While marginally more unassuming than the mighty ARSE, I shall purr contentedly that my consistent prediction for now over four years that Cameron would remain Prime Minister has been vindicated. We semi-senescent hacks of longstanding have our uses as part-time sages.
John, may I just take this moment to apologise to you for ever doubting the Tories' power for recovery. I remember when we met at one of the DD events and I was extremely alarmed by the awful post omnishambles polling and you were very reassured in saying the Tories were heading for over 300 seats and Dave would remain as PM. Also, we're on the same team now, I joined the party in a drunken haze last night!
What's everyone's views on tomorrow's government appointments?
I'm guessing Priti Patel may very well get Chief Secretary. Maybe Sajid Javid to Business and Amber Rudd to Climate Change? I think McLoughlin may be moved from Transport - perhaps Liz Truss might replace?
I would have thought Sajid Javid will get Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he is Osborne's man..
Sure, but he's been a proper minister in his own right now (rather than the deputy like position of Chief Secretary), he'll want his own ministry surely?
Perhaps, it depends what he is promised for the future. I mean personally I would get rid of bloody Osborne from chancellor but that obviously hasn't happened and won't happen.
Why hasn't it happened? It was rumoured in the last parliament that Osborne had planned to move to the Foreign Office, which is why William Hague stepped down early. And surely a spell in one of the other great offices of state would bolster George Osborne's credentials, and reduce the potency of the charge that he is "heir to Brown". Perhaps something is afoot.
Perhaps he's tempered his ambition, doesn't think he will be able to follow Cameron as leader but wishes to remain as undoubted kingmaker by holder the pursestrings as well as the title of First Secretary.
@Tyson - you had me until the last sentence. The Miliband name is toxic now, sadly for David. His time is done. If Dan Jarvis needs more time - and he may well do - Liz Kendall looks like the one. However, as this is the self-harming Labour party, we are likely to get Burnham or Chuka.
I see the so far of people admitting to losing money on GE bets is still 1
Maybe it really was just me !
Don't take this the wrong way, Sam, but it did look as though you were betting on what you wanted to happen.
Hmm well I was! I was betting on Ukip doing well
But not necessarily because I wanted it to happen...
The bets I had were worth a lot more on Thursday morning than when I put them on, and for me that is the key to betting. I could have cashed out but I let them run
If you'd have known on Thursday morning Ukip would get 13% and Lib Dems 8% they would have been worth even more, but alas the cards didn't fall the right way
In hindsight the Farage -6.5 bets were ridiculous but, much as it goes against the grain for a pro gambler to admit this, I made them out of bravado and because I was bored
We have three bets to settle - one won by you, two by me and also tim has asked me to include the £50 he has lost to you - so could you e-mail me at john-oreilly@tiscali.co.uk to sort everything out.
While marginally more unassuming than the mighty ARSE, I shall purr contentedly that my consistent prediction for now over four years that Cameron would remain Prime Minister has been vindicated. We semi-senescent hacks of longstanding have our uses as part-time sages.
Now Labour surely automatically disbars Burnham from running.
Have just watched the Liz Kendall interview with Andrew Neill. He was entranced and gave her a very easy ride. If he watches that, I don't think he will do the same again. However, she did come across very well indeed - normal, credible, sensible. It was very encouraging.
Back in Italy, and slightly over the hangover of Thursday night.
It was great to put faces to some of the site's great and good. And all pretty much as I expected from the bohemian Roger; to TSE, Mike's mini me; and Tissue Price, as smart as a whippet, the good Dr Fox; Pulps, the pin up boy for pbCOM, and NickP who is a true gent.
On betting I traded my Tory minority position on the night when the Nuneaton result came in- the writing was on the wall then for a Tory majority. So all in all about 400 up.
Well done to all those that won, and commiserations to the ones out of pocket- particularly OGH. Ouch....
Miliband said he took responsibility for the loss. Well why didn't he take responsibility three years ago when he saw his ratings were terrible and do the right thing? He shouldn't have run against his brother. He shouldn't have stayed as leader once his reputation was forged as a loser- he put his ego and ambition before anything. And now we are stuck with a Tory Govt for 5 years. Well done Ed. Well done. Good job there mate.
Since Scotland is now lost, Labour has to now pick a leader for England, for English marginals. Burnham and Cooper- won't cut it. Tristram Hunt- I mean get real. I would be gobsmacked if anyone nominated him. But then Ed won I guess. Chuka- probably. The press would adore him. Jarvis- I don't know.
However, the candidate with the best back story by miles, with an unbelievable narrative who could reach out deep into the Tory marginals is David Miliband. The English love their soap operas, and a Miliband return is a great story, it really is.
Be honest: did you feel that Nick had lost at 10.00am on Thursday?
If Labour have any sense - and I think they do - they will avoid DM like the plague (not that there is the remotest chance of his being interested or available...small thing like getting a seat and all that!). In 2010 they did choose the right brother and Ed could have made a decent hash of it, but didn't for the reasons we now know. However, he did prevent the party from tearing itself to pieces which had been the inevitable course after losing office. And that was no mean achievement: it really wasn't.
To stand a chance of returning to Government, Labour has to shift back to the centre and I have a hunch that can only be credibly achieved by skipping a political generation and having as the new leader someone who was not a Minister under Blair or Brown.
Fascinating and extraordinary stuff from newly elected SNP MP George Kerevan (the one that wants the UK to have a full-blown economic meltdown) ...
The constitutional ball is well and truly in David Cameron’s end of the field. Cameron’s opening gambit may well be to offer Scotland fiscal autonomy, in return for termination of the Barnett Formula (a mechanism that matches per capita spending changes across the UK constituent nations). We all know that in present UK economic circumstances a fiscally autonomous Scotland would face a significant budget deficit. For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide. However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish Hole Rule within the UK. Either way, May 7 is a forking of the constitutional road.
Now Labour surely automatically disbars Burnham from running.
Have just watched the Liz Kendall interview with Andrew Neill. He was entranced and gave her a very easy ride. If he watches that, I don't think he will do the same again. However, she did come across very well indeed - normal, credible, sensible. It was very encouraging.
She actually wrong footed him by asking him questions back!
Seems like a regular person rather than a phoney, which is always a good thing
Now Labour surely automatically disbars Burnham from running.
Have just watched the Liz Kendall interview with Andrew Neill. He was entranced and gave her a very easy ride. If he watches that, I don't think he will do the same again. However, she did come across very well indeed - normal, credible, sensible. It was very encouraging.
Yes, if she has that effect on everyone she meets, she's a shoo-in. Or maybe he was daydreaming about a nice single malt that's waiting for him when he gets home.
It was actually easy to disagree with most of what she said.
After the disbelief and ranting at the Tories on Friday / Saturday, my twitter feed is now full with Labour supporters desperately again trying to convince anybody who will listen (on twitter) that Labour definitely didn't spend too much when they were in power.
Maybe they should listen to Frank Field.
I'm a teacher, and it almost made me cry, the way Labour was frittering away billions on knocking down and rebuilding every school in the country. Every school in the country! Absolute gold-plated madness.
Fascinating and extraordinary stuff from newly elected SNP MP George Kerevan (the one that wants the UK to have a full-blown economic meltdown) ...
The constitutional ball is well and truly in David Cameron’s end of the field. Cameron’s opening gambit may well be to offer Scotland fiscal autonomy, in return for termination of the Barnett Formula (a mechanism that matches per capita spending changes across the UK constituent nations). We all know that in present UK economic circumstances a fiscally autonomous Scotland would face a significant budget deficit. For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide. However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish Hole Rule within the UK. Either way, May 7 is a forking of the constitutional road.
While marginally more unassuming than the mighty ARSE, I shall purr contentedly that my consistent prediction for now over four years that Cameron would remain Prime Minister has been vindicated. We semi-senescent hacks of longstanding have our uses as part-time sages.
John, may I just take this moment to apologise to you for ever doubting the Tories' power for recovery. I remember when we met at one of the DD events and I was extremely alarmed by the awful post omnishambles polling and you were very reassured in saying the Tories were heading for over 300 seats and Dave would remain as PM. Also, we're on the same team now, I joined the party in a drunken haze last night!
Hi Max ...all is forgiven as long as you don't cancel your membership in a fit of sobriety!
Fascinating and extraordinary stuff from newly elected SNP MP George Kerevan (the one that wants the UK to have a full-blown economic meltdown) ...
