Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The trade union member who could be the next Tory leader

SystemSystem Posts: 12,364
edited May 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The trade union member who could be the next Tory leader

I’ve always thought the next leader would be someone associated with George Osborne, he declined to run in 2005 and he probably will not enter the next Tory leadership election, and prefers to be the éminence grise for another Tory leader.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Disability? Oh yes - cerebral palsy. I knew that there was one Conservative MP with CP (Paul Maynard) but somehow I hadn't registered that there were two. Earlier there was Terry Dicks, also a Conservative. I hope that it's a meaningless coincidence that all three have been Conservatives, and that no Labour MPs have had CP.

    The Conservative candidate in the Croydon North by-election in 2012 was Andy Stranack, who has an identical twin brother. They are easy to tell apart because Andy has CP and his brother doesn't. One statistic I like is that in the said by-election, 98% of the voters voted for someone who was either gay or disabled or black or Asian - and it wasn't an issue for any of them.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Well done JL first on thread!!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Will Osborne run himself? I'd have agreed with the OP and the consensus that he will not, but recent events may have put a different spin on that.

    First, Osborne, in true heir-to-Brown style, seems to want to run the whole government from his desk at the Treasury. In the last couple of days, we have had Osborne announcing action on skills, the Northern Powerhouse, and it is said he will also run the referendum. Then there is image: George has just last week hired Mail political editor, James Chapman, as his own spin doctor.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited May 2015
    Osborne is generally 6/1 against for next leader. I've made a small investment at 7/1 for next Prime Minister, as I expect David Cameron to retire mid-parliament.

    The next leader market is made by (imo) false favourite Boris Johnson. If EICIPM had transpired, Boris would have been the obvious successor to reach out to non-Conservatives and lead the party back to power. But as the Conservatives won a majority, Boris's USP disappears, but worse than that, his still being Mayor of London until next year means he cannot garner any Cabinet experience, even if Cameron was minded to appoint him. Betting is 2/1 (or shorter) Boris, 5/1 bar.
    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-conservative-leader

    Edit: almost forgot -- DYOR.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,426
    Harlow isn't exactly the safest Tory seat. If Ukip do fade away over the next few years, then Halfon might be in danger of losing his seat at the next election.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    edited May 2015
    Good spot TSE, worth a punt at 50/1 as will probably be 20/1 by tomorrow.

    An interesting market this one, more so given that I can't see either favourite Boris or second Osborne getting the job. George is - as TSE says in the header - too politically astute to go for the top job, he'd rather be pulling the strings behind the scenes. Boris is, well, Boris. His personality works well for a city mayor but I can't see the MPs or party members voting a man who can't keep his pants on for the top job.

    Third placed Theresa May has probably had her chance now, although maybe she is the Dave-under-a-bus candidate for the next couple of years. Sajid Javid at 10/1 could be the value among the front runners.

    The winner of this contest depends hugely on the timing and context though, a 2005-style contest over six months in late 2017 will produce a very different result to one where Dave falls on his sword having made the wrong call on the EU referendum.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,999
    Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?

    Oh the irony of having a Labour contender who was an Officer of the Queen's' Commission and a Conservative contender who was in a Trade Union. Maybe everyone could discuss policies rather than personalities for a change?

    BTW, @SouthamObserver some really good comments from yourself over the past few days on the Labour race - are they really about to follow Miliband with Burnham? I've never joined any political organisation but I'm seriously thinking of paying my 3 quid to vote for Kendall if the MPs don't stitch up the ballot.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,899

    Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?

    There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.

    The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    I'd thought the same re halfon. A good long shot.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?

    There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.

    The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
    That's just what I was thinking, not only him but that other sh*t who was making up stories about Osborne and Cameron.. Derek Draper A couple of slime balls if ever there was one.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    tlg86 said:

    Harlow isn't exactly the safest Tory seat. If Ukip do fade away over the next few years, then Halfon might be in danger of losing his seat at the next election.

    It was marginal but he's increased the majority significantly this time so I'd say it was pretty safe. Any UKIP fade would help him as m such as Labour.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I think that Dave's victory the other week has put paid to the idea that a posh person cannot win for the Tories, and rightly so. It was always a demonstration of spite and small mindedness from those that used it as an attack. Fortunately the British public are not so petty as those who used it as an attack line. It is worth noting that being a posh public schoolboy has not damaged the political careers of Boris or Nogel Farage either.

    A lot will depend on the context of the next leadership contest, in particular the fallout of the euro-referendum, the fate of UKIP and whether a Kendallite Labour party becomes a real threat.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,315
    Good morning, everyone.

