina Odone years ago and was really surprised by her - not at all what I expected. I had a lot of Leftish journo friends and they were lovely and loyal. Sometimes I think some Lefty posters on here totally miss the point simply because I vote Tory now. It's weirdly blinkered.
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_leader_nigel_farage_accepts_debate_invitation_from_telegraph_guardian_youtube
Giving the lie to the specious statement that men are somehow 'afraid of commitment'.
Another reason young men aren't marrying is they see their forty and fifty something fathers/uncles turned into grease spots by women who decide they've had enough of Mr boring dependable
Or are you still short of nuggets?
If you're going to crowbar in an Animal Farm analogy, you presumably accept Cameron & Milliband as Napoleon & Snowball, and a denoument where pigs & humans come to an 'arrangement'.
The voters outside looked from ConLibLab to Nat, and from Nat to ConLibLab, and from ConLibLab to Nat again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Mr Salmond is being used as a deliberage bogey figure to whip up hysteria. As seen on PB today, as Dr Spyn rightly comments.
Times have changed old chap, get with it
Surely "thcweam and thcweam and thcweam" is what Violet-Elizabeth Bott used to say?
Get your tongue out of his bum ting tong, everyone makes mistakes
Do feel free to recommend it to your friends, and to give Journey to Altmortis a look.
The second book takes place in the same world, and has a number of overlapping characters (only one has a major role in both books).
You're probably right. I have never felt the need to write it down before now.
Shame you don't bet, I'd take a quarter of that.
Remind us the last time you criticized EdM at PMQs.