The constitutional ball is well and truly in David Cameron’s end of the field. Cameron’s opening gambit may well be to offer Scotland fiscal autonomy, in return for termination of the Barnett Formula (a mechanism that matches per capita spending changes across the UK constituent nations). We all know that in present UK economic circumstances a fiscally autonomous Scotland would face a significant budget deficit. For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide. However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish Hole Rule within the UK. Either way, May 7 is a forking of the constitutional road.
Fascinating and extraordinary stuff from newly elected SNP MP George Kerevan (the one that wants the UK to have a full-blown economic meltdown) ...
The constitutional ball is well and truly in David Cameron’s end of the field. Cameron’s opening gambit may well be to offer Scotland fiscal autonomy, in return for termination of the Barnett Formula (a mechanism that matches per capita spending changes across the UK constituent nations). We all know that in present UK economic circumstances a fiscally autonomous Scotland would face a significant budget deficit. For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide. However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish Hole Rule within the UK. Either way, May 7 is a forking of the constitutional road.
We want fiscal freedom but also guaranteed subsidies in case we get our numbers wrong.
But, but Scotland is subsidising the UK to the tune of £12 billion p.a. I've read this on this very board (which after GE2015 is now the fount of all wisdom). What is he on about?
Interesting comments from Tyson, who was indefatigable and great to see again. I'm a "skip a generation" man myself for leader - I think Stella Creasey would be great, but Liz Kendall and Dan Jarvis both look interesting too. Andy is very popular among members and his association with the NHS in the public mind is a big net plus, however much Tories like to think otherwise, but I'm not detecting a strong mood to make him leader. As one said, "I've barely heard of Liz Kendall befor this week and that's a GOOD THING - we need to show we're moving on." I was on David's team but I don't think we can go back - it'd be seen as Chapter N of an internal Labour soap opera.
Back in Italy, and slightly over the hangover of Thursday night.
It was great to put faces to some of the site's great and good. And all pretty much as I expected from the bohemian Roger; to TSE, Mike's mini me; and Tissue Price, as smart as a whippet, the good Dr Fox; Pulps, the pin up boy for pbCOM, and NickP who is a true gent.
On betting I traded my Tory minority position on the night when the Nuneaton result came in- the writing was on the wall then for a Tory majority. So all in all about 400 up.
Well done to all those that won, and commiserations to the ones out of pocket- particularly OGH. Ouch....
Miliband said he took responsibility for the loss. Well why didn't he take responsibility three years ago when he saw his ratings were terrible and do the right thing? He shouldn't have run against his brother. He shouldn't have stayed as leader once his reputation was forged as a loser- he put his ego and ambition before anything. And now we are stuck with a Tory Govt for 5 years. Well done Ed. Well done. Good job there mate.
Since Scotland is now lost, Labour has to now pick a leader for England, for English marginals. Burnham and Cooper- won't cut it. Tristram Hunt- I mean get real. I would be gobsmacked if anyone nominated him. But then Ed won I guess. Chuka- probably. The press would adore him. Jarvis- I don't know.
However, the candidate with the best back story by miles, with an unbelievable narrative who could reach out deep into the Tory marginals is David Miliband. The English love their soap operas, and a Miliband return is a great story, it really is.
Be honest: did you feel that Nick had lost at 10.00am on Thursday?
If Labour have any sense - and I think they do - they will avoid DM like the plague (not that there is the remotest chance of his being interested or available...small thing like getting a seat and all that!). In 2010 they did choose the right brother and Ed could have made a decent hash of it, but didn't for the reasons we now know. However, he did prevent the party from tearing itself to pieces which had been the inevitable course after losing office. And that was no mean achievement: it really wasn't.
To stand a chance of returning to Government, Labour has to shift back to the centre and I have a hunch that can only be credibly achieved by skipping a political generation and having as the new leader someone who was not a Minister under Blair or Brown.
I saw no sign of disparate factions heading off in different directions, nor of anything ed did to reconcile them. On the contrary, he united the party into thinking that ed was crap, and YouGov united them into thinking that that was ok, he'd get in anyway. There is no sense in which he wasn't all bad, except the all-important sense that he handed the tories a majority.
Mr. Brooke, it's a well-calculated move by the SNP.
If Cameron refuses they bleat about the union not being 'better together' after all (what's in it for us?). If he accepts, England (and his English backbenchers) will be less than thrilled to be on the financial hook for the Scots.
Fascinating and extraordinary stuff from newly elected SNP MP George Kerevan (the one that wants the UK to have a full-blown economic meltdown) ...
The constitutional ball is well and truly in David Cameron’s end of the field. Cameron’s opening gambit may well be to offer Scotland fiscal autonomy, in return for termination of the Barnett Formula (a mechanism that matches per capita spending changes across the UK constituent nations). We all know that in present UK economic circumstances a fiscally autonomous Scotland would face a significant budget deficit. For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide. However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish Hole Rule within the UK. Either way, May 7 is a forking of the constitutional road.
We want fiscal freedom but also guaranteed subsidies in case we get our numbers wrong.
It is a brilliant way to continue the strategy of tension between the Scottish CLeft and the English CRight. Everybody wins!
It's simply all their doing. We've got five years of whatever Cameron does is an insult to Scotland ; any offer will never be enough. At some point however the bread and butter issues will start to hit home and there will be nobody to blame but themselves.
Fascinating and extraordinary stuff from newly elected SNP MP George Kerevan (the one that wants the UK to have a full-blown economic meltdown) ...
The constitutional ball is well and truly in David Cameron’s end of the field. Cameron’s opening gambit may well be to offer Scotland fiscal autonomy, in return for termination of the Barnett Formula (a mechanism that matches per capita spending changes across the UK constituent nations). We all know that in present UK economic circumstances a fiscally autonomous Scotland would face a significant budget deficit. For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide. However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish Hole Rule within the UK. Either way, May 7 is a forking of the constitutional road.
I do sometimes wonder if one day it will be revealed that there is a big secret held at the very heart of the SNP - that every decision taken over the last few years in respect of Independence by the SNP has never actually been designed with a view to it happening (in the near to medium term) and yet they simply can't control the monster that has been unleashed.
It all stems from the inclusion of the promise of a referendum in their 2011 election manifesto, a promise they never expected to be able to implement. It has delivered them extraordinary political success but the whole thing has been an accident. Everything they have done since has been designed to ride this wave of success, whilst desperately trying to avoid Independence actually happening. We see this in the recent rowing back over FFA, and claiming that, "although they want it as an aspiration", it can't happen for several years. This from a party which only 6 months ago was claiming that Independence was deliverable within 18 months.
Now Labour surely automatically disbars Burnham from running.
Have just watched the Liz Kendall interview with Andrew Neill. He was entranced and gave her a very easy ride. If he watches that, I don't think he will do the same again. However, she did come across very well indeed - normal, credible, sensible. It was very encouraging.
She is not always an impressive media performer. Look on Youtube for the BBC breakfast interview she gave about 3000 new midwives. She was on automatic pilot and completely dull.
She doesn't represent a new start - other by being a non-entity with no profile and thus little baggage. But you need a bit more than that to lead a once great party
Mr. Brooke, it's a well-calculated move by the SNP.
If Cameron refuses they bleat about the union not being 'better together' after all (what's in it for us?). If he accepts, England (and his English backbenchers) will be less than thrilled to be on the financial hook for the Scots.
I'd hardly say it's well-calculated, at some point even Scots are going to get pissed off with it.
First, I still thought Nick was going to win his seat right until the 10.00 exit poll. When that came out I knew he'd lose, and by a few thousand. I thought that Tory waverers would be going to UKIP in the same numbers as I saw in the Broxtowe Labour heartlands- a kind of plague on your houses sentiment. In hindsight though, Ed Miliband was the Tories greatest weapon- and I am sure the GOTV operations deployed him beautifully on election day.
I agree with you I don't think David Miliband will go for it for the reasons you said. But he is by far Labour's most formidable politician, and now has a great back story too which would capture the imagination of the public. And probably he's more rounded for doing a normal job for some years.
Now Labour surely automatically disbars Burnham from running.
Have just watched the Liz Kendall interview with Andrew Neill. He was entranced and gave her a very easy ride. If he watches that, I don't think he will do the same again. However, she did come across very well indeed - normal, credible, sensible. It was very encouraging.
I understand the "Now Labour" slogans are to be produced in little stone tablets for supporters to carry in their pockets and flash at the hustings
The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.
If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.