    An intriguing and well-considered piece. I still think Patel [or future Prime Minister Justine Greening] in better positions, but Halfon could be a surprise.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,778
    Don't think TSE. A candidate like this only has a chance when the party has suffered a defeat and needs a change of direction or a new appeal. Liz Kendall is such a candidate for Labour at the moment, running against the shadow cabinet members tainted with the failures of the past.

    The Tories won by demonstrating competence, a completely unfair tactic since Labour really could not hope to aspire to it. The next leader will therefore be a continuity candidate who has also demonstrated that competence in government which means a senior position in the cabinet.

    I expect Cameron to go in 3-4 years leaving time for the next leader to bed in before the next election If Osborne doesn't stand (and I don't think he will) it will be either Jarvid or Hunt unless someone else (ideally female but not May who is too old) takes the opportunity to shine over that period.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Morning all.

    @DrFox – Indeed, a posh education was never the impediment some claimed, OTOH, being christened Nogel …?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,870
    TSE - with regard to trade union members, all former teachers (and there are quite a few this time around) will be members of a trade union. Apart from any other consideration, it's much the cheapest form of getting insurance in case of false/vexatious allegations, which is a lurking fear at the back of every teacher's mind.

    Any former doctors will also be members of a College, which is a trade union in all but name.

    So although there won't be a majority who are trade union members, as there are in Labour, I would have thought it would be more than a few.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    ydoethur said:

    TSE - with regard to trade union members, all former teachers (and there are quite a few this time around) will be members of a trade union. Apart from any other consideration, it's much the cheapest form of getting insurance in case of false/vexatious allegations, which is a lurking fear at the back of every teacher's mind.

    Any former doctors will also be members of a College, which is a trade union in all but name.

    So although there won't be a majority who are trade union members, as there are in Labour, I would have thought it would be more than a few.

    Nurses and midwives are all trade unionists too, once again for professional indemnity purposes.

    Medical Royal Colleges are not trade unions though. Their charters specifically ban them from negotiations on terms and conditions, or acting as advocates over individual disputes. The BMA takes this role, with about 60% of UK doctors as members. I find the BMA rather supine so am a member of the TUC affiated HCSA, and militant junior doctors often quite like Remedy UK which formed in the aftermath of the disastrous MMC changes pushed through by Patricia Hewitt with support from the BMA.

  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,375
    edited May 2015
    It seems that the group of NOTA voters is gradually growing. Could it be anything to do with the post-election post-mortems?

    During the campaign, they all say how great it's going, how their leader is the font of all wisdom, and their policies are perfect for the country.

    Afterwards, most say that they knew all the time that there were problems, the strategy was wrong and the policies were misdirected. And as for their leader ....

    So they must have been lying beforehand or they are lying now.

    The excuse is party loyalty. The press would make it a story of it.

    In how many professions is it necessary to lie as a routine? Generally those whose public trust is negligible. Estate agents, the press and politics.

    (There is one exception to this and that's show business where for some reason, the public seems to trust 'stars' who are always assuring everyone how much the love each other. It's only in the autobiography that some tell the truth.)

    So we can assume that politicians lie as a routine.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,315
    Mr. CD13, politics is reality. Show business is escapism. Nobody wants to believe they're 'escaping' with utter swine.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,375
    Mr Dancer,

    Well put.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,778
    Hopefully this is enough to keep this idiotic idea out of the Queens Speech: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/queens-speech/11626477/Tories-at-war-over-plan-to-scrap-Human-Rights-Act.html
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,489
    edited May 2015
    DavidL said:
    I fail to see what is ipso facto idiotic about having home-grown legislation to protect human rights, rather than import wholesale a foreign document rooted in alien concepts. What we will need to see us what replaces it and how it will work. Only then will it be possible to say whether it is idiotic or not.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,716
    DavidL said:
    This is one of those situations where the opponents of the law have all kinds of mistaken ideas about what it actually does, so the obvious solution is to repeal the current law and replace it with a new one that uses different words to mean the same thing, then say, "See, our new law doesn't do [things people wrongly thought the old one did]".
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,315
    Mr. Tokyo, was it not the case that the Human Rights Act prevented the deportation of a youth who murdered a headmaster because he [the youth] could not speak Italian?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,778

    DavidL said:
    This is one of those situations where the opponents of the law have all kinds of mistaken ideas about what it actually does, so the obvious solution is to repeal the current law and replace it with a new one that uses different words to mean the same thing, then say, "See, our new law doesn't do [things people wrongly thought the old one did]".
    Sounds like a lawyer's paradise to me. Indeed, friends of mine who do immigration are already genuinely hopeful that all the failed arguments used to prevent deportation can be re-run if they only have fractionally different words to play with.

