The biggest lie of recent years and made in the HOC was Blairs when he said he had seen incontrovertible evidence of WMD...He hadn't...and a lot of people paid for his lie with their lives.
Then Blair got made Middle East peace ambassador - what a sick joke.
Does he still hold that position does anyone know?
FT is saying this morning that he's standing down.
Labour must do a deal with the SNP A more social democratic Britain can be achieved, and Scottish Labour's recovery set in train, if a deal is done between Labour and the SNP.
Labour would get smashed at the subsequent election.
Even Ed can't be unaware of that fact.
Or is it all about getting his 5 years in power and nothing about the long term viability of our country or his party?
If I read that piece right, it is essentially saying that it is worth doing anything to stop the Tories. Which is amusing given a paragraph attacks political tribalism, but only where it applies to disliking the SNP.
If that turns out to be correct, it's really hard to see how a government of any sort can be formed.
Continuing minority Con-LD coalition, or grand Con-Lab coalition. Someone has to govern!
I think it would be Minority Con with DUP and LD C&S. The "bedroom tax" would need to be changed, and a concession given on electoral reform for locals.
However, it'd probably hang together until after the EU referendum. Tories would match (and with the DUP outvote) the Lefties: SNP + Labour + Green + SDLP + PC combined.
I think that if Peter Kellner's vote shares were to pan out (Con 36%, Lab 31%) then the Conservatives would probably be over 300 seats.
If that turns out to be correct, it's really hard to see how a government of any sort can be formed.
Continuing minority Con-LD coalition, or grand Con-Lab coalition. Someone has to govern!
I think it would be Minority Con with DUP and LD C&S. The "bedroom tax" would need to be changed, and a concession given on electoral reform for locals.
However, it'd probably hang together until after the EU referendum. Tories would match (and with the DUP outvote) the Lefties: SNP + Labour + Green + SDLP + PC combined.
I think that if Peter Kellner's vote shares were to pan out (Con 36%, Lab 31%) then the Conservatives would probably be over 300 seats.
The forecasts look a bit generous in terms of votes, but a bit poor in the translation of votes to seats for the Tories to me.
Yesterday evening on here it was predicted that the BBC would lead with this as it was in the in house favourite newspaper of BBC staff aka the Guardian. Lo and behold at 730am and 8am news on BBC R4 it was the lead story.....
A party chairman accused of lying about his activity while an MP seems a fairly substantial story, don't you think? It's the Times Red Box second lead as well, and the press don't usually like highlighting each others' stories.
How about Nick talking about issues that are really harming people?
Or the Labour members of the Health Select Committee attempting to block publication of a report because the evidence they have gathered contradicts their attack lines on a Weaponised NHS?
That is disgusting and so very cynical.
But most of us know Labours only real interest in the NHS is to use it as a stick to beat the tories with.
Can you just imagine the howls of outrage if the conservatives were sitting on a report like this?
F1: blimey. Mercedes all the way down to 3.5 to win every race this season [Ladbrokes]. Although I tipped that pre-season (at 17), I think that's far too short. Reliability, weather, etc all make it still fairly unlikely.
If that turns out to be correct, it's really hard to see how a government of any sort can be formed.
Continuing minority Con-LD coalition, or grand Con-Lab coalition. Someone has to govern!
I think it would be Minority Con with DUP and LD C&S. The "bedroom tax" would need to be changed, and a concession given on electoral reform for locals.
However, it'd probably hang together until after the EU referendum. Tories would match (and with the DUP outvote) the Lefties: SNP + Labour + Green + SDLP + PC combined.
I think that if Peter Kellner's vote shares were to pan out (Con 36%, Lab 31%) then the Conservatives would probably be over 300 seats.
Might be worth a tickle - expect a drip drip over the week by the Beeb-Guard to derail the budget.
I wholeheartedly condemn any reporting of the fact that Grant Shapps has been exposed as a liar and as someone who is prepared to threaten legal action to reinforce his lies. It is outrageous that this has been revealed and shows clear bias. I am sure all other reasonable people of whatever political persuasion feel the same.
It seemed to be the case on here that a tip given to someone at a big price that shortens considerably was lavishly referenced/praised when mentioned, esp in thread header
It seemed to be the case on here that a tip given to someone at a big price that shortens considerably was lavishly referenced/praised when mentioned, esp in thread header
Maybe its just a Scottish thing...
I'm on this bet at 8s, and am very grateful to you for it - Thanks
If that turns out to be correct, it's really hard to see how a government of any sort can be formed.
Continuing minority Con-LD coalition, or grand Con-Lab coalition. Someone has to govern!
I think it would be Minority Con with DUP and LD C&S. The "bedroom tax" would need to be changed, and a concession given on electoral reform for locals.
However, it'd probably hang together until after the EU referendum. Tories would match (and with the DUP outvote) the Lefties: SNP + Labour + Green + SDLP + PC combined.
That would make sense from the Tories' point of view. However, how would the public view C&S from the LDs - isn't that practically as bad as a coalition, but without any of your policies being implemented? Isn't it still 'propping up the Tories'?
It's a point worthy of debate. As Antifrank has pointed out, a post GE Lib Dems is likely to lean a little more to the Left.
My view is that if the Lib Dems hold the balance of power, and are offered something they really want, they'll agree to prop up until it's passed. They'll want influence and to be seen as responsible. But they might not want to sully themselves with another coalition.