Fascinating and extraordinary stuff from newly elected SNP MP George Kerevan (the one that wants the UK to have a full-blown economic meltdown) ...
The constitutional ball is well and truly in David Cameron’s end of the field. Cameron’s opening gambit may well be to offer Scotland fiscal autonomy, in return for termination of the Barnett Formula (a mechanism that matches per capita spending changes across the UK constituent nations). We all know that in present UK economic circumstances a fiscally autonomous Scotland would face a significant budget deficit. For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide. However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish Hole Rule within the UK. Either way, May 7 is a forking of the constitutional road.
I do sometimes wonder if one day it will be revealed that there is a big secret held at the very heart of the SNP - that every decision taken over the last few years in respect of Independence by the SNP has never actually been designed with a view to it happening (in the near to medium term) and yet they simply can't control the monster that has been unleashed.
It all stems from the inclusion of the promise of a referendum in their 2011 election manifesto, a promise they never expected to be able to implement. It has delivered them extraordinary political success but the whole thing has been an accident. Everything they have done since has been designed to ride this wave of success, whilst desperately trying to avoid Independence actually happening. We see this in the recent rowing back over FFA, and claiming that, "although they want it as an aspiration", it can't happen for several years. This from a party which only 6 months ago was claiming that Independence was deliverable within 18 months.
Another choice quote supplied by The Black Kilts Leader?
Interesting comments from Tyson, who was indefatigable and great to see again. I'm a "skip a generation" man myself for leader - I think Stella Creasey would be great, but Liz Kendall and Dan Jarvis both look interesting too. Andy is very popular among members and his association with the NHS in the public mind is a big net plus, however much Tories like to think otherwise, but I'm not detecting a strong mood to make him leader. As one said, "I've barely heard of Liz Kendall befor this week and that's a GOOD THING - we need to show we're moving on." I was on David's team but I don't think we can go back - it'd be seen as Chapter N of an internal Labour soap opera.
I see the so far of people admitting to losing money on GE bets is still 1
Maybe it really was just me !
Don't take this the wrong way, Sam, but it did look as though you were betting on what you wanted to happen.
Hmm well I was! I was betting on Ukip doing well
But not necessarily because I wanted it to happen...
The bets I had were worth a lot more on Thursday morning than when I put them on, and for me that is the key to betting. I could have cashed out but I let them run
If you'd have known on Thursday morning Ukip would get 13% and Lib Dems 8% they would have been worth even more, but alas the cards didn't fall the right way
In hindsight the Farage -6.5 bets were ridiculous but, much as it goes against the grain for a pro gambler to admit this, I made them out of bravado and because I was bored
We have three bets to settle - one won by you, two by me and also tim has asked me to include the £50 he has lost to you - so could you e-mail me at john-oreilly@tiscali.co.uk to sort everything out.
While marginally more unassuming than the mighty ARSE, I shall purr contentedly that my consistent prediction for now over four years that Cameron would remain Prime Minister has been vindicated. We semi-senescent hacks of longstanding have our uses as part-time sages.
Small money to me I believe
As for Tim it's £100
Thanks...should be in your account and see my e-mail re tim.
The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.
If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.
maybe they should just stop treating immigrants as "special" and just treat them as citizens like the rest of us. It's in everyone's best interest.
Show me a politician that has 100% good media interviews. Too busy looking at small cracks in the pavement and painting them as chasms when most of the public don't even know these prospective leaders anyway.
I see the so far of people admitting to losing money on GE bets is still 1
Maybe it really was just me !
Don't take this the wrong way, Sam, but it did look as though you were betting on what you wanted to happen.
Hmm well I was! I was betting on Ukip doing well
But not necessarily because I wanted it to happen...
The bets I had were worth a lot more on Thursday morning than when I put them on, and for me that is the key to betting. I could have cashed out but I let them run
If you'd have known on Thursday morning Ukip would get 13% and Lib Dems 8% they would have been worth even more, but alas the cards didn't fall the right way
In hindsight the Farage -6.5 bets were ridiculous but, much as it goes against the grain for a pro gambler to admit this, I made them out of bravado and because I was bored
We have three bets to settle - one won by you, two by me and also tim has asked me to include the £50 he has lost to you - so could you e-mail me at john-oreilly@tiscali.co.uk to sort everything out.
While marginally more unassuming than the mighty ARSE, I shall purr contentedly that my consistent prediction for now over four years that Cameron would remain Prime Minister has been vindicated. We semi-senescent hacks of longstanding have our uses as part-time sages.
Small money to me I believe
As for Tim it's £100
Thanks...should be in your account and see my e-mail re tim.
Show me a politician that has 100% good media interviews. Too busy looking at small cracks in the pavement and painting them as chasms when most of the public don't even know these prospective leaders anyway.
FST was a bit of a surprise in NI I thought, the UUP getting their act together for once !
The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.
If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.
Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.
Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.
Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
Show me a politician that has 100% good media interviews. Too busy looking at small cracks in the pavement and painting them as chasms when most of the public don't even know these prospective leaders anyway.
FST was a bit of a surprise in NI I thought, the UUP getting their act together for once !
South Antrim was better, the sanctimonious Willie McCrea getting sent to the dustbin was one of the night's high points.
Fascinating and extraordinary stuff from newly elected SNP MP George Kerevan (the one that wants the UK to have a full-blown economic meltdown) ...
The constitutional ball is well and truly in David Cameron’s end of the field. Cameron’s opening gambit may well be to offer Scotland fiscal autonomy, in return for termination of the Barnett Formula (a mechanism that matches per capita spending changes across the UK constituent nations). We all know that in present UK economic circumstances a fiscally autonomous Scotland would face a significant budget deficit. For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide. However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish Hole Rule within the UK. Either way, May 7 is a forking of the constitutional road.
We want fiscal freedom but also guaranteed subsidies in case we get our numbers wrong.
But, but Scotland is subsidising the UK to the tune of £12 billion p.a. I've read this on this very board (which after GE2015 is now the fount of all wisdom). What is he on about?
We need Malc G - I'm sure he can explain it - we give them financial guarantees and in return they send us all their spare turnips?
The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.
If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.
maybe they should just stop treating immigrants as "special" and just treat them as citizens like the rest of us. It's in everyone's best interest.
Absolutely. The notion that migrants aren't normal people is absurdly racist and ignorant. It pisses off people of all races and creeds.
The problem is that a few extremists who've set themselves up as "community leaders" are considered to speak for all migrants. That should be viewed with the same scorn as people like Russell Brand claiming they speak for all normal people.
Stop trying to deal with "community leaders" or "communities" and start trying to deal with everyone as people.
Mr. Brooke, it's a well-calculated move by the SNP.
If Cameron refuses they bleat about the union not being 'better together' after all (what's in it for us?). If he accepts, England (and his English backbenchers) will be less than thrilled to be on the financial hook for the Scots.
I'd hardly say it's well-calculated, at some point even Scots are going to get pissed off with it.
At what point?
That is what matters.
If the point is after they become independent... then it's beside the point!
The only possible move I can see is Cameron trying to call the SNP's bluff. Give Holyrood FFA but require it never to have it's expenditure higher than 101% of it's tax take. In the same Bill install provisions after the initial referendum to have further referenda 5 & 10 years down the line on reverting fiscal powers back to Westminster (which will pass because of the savage welfare cuts St. Urgeon will have had to impose.
Re. UKIP what happened to that female candidate they had in Eastleigh, whose name escapes me - she was a lot more confident and persuasive than Evans?
Stephen Woolfe is probably the most credible candidate. Manchester born and bred, but more eloquent than Nuttall. Brother even plays for Stockport County!
The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.
If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.
Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.
Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.
Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
No. Part of that happened, but the strongest reaction was against the impact of what was proposed exacerbating a very serious problem in the name of pandering to a specific section of the electorate.
The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.
If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.
maybe they should just stop treating immigrants as "special" and just treat them as citizens like the rest of us. It's in everyone's best interest.
Yes, I think that is my point. They need to stop pushing so hard at the equalities agenda for non-whites. It is losing them too many votes from their core WWC base and it doesn't help them pick up many new seats. Bradford West, Ilford North, Ealing and Enfield North are what I can count, but they lost in middle England to a pretty weak Tory party and failed to pick up ultra marginals like North Warwickshire.
Mr. Brooke, it's a well-calculated move by the SNP.
If Cameron refuses they bleat about the union not being 'better together' after all (what's in it for us?). If he accepts, England (and his English backbenchers) will be less than thrilled to be on the financial hook for the Scots.