    But that just demonstrates the stupidity of the idea. Putting Gove in charge of this may prove to be a serious mistake. The man has considerable talents but reconciling differing views in a harmonious way is not one of them.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,899
    There's an interesting report in the Sunday Times about how many car manufacturers' figures for NO2 emissions are not in line with reality, and can be up to ten times the recorded figure.

    It's important as NO2 is seen as being responsible for tens of thousands of deaths through Europe every year.

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article1560165.ece
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,716

    Mr. Tokyo, was it not the case that the Human Rights Act prevented the deportation of a youth who murdered a headmaster because he [the youth] could not speak Italian?

    Apparently not.

    Firstly because the case was mainly about an EU freedom of movement directive, not human rights/ See:
    http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/11/29/failure-to-deport-philip-lawrence-killer-was-not-about-human-rights/

    Secondly because even if the Human Rights Act hadn't existed but the rights in it had applied in this case he'd presumably have taken the case to Strasbourg instead, probably at taxpayer expense, and got the same result.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,778

    DavidL said:
    I fail to see what is ipso facto idiotic about having home-grown legislation to protect human rights, rather than import wholesale a foreign document rooted in alien concepts. What we will need to see us what replaces it and how it will work. Only then will it be possible to say whether it is idiotic or not.
    Firstly, it was largely British lawyers that wrote it.

    Secondly, what is "alien" about preventing torture, illegal detention, the right to a fair trial, the protection of private property rights or respect for family life? Much of the Convention might be regarded as no more than an updated version of the Magna Carta.

    Thirdly, the occasionally annoying decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are an inevitable feature of any system which holds elected politicians to the rule of law and puts limits on their competence. A UK bill of rights would have the feature.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,315
    Mr. Jessop, sounds serious but I doubt it'll get much coverage [because it's not carbon dioxide, the most evil chemical in the world].

    Mr. Tokyo, I stand corrected [on the HRA].

    Mr. L, the prevention of torture, illegal detention, fair trial and property rights are part of British law without the Human Rights Act. The right to a family life seems open to abuse [it also didn't help the foster kids dragged away from their excellent but UKIP-supporting parents, or the children of Rotherham].

    The ECHR's fundamental problem is the undemocratic and extra-territorial creation and imposition of laws. Assuming I'm thinking of the right court in the labyrinthine monstrosity of euroland.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,924
    BETTING POST - Stan James currently have Richmond Tigers at 2.2

    They lead 47-24 at HT

    by comparison bet365 is 1.44

    Take the SJ Price now

    DYOR
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    I fail to see what is ipso facto idiotic about having home-grown legislation to protect human rights, rather than import wholesale a foreign document rooted in alien concepts. What we will need to see us what replaces it and how it will work. Only then will it be possible to say whether it is idiotic or not.
    Firstly, it was largely British lawyers that wrote it.

    Secondly, what is "alien" about preventing torture, illegal detention, the right to a fair trial, the protection of private property rights or respect for family life? Much of the Convention might be regarded as no more than an updated version of the Magna Carta.

    Thirdly, the occasionally annoying decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are an inevitable feature of any system which holds elected politicians to the rule of law and puts limits on their competence. A UK bill of rights would have the feature.
    I think the most important issue is not of the rights themselves, but of national sovereignty and the role of the activist judges in the European courts - who are often not senior judges in their home countries but appointed as political favours by their governments.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,924

    BETTING POST - Stan James currently have Richmond Tigers at 2.2

    They lead 47-24 at HT

    by comparison bet365 is 1.44

    Take the SJ Price now

    DYOR

    Too late they have now corrected it!!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    LOL at Steve Hilton turning up in t-shirt, jeans and trainers to the Marr show.
    Sajid Javid up next, I think he'll be wearing a tie.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?

    There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.

    The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
    Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,778
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    I fail to see what is ipso facto idiotic about having home-grown legislation to protect human rights, rather than import wholesale a foreign document rooted in alien concepts. What we will need to see us what replaces it and how it will work. Only then will it be possible to say whether it is idiotic or not.
    Firstly, it was largely British lawyers that wrote it.