That'd leave them free to vote against any other Tory legislation they didn't like too.
The alternative is they do pitch for a 2nd coalition, on condition they take control of a major government department and its policy. I think transport, welfare, or education would be their gambits. But the Tories wouldn't play ball on education.
Just on the BBC site "The police watchdog is to investigate alleged corruption in the Metropolitan Police over child sex offences from the 1970s to the 2000s."
Might be worth a tickle - expect a drip drip over the week by the Beeb-Guard to derail the budget.
I wholeheartedly condemn any reporting of the fact that Grant Shapps has been exposed as a liar and as someone who is prepared to threaten legal action to reinforce his lies. It is outrageous that this has been revealed and shows clear bias. I am sure all other reasonable people of whatever political persuasion feel the same.
How long do you think the Guardian/Beeb have been sitting on this ?
They have every right to publish - lets please drop the pretence that they are any way more morally upstanding than the Mail/Sun.
Might be worth a tickle - expect a drip drip over the week by the Beeb-Guard to derail the budget.
I wholeheartedly condemn any reporting of the fact that Grant Shapps has been exposed as a liar and as someone who is prepared to threaten legal action to reinforce his lies. It is outrageous that this has been revealed and shows clear bias. I am sure all other reasonable people of whatever political persuasion feel the same.
On the other hand were it to later come out that someone had been keeping the story warm until right before the budget, that might be a different matter.
Might be worth a tickle - expect a drip drip over the week by the Beeb-Guard to derail the budget.
I wholeheartedly condemn any reporting of the fact that Grant Shapps has been exposed as a liar and as someone who is prepared to threaten legal action to reinforce his lies. It is outrageous that this has been revealed and shows clear bias. I am sure all other reasonable people of whatever political persuasion feel the same.
How long do you think the Guardian/Beeb have been sitting on this ?
They have every right to publish - lets please drop the pretence that they are any way more morally upstanding than the Mail/Sun.
I would be surprised if the BBC had an inkling of the story until it was published in the Guardian.
In the real world it is not a sign of bias to report that the chairman of the Conservative party has been caught telling untruths about his past; most recently just three weeks ago. I also think it is in the public interest that we know that he has threatened legal action against people in connection with this issue and has made them print apologies that are factually incorrect. Mr Shapps is very lucky indeed that the person concerned agreed to print that apology as if it had gone to court this would be a whole lot more serious.
I wholeheartedly condemn any reporting of the fact that Grant Shapps has been exposed as a liar and as someone who is prepared to threaten legal action to reinforce his lies. It is outrageous that this has been revealed and shows clear bias. I am sure all other reasonable people of whatever political persuasion feel the same.
Reasonable people of any political persuasion will feel that this ludicrous attack by the Guardian on Grant Shapps (who correctly declared his interest in the Register of Interests at the time, so is certainly not a 'liar' as you call him) is as daft as the attacks on Danny Alexander, by the Telegraph a few days ago, or on Harriet Harman, by the Mail over the Paedophile Information Exchange.
Ante-post horses: If anyone can get on with Racebets, the 16-1 on Don Poli for the King George chase is probably worth a small each way punt.
Ladbrokes 5-2 on Vautour is crazily skinny but he'll probably go off on Boxing day around this price.
Would they travel to Kempton to take on Coneygree and Silvinianco Conti or stay in Ireland for the Lexus at Leopardstown ? No guarantees it'll be decent ground at Kempton.
As for Vautour, the bookies' pockets are lined with the cash of punters who backed doubtful stayers in the King George. I wouldn't go anywhere near 5/2.
Might be worth a tickle - expect a drip drip over the week by the Beeb-Guard to derail the budget.
I wholeheartedly condemn any reporting of the fact that Grant Shapps has been exposed as a liar and as someone who is prepared to threaten legal action to reinforce his lies. It is outrageous that this has been revealed and shows clear bias. I am sure all other reasonable people of whatever political persuasion feel the same.
How long do you think the Guardian/Beeb have been sitting on this ?
They have every right to publish - lets please drop the pretence that they are any way more morally upstanding than the Mail/Sun.
I would be surprised if the BBC had an inkling of the story until it was published in the Guardian.
In the real world it is not a sign of bias to report that the chairman of the Conservative party has been caught telling untruths about his past; most recently just three weeks ago. I also think it is in the public interest that we know that he has threatened legal action against people in connection with this issue and has made them print apologies that are factually incorrect. Mr Shapps is very lucky indeed that the person concerned agreed to print that apology as if it had gone to court this would be a whole lot more serious.
Glad you didn't waste any time defending the Guardian.
I wholeheartedly condemn any reporting of the fact that Grant Shapps has been exposed as a liar and as someone who is prepared to threaten legal action to reinforce his lies. It is outrageous that this has been revealed and shows clear bias. I am sure all other reasonable people of whatever political persuasion feel the same.
Reasonable people of any political persuasion will feel that this ludicrous attack on Grant Shapps (who correctly declared his interest in the Register of Interests at the time, so is certainly not a 'liar' as you call him) is as daft as the attacks on Danny Alexander, by the Telegraph a few days ago, or on Harriet Harman, by the Mail over the Paedophile Information Exchange.