I'd hardly say it's well-calculated, at some point even Scots are going to get pissed off with it.
At what point?
That is what matters.
If the point is after they become independent... then it's beside the point!
Nah well before. Cameron's best tactic is to give the Nats nothing but give Scots any reasonable changes.
The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.
If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.
Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.
Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.
Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
Really:
"Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party will make Islamophobia an aggravated crime"
Mr. Brooke, it's a well-calculated move by the SNP.
If Cameron refuses they bleat about the union not being 'better together' after all (what's in it for us?). If he accepts, England (and his English backbenchers) will be less than thrilled to be on the financial hook for the Scots.
I'd hardly say it's well-calculated, at some point even Scots are going to get pissed off with it.
At what point?
That is what matters.
If the point is after they become independent... then it's beside the point!
Nah well before. Cameron's best tactic is to give the Nats nothing but give Scots any reasonable changes.
If Cameron implements any de facto budget cuts to Scotland, that will inflame Scots. The point of fiscal autonomy for the Nationalists is to be autonomous as a country; fiscal autonomy without national autonomy will be seen as a budget-cut attack on Scotland, even though the SNP support both in principle. There are now so many SNP that they can paint stuff as either concession or attack.
Show me a politician that has 100% good media interviews. Too busy looking at small cracks in the pavement and painting them as chasms when most of the public don't even know these prospective leaders anyway.
FST was a bit of a surprise in NI I thought, the UUP getting their act together for once !
Differential turnout. Elliott made a lot of sense as a candidate; already a formidable local presence politician, well known on the ground, knows how to work the stump. Previously when this move was tried in recent times they put some non-entity, non-politician in.
The UUP were reporting big turnouts in some areas shortly after the polls closed so they knew it was on.
The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.
If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.
Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.
Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.
Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
No. Part of that happened, but the strongest reaction was against the impact of what was proposed exacerbating a very serious problem in the name of pandering to a specific section of the electorate.
What was proposed was that, if I was beating up a Jewish woman because she was Jewish, I would be done for aggravated assault, or the same for if I were beating up a Muslim. But some people here wanted to make "Labour = Eurabia" happen.
The only possible move I can see is Cameron trying to call the SNP's bluff. Give Holyrood FFA but require it never to have it's expenditure higher than 101% of it's tax take. In the same Bill install provisions after the initial referendum to have further referenda 5 & 10 years down the line on reverting fiscal powers back to Westminster (which will pass because of the savage welfare cuts St. Urgeon will have had to impose.
I don't see a reason to prevent Scotland borrowing. If they want to get themselves in a hole, let them.
American States are able to borrow - and able to go bust. The Federal government does not bail them out if they run out of money. The UK should follow that path, let St Urgeon borrow and spend like there's no tomorrow - and then let the SNP face a reckoning when it faces a Labour-style collapse.
The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.
If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.
Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.
Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.
Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
No. Part of that happened, but the strongest reaction was against the impact of what was proposed exacerbating a very serious problem in the name of pandering to a specific section of the electorate.
What was proposed was that, if I was beating up a Jewish woman because she was Jewish, I would be done for aggravated assault, or the same for if I were beating up a Muslim. But some people here wanted to make "Labour = Eurabia" happen.
Honestly, I'd hope that if you were beating up _anyone_, you would be charged with assault, or one of its variants. I don't see that the identity of the victim has any bearing on the severity of the charge.
Looks like the BBC results page is really easy to webscrape so I'm having a go at that right now - will see how much I can get done before baby wakes up.
Mr. Brooke, it's a well-calculated move by the SNP.
If Cameron refuses they bleat about the union not being 'better together' after all (what's in it for us?). If he accepts, England (and his English backbenchers) will be less than thrilled to be on the financial hook for the Scots.
I'd hardly say it's well-calculated, at some point even Scots are going to get pissed off with it.
At what point?
That is what matters.
If the point is after they become independent... then it's beside the point!
Nah well before. Cameron's best tactic is to give the Nats nothing but give Scots any reasonable changes.
If Cameron implements any de facto budget cuts to Scotland, that will inflame Scots. The point of fiscal autonomy for the Nationalists is to be autonomous as a country; fiscal autonomy without national autonomy will be seen as a budget-cut attack on Scotland, even though the SNP support both in principle. There are now so many SNP that they can paint stuff as either concession or attack.
whatever Cameron does will inflame Nats, though not necessarily Scots. Pandering to blackmail never works.
The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.
If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.
Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.
Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.
Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
Really:
"Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party will make Islamophobia an aggravated crime"
Sounds like a blasphemy law in all but name to me. Say something Muslims get offended by and you end up in jail.
The problem is that some people were happy to read headlines and not investigate deeper, because it could be read as confirming their beliefs about Labour and Islam, and that was fine with them. He wasn't talking about offending Muslims, of course he wasn't, just think about how stupid and unenforceable a suggestion that would be.
The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.
If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.
Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.
Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.
Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
No. Part of that happened, but the strongest reaction was against the impact of what was proposed exacerbating a very serious problem in the name of pandering to a specific section of the electorate.
What was proposed was that, if I was beating up a Jewish woman because she was Jewish, I would be done for aggravated assault, or the same for if I were beating up a Muslim. But some people here wanted to make "Labour = Eurabia" happen.
The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.
If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.
Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.
Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.
Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
No. Part of that happened, but the strongest reaction was against the impact of what was proposed exacerbating a very serious problem in the name of pandering to a specific section of the electorate.
What was proposed was that, if I was beating up a Jewish woman because she was Jewish, I would be done for aggravated assault, or the same for if I were beating up a Muslim. But some people here wanted to make "Labour = Eurabia" happen.
Honestly, I'd hope that if you were beating up _anyone_, you would be charged with assault, or one of its variants. I don't see that the identity of the victim has any bearing on the severity of the charge.
Well, there you go. Many people agree with that principle and many don't because they think violence against minority groups is a special kind of danger, and I have some sympathy for each side and am undecided, but let's be clear that it wasn't a blasphemy law.
The more I think about it the more I'm certain Labour need to stop pandering to immigrants (I say this as a second generationer). Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron all have one thing in common. They were able to marry their core constituency with middle England, Thatcher and Blair were even better and reached far out into the opposition camps stealing votes from the WWC and Tory shires respectively. The problem for Labour is that they are trying to juggle with three balls, WWC, middle England and immigrants. Blair and Thatcher have shown you can get the first two together into a single tent with the right approach, but Labour, since 2010 have been struggling to get the last group into their tent and keep the other two groups from leaving.
If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.
Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.
Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.
Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
Really:
"Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party will make Islamophobia an aggravated crime"
Sounds like a blasphemy law in all but name to me. Say something Muslims get offended by and you end up in jail.
The problem is that some people were happy to read headlines and not investigate deeper, because it could be read as confirming their beliefs about Labour and Islam, and that was fine with them. He wasn't talking about offending Muslims, of course he wasn't, just think about how stupid and unenforceable a suggestion that would be.
Did you see the reports into Rotherham, where fear of being labelled racists stopped officials doing their jobs? How many children suffered because of that?
This new law would have had negative impacts, way outside of its intended parameters.
Mr. Booth, I think that's the case for all varieties. For some reason the 60 minute run-time is cut down to the 23 minutes or so for regional variation.
The only possible move I can see is Cameron trying to call the SNP's bluff. Give Holyrood FFA but require it never to have it's expenditure higher than 101% of it's tax take. In the same Bill install provisions after the initial referendum to have further referenda 5 & 10 years down the line on reverting fiscal powers back to Westminster (which will pass because of the savage welfare cuts St. Urgeon will have had to impose.
I don't see a reason to prevent Scotland borrowing. If they want to get themselves in a hole, let them.
American States are able to borrow - and able to go bust. The Federal government does not bail them out if they run out of money. The UK should follow that path, let St Urgeon borrow and spend like there's no tomorrow - and then let the SNP face a reckoning when it faces a Labour-style collapse.
Local Authorities can borrow but their revenue budgets *must* balance. If you borrow you must be able to accommodate that borrowing within your budget.
For example, you may borrow money to build a swimming pool, but you must have enough resources to fund the finance. A local authority could not borrow to pay the staff of the swimming pool however.
It was pandering pure and simple. Beating up anyone already is and always should be a crime. Drawing a cartoon is not.
He was talking about, quote, "Islamphobic attacks". We know that when people talk about, say, anti-gay attacks, they are not talking about refusing to bake cakes but gay-bashings. But even that article is saying - we don't know what he is proposing to do - we might support it - we hope it's not something awful! Not a blasphemy law. PS The actual government of the UK doesn't like books being available to prisoners, some commitment to speech.