So when he said three weeks ago on radio that he had never had a second job while an MP he was telling the truth? And when his lawyers insisted that the following apology be printed as part of a deal to drop a libel action that was all above board:
“Mr Shapps MP has at no time misled over the use of a pen name. Indeed, I now understand that he openly published his full name alongside business publications making it clear that he used a pen name merely to separate business and politics, prior to entering parliament.”
Several years ago I needed to be hospitalised and because of where I lived at the time was given a choice of Chelmsford or Basildon hospitals.
Comments from people we knew made it clear to choose "anything but Basildon".
Mind you, I was not impressed by Chelmsford, especially the cleanliness of the ward.
If Basildon has been turned around that is great news.
Mind you, my local hospital is now Colchester .... which has its own problems.
Been very impressed with Chelmsford, especially, except for one person the last time I went, the courtesy and general attitude of the staff. That’s mostly out-patients admittedly; haven’t been “in” for several years.
In general the staff were lovely - my main issue was cleanliness - put it this way they showed me to one bed and when we were left for a moment I looked at my wife and said "this room is disgusting I am not staying here" - I was then moved elsewhere whether by coincidence or otherwise.
oh - and the staff did tend to ignore an elderly lady with Dementia, but she did call out a lot even overnight.
Experience with A and E was not too bad.
Fracture clinic was ok too - but it seemed strange to me to put that where it is as its a bloody long haul on crutches through the building ! then you get sent somewhere else to wait (opposite end) - and then back again when you are called.
The place could have been laid out better that's for sure (ps this is new build not some legacy of the Victorian age)
I wholeheartedly condemn any reporting of the fact that Grant Shapps has been exposed as a liar and as someone who is prepared to threaten legal action to reinforce his lies. It is outrageous that this has been revealed and shows clear bias. I am sure all other reasonable people of whatever political persuasion feel the same.
Reasonable people of any political persuasion will feel that this ludicrous attack by the Guardian on Grant Shapps (who correctly declared his interest in the Register of Interests at the time, so is certainly not a 'liar' as you call him) is as daft as the attacks on Danny Alexander, by the Telegraph a few days ago, or on Harriet Harman, by the Mail over the Paedophile Information Exchange.
Shapps/Green should never have used the word "never". He opened himself to this charge.
Quite frankly I can't see what the Tories see in him.
Ante-post horses: If anyone can get on with Racebets, the 16-1 on Don Poli for the King George chase is probably worth a small each way punt.
Ladbrokes 5-2 on Vautour is crazily skinny but he'll probably go off on Boxing day around this price.
Would they travel to Kempton to take on Coneygree and Silvinianco Conti or stay in Ireland for the Lexus at Leopardstown ? No guarantees it'll be decent ground at Kempton.
As for Vautour, the bookies' pockets are lined with the cash of punters who backed doubtful stayers in the King George. I wouldn't go anywhere near 5/2.
And when his lawyers insisted that the following apology be printed as part of a deal to drop a libel action that was all above board:
“Mr Shapps MP has at no time misled over the use of a pen name. Indeed, I now understand that he openly published his full name alongside business publications making it clear that he used a pen name merely to separate business and politics, prior to entering parliament.”
I see.
Clearly you don't see, because you don't seem to understand what the words "he openly published his full name alongside business publications" mean. You seem to think they mean "he was not involved in the business".
Ante-post horses: If anyone can get on with Racebets, the 16-1 on Don Poli for the King George chase is probably worth a small each way punt.
Ladbrokes 5-2 on Vautour is crazily skinny but he'll probably go off on Boxing day around this price.
Would they travel to Kempton to take on Coneygree and Silvinianco Conti or stay in Ireland for the Lexus at Leopardstown ? No guarantees it'll be decent ground at Kempton.
As for Vautour, the bookies' pockets are lined with the cash of punters who backed doubtful stayers in the King George. I wouldn't go anywhere near 5/2.
There's a popular misconception that Kempton is a speedster's track.
In fact it is much more of a genuine stayer's track, as the times and the nature of the successful horses there indicate. I don't why that is. You'd think a flat 3m would be easier than a hilly 3m2f, but the fact is you need a real good stayer to win over the King George distance, Desert Orchid being the stand-out example.
I wouldn't touch the Ante Post market at this stage.
Quite frankly I can't see what the Tories see in him.
I'm not a great fan myself, but I think that what the party sees in him is that he is a very effective party chairman. The canvassing and campaigning are much more professional now than they were in 2009/10.
I wholeheartedly condemn any reporting of the fact that Grant Shapps has been exposed as a liar and as someone who is prepared to threaten legal action to reinforce his lies. It is outrageous that this has been revealed and shows clear bias. I am sure all other reasonable people of whatever political persuasion feel the same.
Reasonable people of any political persuasion will feel that this ludicrous attack by the Guardian on Grant Shapps (who correctly declared his interest in the Register of Interests at the time, so is certainly not a 'liar' as you call him) is as daft as the attacks on Danny Alexander, by the Telegraph a few days ago, or on Harriet Harman, by the Mail over the Paedophile Information Exchange.
Shapps/Green should never have used the word "never". He opened himself to this charge.
Quite frankly I can't see what the Tories see in him.
First, Grant Shapps a throwback to the Tory 1980's loadsamoney Harry Enfield if ever there was one. Could the Tories not have found a woman or an safe pair of hands for this role, instead of someone as grating as Shapps with his ridiculous name? Reality TV beckons for him.