The only possible move I can see is Cameron trying to call the SNP's bluff. Give Holyrood FFA but require it never to have it's expenditure higher than 101% of it's tax take. In the same Bill install provisions after the initial referendum to have further referenda 5 & 10 years down the line on reverting fiscal powers back to Westminster (which will pass because of the savage welfare cuts St. Urgeon will have had to impose.
I don't see a reason to prevent Scotland borrowing. If they want to get themselves in a hole, let them.
American States are able to borrow - and able to go bust. The Federal government does not bail them out if they run out of money. The UK should follow that path, let St Urgeon borrow and spend like there's no tomorrow - and then let the SNP face a reckoning when it faces a Labour-style collapse.
Local Authorities can borrow but their revenue budgets *must* balance. If you borrow you must be able to accommodate that borrowing within your budget.
For example, you may borrow money to build a swimming pool, but you must have enough resources to fund the finance. A local authority could not borrow to pay the staff of the swimming pool however.
Holyrood is not a local authority. A local authority does not have full fiscal authority.
Really highly superficial statements about "giving the Scots FFA" are pretty silly anyway. Nobody really knows what it would mean or how it would work. How UK wide expenditure commitments would be funded and what would happen if the UK Govt wanted/needed to change levels of UK expenditure. Especially if the Scottish Govt didn't agree with such changes in expenditure, even though they would presumably be expected to contribute. How would debt be financed. etc etc.
It's different if just done on a revenue neutral basis - ie. give them control over additional taxes, work out what that would raise on day 1, and alter the Barnett formula accordingly (what is proposed under the Smith commission plans). But move to a point where Scots govt control all revenues, and they are having to transfer funds to the UK, and the whole thing has the potential to fall apart.
If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.
Blair had immigrants too. Clearly it is feasible to unite WWC, middle England and immigrants.
Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.
Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
No. Part of that happened, but the strongest reaction was against the impact of what was proposed exacerbating a very serious problem in the name of pandering to a specific section of the electorate.
What was proposed was that, if I was beating up a Jewish woman because she was Jewish, I would be done for aggravated assault, or the same for if I were beating up a Muslim. But some people here wanted to make "Labour = Eurabia" happen.
Honestly, I'd hope that if you were beating up _anyone_, you would be charged with assault, or one of its variants. I don't see that the identity of the victim has any bearing on the severity of the charge.
The identity of the victim only matters if it was a factor in triggering the assault. If you beat someone up because they dented your car and things got out of hand that is a different case to beating the same person up just because of the colour of their skin.
These things are difficult to prove as it is not easy to see into the mind of the assailant at the time of the attack. However there can be evidence from any language used before or during the incident that will guide the prosecuting authorities.
There is a need for aggravated assault to remain as a specific crime. But only under very specific circumstances.
Did you see the reports into Rotherham, where fear of being labelled racists stopped officials doing their jobs? How many children suffered because of that?
This new law would have had negative impacts, way outside of its intended parameters.
No, it wouldn't criminalise speaking out against one's bosses or paedos. Frankly, the opposite would be desirable in a law. It would have more heavily penalised Islamophobic attacks. Reporting sick paedophiles isn't an Islamphobic attack. Fear of a tiny minority group shouldn't be an excuse for awful government failure.
I see the Speaker is going to have his work cut out remembering Who's Who in the SNP's ranks.
We have a Black, a Blackford and a Blackman, two Monaghans, a Thompson and a Thomson, a Whitford and a Whiteford, and Stewart MacDonald... and Stuart MacDonald!
Now Labour surely automatically disbars Burnham from running.
Have just watched the Liz Kendall interview with Andrew Neill. He was entranced and gave her a very easy ride. If he watches that, I don't think he will do the same again. However, she did come across very well indeed - normal, credible, sensible. It was very encouraging.
She actually wrong footed him by asking him questions back!
Seems like a regular person rather than a phoney, which is always a good thing
You dont get regular people running the country. You need exceptional and talented people.
Interesting comments from Tyson, who was indefatigable and great to see again. I'm a "skip a generation" man myself for leader - I think Stella Creasey would be great, but Liz Kendall and Dan Jarvis both look interesting too. Andy is very popular among members and his association with the NHS in the public mind is a big net plus, however much Tories like to think otherwise, but I'm not detecting a strong mood to make him leader. As one said, "I've barely heard of Liz Kendall befor this week and that's a GOOD THING - we need to show we're moving on." I was on David's team but I don't think we can go back - it'd be seen as Chapter N of an internal Labour soap opera.
Hi Nick, Sorry about what happened -to all of us !
There is one thing I find puzzling and I thought you would be the best person to answer this now that the campaign is finished.
I appreciate all about the polls. But parties have canvassers too. And, the impression I got was that Broxtowe was heavily canvassed. It has always been a marginal.
Was there absolutely no hint ? Or, was it like many CLPs we only canvass "our" people. How was it different from 2010 or 2005 ?
I remember the contrast between the Fulham by-election in 1986 and the GE 1987. I was in the committee rooms on both occasions. The returns were day and night. The "blues" and "unknowns" were piling up.
The Tories were also not that sure - whatever they may say now. I think the most optimistic were hoping for 300 - 310.
This is 1992 all over again. But is it the polls only ? Not only worth an analysis of the UKIP effect but , even more importantly, the GREEN EFFECT !
Did you see the reports into Rotherham, where fear of being labelled racists stopped officials doing their jobs? How many children suffered because of that?
This new law would have had negative impacts, way outside of its intended parameters.
No, it wouldn't criminalise speaking out against one's bosses or paedos. Frankly, the opposite would be desirable in a law. It would have more heavily penalised Islamophobic attacks. Reporting sick paedophiles isn't an Islamphobic attack. Fear of a tiny minority group shouldn't be an excuse for awful government failure.
I don't think you understand what the report about Rotherham said.
Your comment is somewhat naive about unintended consequences.
It was pandering pure and simple. Beating up anyone already is and always should be a crime. Drawing a cartoon is not.
He was talking about, quote, "Islamphobic attacks". We know that when people talk about, say, anti-gay attacks, they are not talking about refusing to bake cakes but gay-bashings. But even that article is saying - we don't know what he is proposing to do - we might support it - we hope it's not something awful! Not a blasphemy law. PS The actual government of the UK doesn't like books being available to prisoners, some commitment to speech.
Have you read that view by the National Secular Society as to why they were concerned?
Miliband had already once voted to criminalise "deliberately insulting a religion", something that would have made the likes of Charlie Hebdo criminals. This seems like a step to the same thing and he was unwilling to say that's not what he meant. Totally unacceptable.
Assaults are already illegal, so either he's criminalising the likes of Charlie Hebdo or he's not criminalising anything and this is meaningless pandering. Either way it is totally unacceptable.
As someone who was once a victim of GBH I can tell you that no assault is acceptable. I suffered a shattered eye socket, a broken nose and nearly lost sight in my eye. This wasn't due to race or religion but just because some thug was violent unprovoked. Should be considered less of a crime? All crimes should be illegal and weighed on their own merits.
Now Labour surely automatically disbars Burnham from running.
Have just watched the Liz Kendall interview with Andrew Neill. He was entranced and gave her a very easy ride. If he watches that, I don't think he will do the same again. However, she did come across very well indeed - normal, credible, sensible. It was very encouraging.
She actually wrong footed him by asking him questions back!
Seems like a regular person rather than a phoney, which is always a good thing
You dont get regular people running the country. You need exceptional and talented people.
You need exceptional and talented people who understand and can engage with regular people.
Interesting comments from Tyson, who was indefatigable and great to see again. I'm a "skip a generation" man myself for leader - I think Stella Creasey would be great, but Liz Kendall and Dan Jarvis both look interesting too. Andy is very popular among members and his association with the NHS in the public mind is a big net plus, however much Tories like to think otherwise, but I'm not detecting a strong mood to make him leader. As one said, "I've barely heard of Liz Kendall befor this week and that's a GOOD THING - we need to show we're moving on." I was on David's team but I don't think we can go back - it'd be seen as Chapter N of an internal Labour soap opera.
It has to be Andy B as the best leader we could pick out all the names mentioned. He can reach out to the white working class without disaffecting the core membership or liberal wing. He has the charisma and the telegenic looks. Umannu is a no go, too metropolitan, it will be political suicide to pick anyone like him, as it would be to return to Blairism.
Did you see the reports into Rotherham, where fear of being labelled racists stopped officials doing their jobs? How many children suffered because of that?
This new law would have had negative impacts, way outside of its intended parameters.
No, it wouldn't criminalise speaking out against one's bosses or paedos. Frankly, the opposite would be desirable in a law. It would have more heavily penalised Islamophobic attacks. Reporting sick paedophiles isn't an Islamphobic attack. Fear of a tiny minority group shouldn't be an excuse for awful government failure.
To be honest, I don't believe in differential sentencing should depend on a criminal's motivation. Assaulting someone for the contents of their wallet should carry the same sentence as assaulting someone because of their religion.
Did you see the reports into Rotherham, where fear of being labelled racists stopped officials doing their jobs? How many children suffered because of that?
This new law would have had negative impacts, way outside of its intended parameters.
No, it wouldn't criminalise speaking out against one's bosses or paedos. Frankly, the opposite would be desirable in a law. It would have more heavily penalised Islamophobic attacks. Reporting sick paedophiles isn't an Islamphobic attack. Fear of a tiny minority group shouldn't be an excuse for awful government failure.
To be honest, I don't believe in differential sentencing should depend on a criminal's motivation. Assaulting someone for the contents of their wallet should carry the same sentence as assaulting someone because of their religion.
I sympathise with this view, though I also sympathise with the view that attacks against minorities can be especially harmful to a diverse society and can weaken its stability.
Really highly superficial statements about "giving the Scots FFA" are pretty silly anyway. Nobody really knows what it would mean or how it would work. How UK wide expenditure commitments would be funded and what would happen if the UK Govt wanted/needed to change levels of UK expenditure. Especially if the Scottish Govt didn't agree with such changes in expenditure, even though they would presumably be expected to contribute. How would debt be financed. etc etc.
It's different if just done on a revenue neutral basis - ie. give them control over additional taxes, work out what that would raise on day 1, and alter the Barnett formula accordingly (what is proposed under the Smith commission plans). But move to a point where Scots govt control all revenues, and they are having to transfer funds to the UK, and the whole thing has the potential to fall apart.
Maybe we need to look at what happens in other federal jurisdictions, there are a couple of obvious examples that are run on common law principles - the USA and Australlia. How does it work there?
Did you see the reports into Rotherham, where fear of being labelled racists stopped officials doing their jobs? How many children suffered because of that?
This new law would have had negative impacts, way outside of its intended parameters.
No, it wouldn't criminalise speaking out against one's bosses or paedos. Frankly, the opposite would be desirable in a law. It would have more heavily penalised Islamophobic attacks. Reporting sick paedophiles isn't an Islamphobic attack. Fear of a tiny minority group shouldn't be an excuse for awful government failure.
To be honest, I don't believe in differential sentencing should depend on a criminal's motivation. Assaulting someone for the contents of their wallet should carry the same sentence as assaulting someone because of their religion.
I sympathise with this view, though I also sympathise with the view that attacks against minorities can be especially harmful to a diverse society and can weaken its stability.
In which case we should go after people with criminal conspiracy charges if they are planning such things on a large scale (or planning robbery on a large scale for that matter).
Now Labour surely automatically disbars Burnham from running.
Have just watched the Liz Kendall interview with Andrew Neill. He was entranced and gave her a very easy ride. If he watches that, I don't think he will do the same again. However, she did come across very well indeed - normal, credible, sensible. It was very encouraging.
She actually wrong footed him by asking him questions back!
Seems like a regular person rather than a phoney, which is always a good thing
You dont get regular people running the country. You need exceptional and talented people.
You need exceptional and talented people who understand and can engage with regular people.
Liz seems to me like she can pass the Nuneaton pub test ^_~
'Conservative MP Stewart Jackson says it could be time to look at House of Lords reform again. He says David Cameron is "king of all he surveys" for a while following his election victory. He and other Eurosceptics will be working to avoid a repeat of the "calamity" over Europe during John Major's time as PM, he promises.' Was Stewart Jackson party of the awkward squad proper? If so this would confirm that currently Cammo walks on water according to his MPs.
Did you see the reports into Rotherham, where fear of being labelled racists stopped officials doing their jobs? How many children suffered because of that?
This new law would have had negative impacts, way outside of its intended parameters.
No, it wouldn't criminalise speaking out against one's bosses or paedos. Frankly, the opposite would be desirable in a law. It would have more heavily penalised Islamophobic attacks. Reporting sick paedophiles isn't an Islamphobic attack. Fear of a tiny minority group shouldn't be an excuse for awful government failure.
To be honest, I don't believe in differential sentencing should depend on a criminal's motivation. Assaulting someone for the contents of their wallet should carry the same sentence as assaulting someone because of their religion.
I sympathise with this view, though I also sympathise with the view that attacks against minorities can be especially harmful to a diverse society and can weaken its stability.
You sound like a Lib Dem. I symapthise with your view but also think the opposite. Which is it? Should all crimes be treated on their own merits, or should some crimes count less?
Should someone being assaulted unprovoked be considered less of a crime like I was just because the victim was white? I'd rather we punish all criminals.
Really highly superficial statements about "giving the Scots FFA" are pretty silly anyway. Nobody really knows what it would mean or how it would work. How UK wide expenditure commitments would be funded and what would happen if the UK Govt wanted/needed to change levels of UK expenditure. Especially if the Scottish Govt didn't agree with such changes in expenditure, even though they would presumably be expected to contribute. How would debt be financed. etc etc.
It's different if just done on a revenue neutral basis - ie. give them control over additional taxes, work out what that would raise on day 1, and alter the Barnett formula accordingly (what is proposed under the Smith commission plans). But move to a point where Scots govt control all revenues, and they are having to transfer funds to the UK, and the whole thing has the potential to fall apart.
Maybe we need to look at what happens in other federal jurisdictions, there are a couple of obvious examples that are run on common law principles - the USA and Australlia. How does it work there?
The USA has big federal welfare programmes, but no mechanism explicitly to redistribute among the governments. Canada has explicit equalisation payments. Australia is similar. That is a pretty big step and it would be considered fair, I think, to give everyone equal spending power. Surely the SNP and Conservatives could agree on that.
The Tories have 319 out of 533 seats, a majority of over 100 seats. If ever there was a time to legislate for an English parliament or EV4EL, it is now.
Did you see the reports into Rotherham, where fear of being labelled racists stopped officials doing their jobs? How many children suffered because of that?
This new law would have had negative impacts, way outside of its intended parameters.
No, it wouldn't criminalise speaking out against one's bosses or paedos. Frankly, the opposite would be desirable in a law. It would have more heavily penalised Islamophobic attacks. Reporting sick paedophiles isn't an Islamphobic attack. Fear of a tiny minority group shouldn't be an excuse for awful government failure.
To be honest, I don't believe in differential sentencing should depend on a criminal's motivation. Assaulting someone for the contents of their wallet should carry the same sentence as assaulting someone because of their religion.
I sympathise with this view, though I also sympathise with the view that attacks against minorities can be especially harmful to a diverse society and can weaken its stability.
You sound like a Lib Dem. I symapthise with your view but also think the opposite. Which is it? Should all crimes be treated on their own merits, or should some crimes count less?
Should someone being assaulted unprovoked be considered less of a crime like I was just because the victim was white? I'd rather we punish all criminals.
I'm not going to apologise to you for being conflicted on some things. I think those who have clear, black-and-white views on everything should experience more of life. I reject your other characterisations as being in equally bad faith.
'Conservative MP Stewart Jackson says it could be time to look at House of Lords reform again. He says David Cameron is "king of all he surveys" for a while following his election victory. He and other Eurosceptics will be working to avoid a repeat of the "calamity" over Europe during John Major's time as PM, he promises.' Was Stewart Jackson party of the awkward squad proper? If so this would confirm that currently Cammo walks on water according to his MPs.
He's one of the rebels last term from Europe. Bill Cash who is an original awkward "bastard" was on Sky earlier backing Cameron fully. I think everyone has for now learnt the lessons of the nineties and are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
Interesting comments from Tyson, who was indefatigable and great to see again. I'm a "skip a generation" man myself for leader - I think Stella Creasey would be great, but Liz Kendall and Dan Jarvis both look interesting too. Andy is very popular among members and his association with the NHS in the public mind is a big net plus, however much Tories like to think otherwise, but I'm not detecting a strong mood to make him leader. As one said, "I've barely heard of Liz Kendall befor this week and that's a GOOD THING - we need to show we're moving on." I was on David's team but I don't think we can go back - it'd be seen as Chapter N of an internal Labour soap opera.