Second, the betting markets. The liquidity on the most seats market on betfair is quite astonishing- people are putting on serious cash for the Tories. Long gone are the Betfair days where I set off a new thread on here on the London Mayoral market after I popped a tenner on Boris and singlehandedly set his odds plummeting. Mike came out with a thread speculating on a new spectacular poll.
Ante-post horses: If anyone can get on with Racebets, the 16-1 on Don Poli for the King George chase is probably worth a small each way punt.
Ladbrokes 5-2 on Vautour is crazily skinny but he'll probably go off on Boxing day around this price.
Would they travel to Kempton to take on Coneygree and Silvinianco Conti or stay in Ireland for the Lexus at Leopardstown ? No guarantees it'll be decent ground at Kempton.
As for Vautour, the bookies' pockets are lined with the cash of punters who backed doubtful stayers in the King George. I wouldn't go anywhere near 5/2.
As for Conti, I don't think he'll win the King George this year. Cheltenham isn't his track and 3-1 SP for him this year was a crazy SP. If Vautour runs, he beats Conti. 2014 King George was packed full of "Doubtful stayers" !
Quite frankly I can't see what the Tories see in him.
I'm not a great fan myself, but I think that what the party sees in him is that he is a very effective party chairman. The canvassing and campaigning are much more professional now than they were in 2009/10.
Yes, Dave was presumably aware that he was a bit of a chancer when he made the appointment and clearly thought his other qualities outweighed the risk.
I can't see Dave dumping him now over anything so trivial as fibbing to the House, or getting his dates mixed up. As long as he remembers what's coming up on May 7th, he'll be fine and the 1/6 with William Hill looks about right.
Yes, Dave was presumably aware that he was a bit of a chancer when he made the appointment and clearly thought his other qualities outweighed the risk.
I can't see Dave dumping him now over anything so trivial as fibbing to the House, or getting his dates mixed up. As long as he remembers what's coming up on May 7th, he'll be fine and the 1/6 with William Hill looks about right.
Yeah, this is complete froth, synthetic indignation by the Guardian, with a lavish dollop of snobbery. It's about as feeble a partisan attack as you'll ever get.
First, Grant Shapps a throwback to the Tory 1980's loadsamoney Harry Enfield if ever there was one. Could the Tories not have found a woman or an safe pair of hands for this role, instead of someone as grating as Shapps with his ridiculous name? Reality TV beckons for him.
Second, the betting markets. The liquidity on the most seats market on betfair is quite astonishing- people are putting on serious cash for the Tories. Long gone are the Betfair days where I set off a new thread on here on the London Mayoral market after I popped a tenner on Boris and singlehandedly set his odds plummeting. Mike came out with a thread speculating on a new spectacular poll.
Compared to Sayeeda Warsi, his predecessor, he has been a safe pair of hands (granted a bit of a drip) from what I can see.
There's a popular misconception that Kempton is a speedster's track.
In fact it is much more of a genuine stayer's track, as the times and the nature of the successful horses there indicate. I don't why that is. You'd think a flat 3m would be easier than a hilly 3m2f, but the fact is you need a real good stayer to win over the King George distance, Desert Orchid being the stand-out example.
I wouldn't touch the Ante Post market at this stage.
The reason is quite simple - it's a flat track and they go fast from the start. The King George is a championship race and run at a decent pace irrespective of ground. The doubtful stayer is found out by the pace rather than by the track.
The faster pace also tests the jumping and there's no time to recover from a blunder. I like it as a jumps track and relish the contrast to Cheltenham. Aintree isn't unlike it albeit the other way round while Sandown is in some respects nearer to Cheltenham than Kempton.
Desert Orchid was of course an exception to every rule - truly one of the greats. He was also so much better right-handed - his race against Panto Prince in the Victor Chandler remains one of my all-time jumping highlights.
First, Grant Shapps a throwback to the Tory 1980's loadsamoney Harry Enfield if ever there was one. Could the Tories not have found a woman or an safe pair of hands for this role, instead of someone as grating as Shapps with his ridiculous name? Reality TV beckons for him.
Second, the betting markets. The liquidity on the most seats market on betfair is quite astonishing- people are putting on serious cash for the Tories. Long gone are the Betfair days where I set off a new thread on here on the London Mayoral market after I popped a tenner on Boris and singlehandedly set his odds plummeting. Mike came out with a thread speculating on a new spectacular poll.
Compared to Sayeeda Warsi, his predecessor, he has been a safe pair of hands (granted a bit of a drip) from what I can see.
On balance I would take 80's loadsamoney Shapps over 70's Winter of Discontent Miliband.
Yes, Dave was presumably aware that he was a bit of a chancer when he made the appointment and clearly thought his other qualities outweighed the risk.
I can't see Dave dumping him now over anything so trivial as fibbing to the House, or getting his dates mixed up. As long as he remembers what's coming up on May 7th, he'll be fine and the 1/6 with William Hill looks about right.
Yeah, this is complete froth, synthetic indignation by the Guardian, with a lavish dollop of snobbery. It's about as feeble a partisan attack as you'll ever get.
Fair point. It really is ever so snobby to point out when senior politicians are not telling the truth.
Quite frankly I can't see what the Tories see in him.
I'm not a great fan myself, but I think that what the party sees in him is that he is a very effective party chairman. The canvassing and campaigning are much more professional now than they were in 2009/10.
Canvassing and campaigning are all about making a sales pitch, and getting the customer to buy in.
There's a popular misconception that Kempton is a speedster's track.
In fact it is much more of a genuine stayer's track, as the times and the nature of the successful horses there indicate. I don't why that is. You'd think a flat 3m would be easier than a hilly 3m2f, but the fact is you need a real good stayer to win over the King George distance, Desert Orchid being the stand-out example.
I wouldn't touch the Ante Post market at this stage.
The reason is quite simple - it's a flat track and they go fast from the start. The King George is a championship race and run at a decent pace irrespective of ground. The doubtful stayer is found out by the pace rather than by the track.
The faster pace also tests the jumping and there's no time to recover from a blunder. I like it as a jumps track and relish the contrast to Cheltenham. Aintree isn't unlike it albeit the other way round while Sandown is in some respects nearer to Cheltenham than Kempton.
Desert Orchid was of course an exception to every rule - truly one of the greats. He was also so much better right-handed - his race against Panto Prince in the Victor Chandler remains one of my all-time jumping highlights.
Scrubbing jumps from races favours the stayer I reckon.
In the old days if you were 'one of us' you could lie and cheat as much as you wanted. These days the only thing that seems to get you off the payroll is a stretch at her majesty's
It is worth remembering that the last assault on the Cons by the BBC and Guardian amounted to literally nothing, in fact it got Labour in a massive tangle over what kind of tax avoidance is acceptable.
There really is very little in it and Shapps is has a Teflon like quality.
Yes, Dave was presumably aware that he was a bit of a chancer when he made the appointment and clearly thought his other qualities outweighed the risk.
I can't see Dave dumping him now over anything so trivial as fibbing to the House, or getting his dates mixed up. As long as he remembers what's coming up on May 7th, he'll be fine and the 1/6 with William Hill looks about right.
Yeah, this is complete froth, synthetic indignation by the Guardian, with a lavish dollop of snobbery. It's about as feeble a partisan attack as you'll ever get.
We've had some decent contenders for feeble partisan attacks recently though - Does it top two kitchens Miliband ?
Ian Luder's wife Lin used to do IT support at my old office. Was quite good pals with her. Was a shock when it was suddenly announced she was to be Lady Mayor!
It is worth remembering that the last assault on the Cons by the BBC and Guardian amounted to literally nothing, in fact it got Labour in a massive tangle over what kind of tax avoidance is acceptable.
There really is very little in it and Shapps is has a Teflon like quality.
It's difficult to imagine a story more tedious than Grant Shapps had a second job ten years ago.
PoliticsHome @politicshome 32m32 minutes ago Zac Goldsmith has been warned off mounting a late bid for London Mayor by a potential rival http://polho.me/1Fr81mW
Not infighting... just two candidates for the same post in a free and fair election
Unless you'd prefer a system in which we don't bother with elections?
First, Grant Shapps a throwback to the Tory 1980's loadsamoney Harry Enfield if ever there was one. Could the Tories not have found a woman or an safe pair of hands for this role, instead of someone as grating as Shapps with his ridiculous name? Reality TV beckons for him.
Second, the betting markets. The liquidity on the most seats market on betfair is quite astonishing- people are putting on serious cash for the Tories. Long gone are the Betfair days where I set off a new thread on here on the London Mayoral market after I popped a tenner on Boris and singlehandedly set his odds plummeting. Mike came out with a thread speculating on a new spectacular poll.
Compared to Sayeeda Warsi, his predecessor, he has been a safe pair of hands (granted a bit of a drip) from what I can see.
On balance I would take 80's loadsamoney Shapps over 70's Winter of Discontent Miliband.
Miliband is the worst kind of politician. He thinks he has 'morality' on his side.
Yes, Dave was presumably aware that he was a bit of a chancer when he made the appointment and clearly thought his other qualities outweighed the risk.
I can't see Dave dumping him now over anything so trivial as fibbing to the House, or getting his dates mixed up. As long as he remembers what's coming up on May 7th, he'll be fine and the 1/6 with William Hill looks about right.
Yeah, this is complete froth, synthetic indignation by the Guardian, with a lavish dollop of snobbery. It's about as feeble a partisan attack as you'll ever get.
We've had some decent contenders for feeble partisan attacks recently though - Does it top two kitchens Miliband ?
Kitchengate was really funny though. It plays into everything I loathe about the current Labour leadership. They are just as white, public school/Oxford educated as the Cons, but they claim to be "of the people", a nice reminder to anyone who read about the story that Labour are the same as the Cons, worse because they claim not to be.
Yes, Dave was presumably aware that he was a bit of a chancer when he made the appointment and clearly thought his other qualities outweighed the risk.
I can't see Dave dumping him now over anything so trivial as fibbing to the House, or getting his dates mixed up. As long as he remembers what's coming up on May 7th, he'll be fine and the 1/6 with William Hill looks about right.
Yeah, this is complete froth, synthetic indignation by the Guardian, with a lavish dollop of snobbery. It's about as feeble a partisan attack as you'll ever get.
We've had some decent contenders for feeble partisan attacks recently though - Does it top two kitchens Miliband ?