It has to be Andy B as the best leader we could pick out all the names mentioned. He can reach out to the white working class without disaffecting the core membership or liberal wing. He has the charisma and the telegenic looks. Umannu is a no go, too metropolitan, it will be political suicide to pick anyone like him, as it would be to return to Blairism.
Isn't Burnham the one who wears mascara.. If so epic fail. Move on, as NPXMP says you need to start again, anyone from the old guard is tainted
Interesting comments from Tyson, who was indefatigable and great to see again. I'm a "skip a generation" man myself for leader - I think Stella Creasey would be great, but Liz Kendall and Dan Jarvis both look interesting too. Andy is very popular among members and his association with the NHS in the public mind is a big net plus, however much Tories like to think otherwise, but I'm not detecting a strong mood to make him leader. As one said, "I've barely heard of Liz Kendall befor this week and that's a GOOD THING - we need to show we're moving on." I was on David's team but I don't think we can go back - it'd be seen as Chapter N of an internal Labour soap opera.
It has to be Andy B as the best leader we could pick out all the names mentioned. He can reach out to the white working class without disaffecting the core membership or liberal wing. He has the charisma and the telegenic looks. Umannu is a no go, too metropolitan, it will be political suicide to pick anyone like him, as it would be to return to Blairism.
I'm not sure even his mum would go as far as telegenic looks.
'Conservative MP Stewart Jackson says it could be time to look at House of Lords reform again. He says David Cameron is "king of all he surveys" for a while following his election victory. He and other Eurosceptics will be working to avoid a repeat of the "calamity" over Europe during John Major's time as PM, he promises.' Was Stewart Jackson party of the awkward squad proper? If so this would confirm that currently Cammo walks on water according to his MPs.
Really highly superficial statements about "giving the Scots FFA" are pretty silly anyway. Nobody really knows what it would mean or how it would work. How UK wide expenditure commitments would be funded and what would happen if the UK Govt wanted/needed to change levels of UK expenditure. Especially if the Scottish Govt didn't agree with such changes in expenditure, even though they would presumably be expected to contribute. How would debt be financed. etc etc.
It's different if just done on a revenue neutral basis - ie. give them control over additional taxes, work out what that would raise on day 1, and alter the Barnett formula accordingly (what is proposed under the Smith commission plans). But move to a point where Scots govt control all revenues, and they are having to transfer funds to the UK, and the whole thing has the potential to fall apart.
Maybe we need to look at what happens in other federal jurisdictions, there are a couple of obvious examples that are run on common law principles - the USA and Australlia. How does it work there?
The USA has big federal welfare programmes, but no mechanism explicitly to redistribute among the governments. Canada has explicit equalisation payments. Australia is similar. That is a pretty big step and it would be considered fair, I think, to give everyone equal spending power. Surely the SNP and Conservatives could agree on that.
I think a first necessary step is to create an English jurisdiction, we are a long way from that and would be even with EVEL.
Did you see the reports into Rotherham, where fear of being labelled racists stopped officials doing their jobs? How many children suffered because of that?
This new law would have had negative impacts, way outside of its intended parameters.
No, it wouldn't criminalise speaking out against one's bosses or paedos. Frankly, the opposite would be desirable in a law. It would have more heavily penalised Islamophobic attacks. Reporting sick paedophiles isn't an Islamphobic attack. Fear of a tiny minority group shouldn't be an excuse for awful government failure.
To be honest, I don't believe in differential sentencing should depend on a criminal's motivation. Assaulting someone for the contents of their wallet should carry the same sentence as assaulting someone because of their religion.
I sympathise with this view, though I also sympathise with the view that attacks against minorities can be especially harmful to a diverse society and can weaken its stability.
You sound like a Lib Dem. I symapthise with your view but also think the opposite. Which is it? Should all crimes be treated on their own merits, or should some crimes count less?
Should someone being assaulted unprovoked be considered less of a crime like I was just because the victim was white? I'd rather we punish all criminals.
I'm not going to apologise to you for being conflicted on some things. I think those who have clear, black-and-white views on everything should experience more of life. I reject your other characterisations as being in equally bad faith.
If we're debating whether a law should be changed then the answer is either Aye or Nay, there is no other option. Nothing I said was in bad faith, unlike this pathetic pandering over Islamophobia. Either its criminalising that which is legal now like free speech, which is unacceptable, or its just pandering, which is unacceptable. Give his track record on voting to oppose free speech and refusal to rule that out as being what he meant, I'm not willing to give the benefit of the doubt. You're categorically wrong to rule it out, since he didn't.
'Conservative MP Stewart Jackson says it could be time to look at House of Lords reform again. He says David Cameron is "king of all he surveys" for a while following his election victory. He and other Eurosceptics will be working to avoid a repeat of the "calamity" over Europe during John Major's time as PM, he promises.' Was Stewart Jackson party of the awkward squad proper? If so this would confirm that currently Cammo walks on water according to his MPs.
He's one of the rebels last term from Europe. Bill Cash who is an original awkward "bastard" was on Sky earlier backing Cameron fully. I think everyone has for now learnt the lessons of the nineties and are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
They will give him the benefit of the doubt until he comes back with whatever deal he claims to have secured. At the point my belief is that, unless he says he has not secured enough and is recommending an 'Out' which I think is unlikely, the party will fracture as the Eurosceptics realise they have been fed a line all along. They suspect it now but will do nothing until they have proof. Then I believe Cameron's majority will evaporate.
I'm sorry about that. I do wonder how those in finance/banking would react to those who vote Labour though....
Lots of people in finance and banking do vote Labour.
You really should get out more.
No need to take that tone - it's quite easy to have the impression that most in that sector vote Conservative, especially after being told that Labour aren't considered credible by many in finance.
The TES found that something like 46% of academics planned to vote Labour, and 22% planned to vote Green. This is a profession that is very very unrepresentative of society as a whole, and prone to groupthink. Academics have been trending leftward for 50-60 years, to the point where they rarely encounter opinions that aren't left wing.
Now Labour surely automatically disbars Burnham from running.
Have just watched the Liz Kendall interview with Andrew Neill. He was entranced and gave her a very easy ride. If he watches that, I don't think he will do the same again. However, she did come across very well indeed - normal, credible, sensible. It was very encouraging.
She actually wrong footed him by asking him questions back!
Seems like a regular person rather than a phoney, which is always a good thing
You dont get regular people running the country. You need exceptional and talented people.
You need exceptional and talented people who understand and can engage with regular people.
To understand & engage with regular people you just have to have lived in the real world where the vast majority of us live.
Really highly superficial statements about "giving the Scots FFA" are pretty silly anyway. Nobody really knows what it would mean or how it would work. How UK wide expenditure commitments would be funded and what would happen if the UK Govt wanted/needed to change levels of UK expenditure. Especially if the Scottish Govt didn't agree with such changes in expenditure, even though they would presumably be expected to contribute. How would debt be financed. etc etc.
It's different if just done on a revenue neutral basis - ie. give them control over additional taxes, work out what that would raise on day 1, and alter the Barnett formula accordingly (what is proposed under the Smith commission plans). But move to a point where Scots govt control all revenues, and they are having to transfer funds to the UK, and the whole thing has the potential to fall apart.
Maybe we need to look at what happens in other federal jurisdictions, there are a couple of obvious examples that are run on common law principles - the USA and Australlia. How does it work there?
The USA has big federal welfare programmes, but no mechanism explicitly to redistribute among the governments. Canada has explicit equalisation payments. Australia is similar. That is a pretty big step and it would be considered fair, I think, to give everyone equal spending power. Surely the SNP and Conservatives could agree on that.
How will the transition work ? Scotland reputedly gets £2000 more per person. I am not sure how it can be so minutely measured.
Is spending on the Faslane base an expenditure in Scotland ?
'Conservative MP Stewart Jackson says it could be time to look at House of Lords reform again. He says David Cameron is "king of all he surveys" for a while following his election victory. He and other Eurosceptics will be working to avoid a repeat of the "calamity" over Europe during John Major's time as PM, he promises.' Was Stewart Jackson party of the awkward squad proper? If so this would confirm that currently Cammo walks on water according to his MPs.