I am loving the way that any negative reporting of the Tories has now become an assault on them by the BBC and the Guardian.
You keep pretending that neither the BBC or the Guardian aren't partisan organisations. It just makes you look stupid.
The Guardian is certainly partisan. And preachy. And generally not that good. I never buy it. I think that PB posters and others who routinely claim the BBC is pro-Labour and anti-Tory are utterly ridiculous.
Scrubbing jumps from races favours the stayer I reckon.
It's an interesting argument and one I've heard discussed on a number of occasions. I think missing out one or two obstacles out of 18-20 probably doesn't make a lot of difference but when, say, because of low sun, they take out a line of four or five, I can't argue with you that the stayer will have the edge.
Where taking out one fence can make a difference is on a run-in. They often take out the last at Sedgefield so the final jump is the open ditch at the top of the hill and I reckon that's a solid three furlong run-in, mostly downhill but with an incline toward the post.
I don't know is the answer and I'd like to see some more evidence but I suspect you're on the right side of the argument.
I am loving the way that any negative reporting of the Tories has now become an assault on them by the BBC and the Guardian.
You keep pretending that neither the BBC or the Guardian aren't partisan organisations. It just makes you look stupid.
Are there any non partisan news organisations though ?
Of course not, but I haven't said that anywhere. It's SO who thinks that the Guardian and BBC are acting only on a non-partisan basis. It's pretty blatant that the Telegraph, Sun, Mail and others are lined up behind the Tories which is what made kitchengate so funny. It was a blatantly partisan story from the Mail given legs by Ed's utter stupidity.
I don't think we can comment on whether Grant Shapps lied about Michael Green until we hear from Sebastian Fox.
Its a good job that the Tories got over their nasty party and in it to enrich their friends labels. Otherwise having a party chairman lying over his use of pseudonyms used to tout get rich quick schemes might paint the party in the wrong light.
I am loving the way that any negative reporting of the Tories has now become an assault on them by the BBC and the Guardian.
You keep pretending that neither the BBC or the Guardian aren't partisan organisations. It just makes you look stupid.
Are there any non partisan news organisations though ?
Of course not, but I haven't said that anywhere. It's SO who thinks that the Guardian and BBC are acting only on a non-partisan basis. It's pretty blatant that the Telegraph, Sun, Mail and others are lined up behind the Tories which is what made kitchengate so funny. It was a blatantly partisan story from the Mail given legs by Ed's utter stupidity.
'lady Mayor of London' sounds quite impressive the further away from London you go. I once asked a cameraman I was about to work with if I could see his showreel. He asked if I'd prefer to see his Oscar. Suitably chastened and disappointed with what he did for me I checked up and he'd been responsible for a single special effect model space ship sequence in Star Wars.
The biggest lie of recent years and made in the HOC was Blairs when he said he had seen incontrovertible evidence of WMD...He hadn't...and a lot of people paid for his lie with their lives.
Then Blair got made Middle East peace ambassador - what a sick joke.
Does he still hold that position does anyone know?
It's difficult to imagine a story more tedious than Grant Shapps had a second job ten years ago.
With respect that isn't the story. We all know about ShappGreenFox and his get rich quick schemes. Its a source of amusement but it isn't news.
What is news is that he continued to do so after becoming an MP. Which wouldn't matter had he not threatened to sue someone for "libel" for pointing out what now apparently was true. Fox flogging hokum on t'intweweb isn't news. Green lying about continuing to use Shapps as a pseudonym is.
SO will always say the BBC is non-partisan, non-bias, gets things about right, no matter how many BBC employees actually come out and say themselves that the BBC have a problem with bias. It isn't a Labour vs Tory bias, it is a liberal left metro elite worldview bubble view bias.
I am loving the way that any negative reporting of the Tories has now become an assault on them by the BBC and the Guardian.
You keep pretending that neither the BBC or the Guardian aren't partisan organisations. It just makes you look stupid.
Are there any non partisan news organisations though ?
By law, the broadcast news media has to be non-partisan.
And yet the BBC teamed up with the Guardian to try and expose a bunch of Tories on legal tax avoidance, yet left Blair's tax avoidance untouched. Non-partisan? The BBC should be forced to give up all news editorial content until it can be trusted to report it in a non-partisan manner. That way everyone wins.
Who would have imagined that twelve months ago?</p>
There are quite alot of us bettors that want Labour dead, buried and chucked in an iron casket box in the Clyde never to be seen or heard of again up in Scotland.
Quick question on the Betfair Next Government Market which has been puzzling me for some time.
The 8 options are: Con or Lab Minority Con or Lab Majority Con-Lib-Dem Coalition or Lab-Lib-Dem Coalition Con-UKIP Coalition Any Other Government/Coalition
My puzzle concerns what will be the winning bet in the event of a minority coalition government. For example if the results are something like this: Cons: 290 Lab: 260 SNP: 45 Lib-Dem : 30 PC/Green/Respect: 4 UKIP: 3 NI: 18 (including 9 DUP)
Then a possibility, IMHO a strong possibility, would be a minority coalition involving either of the two main parties and the Lib Dems supported for C&S by either UKIP/DUP (in the case of Con-Lib Dem) or SNP +other leftists (in the case of Lab-Lib-Dem). I define a coalition as being a government where there are Lib-Dem ministers as well as those from the relevant major party.
My question is, if that is the case, what would be the winning Betfair bet: would it be 1. The coalition options 2. The minority govt. options (presumably unlikely) 3. The any other government/coalition option.
First, Grant Shapps a throwback to the Tory 1980's loadsamoney Harry Enfield if ever there was one. Could the Tories not have found a woman or an safe pair of hands for this role, instead of someone as grating as Shapps with his ridiculous name? Reality TV beckons for him.
Second, the betting markets. The liquidity on the most seats market on betfair is quite astonishing- people are putting on serious cash for the Tories. Long gone are the Betfair days where I set off a new thread on here on the London Mayoral market after I popped a tenner on Boris and singlehandedly set his odds plummeting. Mike came out with a thread speculating on a new spectacular poll.
Well they did have a woman: Baroness Warsi. And she wasn't a huge success. And has now, apparently, reinvented herself as an Islamist sympathiser, which is pathetic given that she seemed when she first started out to be willing to speak truth to power to her community.
I am loving the way that any negative reporting of the Tories has now become an assault on them by the BBC and the Guardian.
You keep pretending that neither the BBC or the Guardian aren't partisan organisations. It just makes you look stupid.
The Guardian is certainly partisan. And preachy. And generally not that good. I never buy it. I think that PB posters and others who routinely claim the BBC is pro-Labour and anti-Tory are utterly ridiculous.
When I was at University in the 1960's I chose the Guardian as my newspaper because the news articles did not seem biased for or against any one party and comment and opinion was kept separate.
As time has gone by the Guardian has become more selective in its choice of news and articles have become slanted. In particular news articles are slanted against political parties other than Labour. In particulatr at present the Guardian slants news articles against UKIP, Conservative and Lib Dems.
I feel very let down by the Guardian tainting news with such opinion. However, because of a 50 year loyalty I continue to buy it but prefer the Financial Times coverage where news is not slanted even though editorials tend to favour Labour.
Reinforces both the "parties remain broadly tied" thesis and the belief that this is going to be much more a two-party election in England than most people think.
The biggest lie of recent years and made in the HOC was Blairs when he said he had seen incontrovertible evidence of WMD...He hadn't...and a lot of people paid for his lie with their lives.
Then Blair got made Middle East peace ambassador - what a sick joke.
Does he still hold that position does anyone know?
SO will always say the BBC is non-partisan, non-bias, gets things about right, no matter how many BBC employees actually come out and say themselves that the BBC have a problem with bias. It isn't a Labour vs Tory bias, it is a liberal left metro elite worldview bubble view bias.
I have always said that the BBC clearly has a metropolitan, liberal bias - as do all three major political parties in this country. What I will not concede, as I see absolutely no evidence for it, is that the BBC pursues a partisan pro-Labour, anti-Tory agenda.
Comments
Will Grant Shapps Be Tory Party Chairman On The Day Of The General Election?
Yes 1/6
No 7/2
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/7348176/Will-Grant-Shapps-Be-Tory-Party-Chairman-On-The-Day-Of-The-General-Election?.html
But most of us know Labours only real interest in the NHS is to use it as a stick to beat the tories with.
Can you just imagine the howls of outrage if the conservatives were sitting on a report like this?
Tick tick tick....
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/g/5462109/2015-March-Budget.html
Ladbrokes 5-2 on Vautour is crazily skinny but he'll probably go off on Boxing day around this price.
Maybe its just a Scottish thing...
"Scotland doesn't do racism, it hasn't got the time, as we're too busy engaged in Sectarianism"
Very good!
My view is that if the Lib Dems hold the balance of power, and are offered something they really want, they'll agree to prop up until it's passed. They'll want influence and to be seen as responsible. But they might not want to sully themselves with another coalition.
That'd leave them free to vote against any other Tory legislation they didn't like too.
The alternative is they do pitch for a 2nd coalition, on condition they take control of a major government department and its policy. I think transport, welfare, or education would be their gambits. But the Tories wouldn't play ball on education.
I see the latter as less likely.
"The police watchdog is to investigate alleged corruption in the Metropolitan Police over child sex offences from the 1970s to the 2000s."
They have every right to publish - lets please drop the pretence that they are any way more morally upstanding than the Mail/Sun.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2996604/Cantlie-punished-escape-bid.html
In the real world it is not a sign of bias to report that the chairman of the Conservative party has been caught telling untruths about his past; most recently just three weeks ago. I also think it is in the public interest that we know that he has threatened legal action against people in connection with this issue and has made them print apologies that are factually incorrect. Mr Shapps is very lucky indeed that the person concerned agreed to print that apology as if it had gone to court this would be a whole lot more serious.
As for Vautour, the bookies' pockets are lined with the cash of punters who backed doubtful stayers in the King George. I wouldn't go anywhere near 5/2.
1/3 on Election looks pretty good too. Can't see how he'd avoid saying that at some point.
“Mr Shapps MP has at no time misled over the use of a pen name. Indeed, I now understand that he openly published his full name alongside business publications making it clear that he used a pen name merely to separate business and politics, prior to entering parliament.”
I see.
oh - and the staff did tend to ignore an elderly lady with Dementia, but she did call out a lot even overnight.
Experience with A and E was not too bad.