He's one of the rebels last term from Europe. Bill Cash who is an original awkward "bastard" was on Sky earlier backing Cameron fully. I think everyone has for now learnt the lessons of the nineties and are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
I think considering what was achieved by Cameron and the failure of UKIP to turn votes into seats Cameron can get the backbenches to either back him or keep schtum on pretty much any issue - he has given them what they used to moan he hadn't in 2010 - too many pundits taking the 1992 metaphor too far - this is nothing like it from a parliamentary standpoint
Comments
As for Tim it's £100
Have just watched the Liz Kendall interview with Andrew Neill. He was entranced and gave her a very easy ride. If he watches that, I don't think he will do the same again. However, she did come across very well indeed - normal, credible, sensible. It was very encouraging.
I felt the same about Blair and he did OK...
https://twitter.com/Psythor/status/597435426744459264
If Labour have any sense - and I think they do - they will avoid DM like the plague (not that there is the remotest chance of his being interested or available...small thing like getting a seat and all that!). In 2010 they did choose the right brother and Ed could have made a decent hash of it, but didn't for the reasons we now know. However, he did prevent the party from tearing itself to pieces which had been the inevitable course after losing office. And that was no mean achievement: it really wasn't.
To stand a chance of returning to Government, Labour has to shift back to the centre and I have a hunch that can only be credibly achieved by skipping a political generation and having as the new leader someone who was not a Minister under Blair or Brown.
The constitutional ball is well and truly in David Cameron’s end of the field. Cameron’s opening gambit may well be to offer Scotland fiscal autonomy, in return for termination of the Barnett Formula (a mechanism that matches per capita spending changes across the UK constituent nations). We all know that in present UK economic circumstances a fiscally autonomous Scotland would face a significant budget deficit.
For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide. However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish Hole Rule within the UK. Either way, May 7 is a forking of the constitutional road.
http://www.thenational.scot/news/george-kerevan-federalism-or-bust-snp-mandate-now-goes-far-beyond-smith-powers.2787
Seems like a regular person rather than a phoney, which is always a good thing
It was actually easy to disagree with most of what she said.
it's just brilliant isn't it ?
We want fiscal freedom but also guaranteed subsidies in case we get our numbers wrong.
If Cameron refuses they bleat about the union not being 'better together' after all (what's in it for us?). If he accepts, England (and his English backbenchers) will be less than thrilled to be on the financial hook for the Scots.
It all stems from the inclusion of the promise of a referendum in their 2011 election manifesto, a promise they never expected to be able to implement. It has delivered them extraordinary political success but the whole thing has been an accident. Everything they have done since has been designed to ride this wave of success, whilst desperately trying to avoid Independence actually happening. We see this in the recent rowing back over FFA, and claiming that, "although they want it as an aspiration", it can't happen for several years. This from a party which only 6 months ago was claiming that Independence was deliverable within 18 months.
She doesn't represent a new start - other by being a non-entity with no profile and thus little baggage. But you need a bit more than that to lead a once great party
First, I still thought Nick was going to win his seat right until the 10.00 exit poll. When that came out I knew he'd lose, and by a few thousand. I thought that Tory waverers would be going to UKIP in the same numbers as I saw in the Broxtowe Labour heartlands- a kind of plague on your houses sentiment. In hindsight though, Ed Miliband was the Tories greatest weapon- and I am sure the GOTV operations deployed him beautifully on election day.
I agree with you I don't think David Miliband will go for it for the reasons you said. But he is by far Labour's most formidable politician, and now has a great back story too which would capture the imagination of the public. And probably he's more rounded for doing a normal job for some years.
If Labour keep pandering to immigrants they will lose the WWC vote and middle England. I don't believe it is possible to hold onto the immigrant vote and also enough of the other two groups to get a majority. The way forwards is clear, they must drop immigrants, lay out a path that includes their votes but doesn't pander to them with BAME manifestos and blasphemy laws. It really turns Labour's core and floating voters away.
Conservatives pandered to English nationalists with their English manifesto. They still won.
Labour didn't propose a blasphemy law. That's a meme that thrived here connected to an aggravated assault. Some other people here wanted to make "Labour Eurabia blasphemy law" happen, so they convinced themselves and kept saying it.
The problem is that a few extremists who've set themselves up as "community leaders" are considered to speak for all migrants. That should be viewed with the same scorn as people like Russell Brand claiming they speak for all normal people.
Stop trying to deal with "community leaders" or "communities" and start trying to deal with everyone as people.
That is what matters.
If the point is after they become independent... then it's beside the point!
"Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party will make Islamophobia an aggravated crime"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-labour-will-toughen-hate-crimes-legislation-surrounding-islamophobia-10203918.html
Sounds like a blasphemy law in all but name to me. Say something Muslims get offended by and you end up in jail.
The UUP were reporting big turnouts in some areas shortly after the polls closed so they knew it was on.
American States are able to borrow - and able to go bust. The Federal government does not bail them out if they run out of money. The UK should follow that path, let St Urgeon borrow and spend like there's no tomorrow - and then let the SNP face a reckoning when it faces a Labour-style collapse.
It was pandering pure and simple. Beating up anyone already is and always should be a crime. Drawing a cartoon is not.
Did you see the reports into Rotherham, where fear of being labelled racists stopped officials doing their jobs? How many children suffered because of that?
This new law would have had negative impacts, way outside of its intended parameters.
Local Authorities can borrow but their revenue budgets *must* balance. If you borrow you must be able to accommodate that borrowing within your budget.
For example, you may borrow money to build a swimming pool, but you must have enough resources to fund the finance. A local authority could not borrow to pay the staff of the swimming pool however.
Farage was an amazing success as Ukip leader and the job is only half done
https://twitter.com/paulnuttallukip/status/597447410730856448
It's different if just done on a revenue neutral basis - ie. give them control over additional taxes, work out what that would raise on day 1, and alter the Barnett formula accordingly (what is proposed under the Smith commission plans). But move to a point where Scots govt control all revenues, and they are having to transfer funds to the UK, and the whole thing has the potential to fall apart.
These things are difficult to prove as it is not easy to see into the mind of the assailant at the time of the attack. However there can be evidence from any language used before or during the incident that will guide the prosecuting authorities.
There is a need for aggravated assault to remain as a specific crime. But only under very specific circumstances.
There is one thing I find puzzling and I thought you would be the best person to answer this now that the campaign is finished.
I appreciate all about the polls. But parties have canvassers too. And, the impression I got was that Broxtowe was heavily canvassed. It has always been a marginal.
Was there absolutely no hint ? Or, was it like many CLPs we only canvass "our" people. How was it different from 2010 or 2005 ?
I remember the contrast between the Fulham by-election in 1986 and the GE 1987. I was in the committee rooms on both occasions. The returns were day and night. The "blues" and "unknowns" were piling up.
The Tories were also not that sure - whatever they may say now. I think the most optimistic were hoping for 300 - 310.
This is 1992 all over again. But is it the polls only ? Not only worth an analysis of the UKIP effect but , even more importantly, the GREEN EFFECT !
I don't think you understand what the report about Rotherham said.
Your comment is somewhat naive about unintended consequences.
Miliband had already once voted to criminalise "deliberately insulting a religion", something that would have made the likes of Charlie Hebdo criminals. This seems like a step to the same thing and he was unwilling to say that's not what he meant. Totally unacceptable.
Assaults are already illegal, so either he's criminalising the likes of Charlie Hebdo or he's not criminalising anything and this is meaningless pandering. Either way it is totally unacceptable.
As someone who was once a victim of GBH I can tell you that no assault is acceptable. I suffered a shattered eye socket, a broken nose and nearly lost sight in my eye. This wasn't due to race or religion but just because some thug was violent unprovoked. Should be considered less of a crime? All crimes should be illegal and weighed on their own merits.
Was Stewart Jackson party of the awkward squad proper? If so this would confirm that currently Cammo walks on water according to his MPs.
Should someone being assaulted unprovoked be considered less of a crime like I was just because the victim was white? I'd rather we punish all criminals.
Canada has explicit equalisation payments. Australia is similar. That is a pretty big step and it would be considered fair, I think, to give everyone equal spending power. Surely the SNP and Conservatives could agree on that.
Con 41%, Lab 31.6%, LD 8.2%, UKIP 14.1%
The Tories have 319 out of 533 seats, a majority of over 100 seats. If ever there was a time to legislate for an English parliament or EV4EL, it is now.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ANP-150427MONX-Full-data-tables.pdf
From a week before the election. Looks like an ICM as well judging by the questions.
And people wonder why there might be shy Conservative voters.
Is spending on the Faslane base an expenditure in Scotland ?