Fracture clinic was ok too - but it seemed strange to me to put that where it is as its a bloody long haul on crutches through the building ! then you get sent somewhere else to wait (opposite end) - and then back again when you are called.
The place could have been laid out better that's for sure (ps this is new build not some legacy of the Victorian age)
Quite frankly I can't see what the Tories see in him.
In fact it is much more of a genuine stayer's track, as the times and the nature of the successful horses there indicate. I don't why that is. You'd think a flat 3m would be easier than a hilly 3m2f, but the fact is you need a real good stayer to win over the King George distance, Desert Orchid being the stand-out example.
I wouldn't touch the Ante Post market at this stage.
Oh noes!
http://news.sky.com/story/1445899/red-bull-threaten-to-quit-formula-one
Edited extra bit: I apologise for that net-speak, but I do feel it accurately conveys my contempt for the pathetic whining of the team.
Second, the betting markets. The liquidity on the most seats market on betfair is quite astonishing- people are putting on serious cash for the Tories. Long gone are the Betfair days where I set off a new thread on here on the London Mayoral market after I popped a tenner on Boris and singlehandedly set his odds plummeting. Mike came out with a thread speculating on a new spectacular poll.
I can't see Dave dumping him now over anything so trivial as fibbing to the House, or getting his dates mixed up. As long as he remembers what's coming up on May 7th, he'll be fine and the 1/6 with William Hill looks about right.
Apparently he went to the moon in a red London double-decker bus, met Elvis and Shergar and came back on a B52 bomber.
Nothing too odd about that whatsoever.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31904882
The faster pace also tests the jumping and there's no time to recover from a blunder. I like it as a jumps track and relish the contrast to Cheltenham. Aintree isn't unlike it albeit the other way round while Sandown is in some respects nearer to Cheltenham than Kempton.
Desert Orchid was of course an exception to every rule - truly one of the greats. He was also so much better right-handed - his race against Panto Prince in the Victor Chandler remains one of my all-time jumping highlights.
A bit of professionalism helps.
In the old days if you were 'one of us' you could lie and cheat as much as you wanted. These days the only thing that seems to get you off the payroll is a stretch at her majesty's
Ps you should post more often. You and Tim are
There really is very little in it and Shapps is has a Teflon like quality.
Unless you'd prefer a system in which we don't bother with elections?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31907201
Thats a very long period of time and covering lots of different people in positions of power.
CON 34 (+5)
LAB 34 (+2)
LIB 8 (=)
UKIP 15 (-3)
GRN 5 (-1)
Fieldwork 13th-15th
N=2,013
Tabs http://t.co/J31Ayb88qw
#GE2015
Where taking out one fence can make a difference is on a run-in. They often take out the last at Sedgefield so the final jump is the open ditch at the top of the hill and I reckon that's a solid three furlong run-in, mostly downhill but with an incline toward the post.
I don't know is the answer and I'd like to see some more evidence but I suspect you're on the right side of the argument.
Who would have imagined that twelve months ago?
Its a good job that the Tories got over their nasty party and in it to enrich their friends labels. Otherwise having a party chairman lying over his use of pseudonyms used to tout get rich quick schemes might paint the party in the wrong light.
'lady Mayor of London' sounds quite impressive the further away from London you go. I once asked a cameraman I was about to work with if I could see his showreel. He asked if I'd prefer to see his Oscar. Suitably chastened and disappointed with what he did for me I checked up and he'd been responsible for a single special effect model space ship sequence in Star Wars.
What is news is that he continued to do so after becoming an MP. Which wouldn't matter had he not threatened to sue someone for "libel" for pointing out what now apparently was true. Fox flogging hokum on t'intweweb isn't news. Green lying about continuing to use Shapps as a pseudonym is.
Mind you. "Politician 'is a liar' shock"...
(well, someone had to....)
Quick question on the Betfair Next Government Market which has been puzzling me for some time.
The 8 options are:
Con or Lab Minority
Con or Lab Majority
Con-Lib-Dem Coalition or Lab-Lib-Dem Coalition
Con-UKIP Coalition
Any Other Government/Coalition
My puzzle concerns what will be the winning bet in the event of a minority coalition government. For example if the results are something like this:
Cons: 290
Lab: 260
SNP: 45
Lib-Dem : 30
PC/Green/Respect: 4
UKIP: 3
NI: 18 (including 9 DUP)
Then a possibility, IMHO a strong possibility, would be a minority coalition involving either of the two main parties and the Lib Dems supported for C&S by either UKIP/DUP (in the case of Con-Lib Dem) or SNP +other leftists (in the case of Lab-Lib-Dem). I define a coalition as being a government where there are Lib-Dem ministers as well as those from the relevant major party.
My question is, if that is the case, what would be the winning Betfair bet: would it be
1. The coalition options
2. The minority govt. options (presumably unlikely)
3. The any other government/coalition option.
If anyone has any idea I would be very grateful.
Thank you in advance.
As time has gone by the Guardian has become more selective in its choice of news and articles have become slanted. In particular news articles are slanted against political parties other than Labour. In particulatr at present the Guardian slants news articles against UKIP, Conservative and Lib Dems.
I feel very let down by the Guardian tainting news with such opinion. However, because of a 50 year loyalty I continue to buy it but prefer the Financial Times coverage where news is not slanted even though editorials tend to favour Labour.