    Secondly, what is "alien" about preventing torture, illegal detention, the right to a fair trial, the protection of private property rights or respect for family life? Much of the Convention might be regarded as no more than an updated version of the Magna Carta.

    Thirdly, the occasionally annoying decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are an inevitable feature of any system which holds elected politicians to the rule of law and puts limits on their competence. A UK bill of rights would have the feature.
    I think the most important issue is not of the rights themselves, but of national sovereignty and the role of the activist judges in the European courts - who are often not senior judges in their home countries but appointed as political favours by their governments.
    I agree that the quality of decision making in the ECtHR is variable and sometimes downright poor. I also agree that the quality of some of the judges is an issue. That is what we should be seeking to address.

    The problem with home grown legislation is that politicians can change it. Unless you create a series of constitutional hurdles in the way, as the US does, the concept of there being limitations on the power of the State is lost. Constitutionally, I am not sure how we would do that in this country. I suppose the kind of presumptions and Conventions that surround the European Communities Act might be a way but the protections would not be as nearly absolute as they are at the moment.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    This is one of those situations where the opponents of the law have all kinds of mistaken ideas about what it actually does, so the obvious solution is to repeal the current law and replace it with a new one that uses different words to mean the same thing, then say, "See, our new law doesn't do [things people wrongly thought the old one did]".
    Sounds like a lawyer's paradise to me. Indeed, friends of mine who do immigration are already genuinely hopeful that all the failed arguments used to prevent deportation can be re-run if they only have fractionally different words to play with.

    But that just demonstrates the stupidity of the idea. Putting Gove in charge of this may prove to be a serious mistake. The man has considerable talents but reconciling differing views in a harmonious way is not one of them.
    Gove's abrasive style is pretty certain to mess this up when there is a tiny majority to deal with. Any long term constitutional issue that needs resolving should have cross party support if it is to be tenable in the long term.

    The HRA and European courts may well be essential protections of ancient British rights when May attempts her illiberal Snoopers Charter and Terrorism Disruption orders.



  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,315
    edited May 2015
    Mr. L, wasn't the demon eyes poster considered but not released? Could be wrong.

    I said at the time that Brown never had a fair press. He either got lauded when he didn't deserve it, or got criticised even more than he deserved (the Sun having a go over that letter was not smart).

    Miliband didn't exactly help himself. The bacon sandwich and the re-enactment of Moses on Mount Sinai[sp] were both his idea.

    Edited extra bit: Mr. Foxinsox, depends on what the British Bill of Rights has in it.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,054

    Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?

    There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.

    The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
    Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
    Bloody prescient though....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,778
    edited May 2015
    Anyone think England can bat all day and get enough runs to save this test match? Looks vanishingly unlikely to me. Given the rate the NZ team can score at and the lack of deterioration in the wicket I think even lunch tomorrow is likely to prove problematic.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I would have thought that a mobile phone was a particularly poor missile for resolving office politics. Too fragile and expensive. I am sure Miss Kendall has better judgement and temper than that.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,899
    edited May 2015

    Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?

    There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.

    The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
    Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
    Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.

    I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.

    Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.

    Those were my main criticisms of him.

    Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.

    That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    I fail to see what is ipso facto idiotic about having home-grown legislation to protect human rights, rather than import wholesale a foreign document rooted in alien concepts. What we will need to see us what replaces it and how it will work. Only then will it be possible to say whether it is idiotic or not.
    Firstly, it was largely British lawyers that wrote it.

    Secondly, what is "alien" about preventing torture, illegal detention, the right to a fair trial, the protection of private property rights or respect for family life? Much of the Convention might be regarded as no more than an updated version of the Magna Carta.

    Thirdly, the occasionally annoying decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are an inevitable feature of any system which holds elected politicians to the rule of law and puts limits on their competence. A UK bill of rights would have the feature.
    I think the most important issue is not of the rights themselves, but of national sovereignty and the role of the activist judges in the European courts - who are often not senior judges in their home countries but appointed as political favours by their governments.
    I agree that the quality of decision making in the ECtHR is variable and sometimes downright poor. I also agree that the quality of some of the judges is an issue. That is what we should be seeking to address.

    The problem with home grown legislation is that politicians can change it. Unless you create a series of constitutional hurdles in the way, as the US does, the concept of there being limitations on the power of the State is lost. Constitutionally, I am not sure how we would do that in this country. I suppose the kind of presumptions and Conventions that surround the European Communities Act might be a way but the protections would not be as nearly absolute as they are at the moment.
    When we hear of decisions that we cannot deport people to countries signed up to the EHCR such as Italy and France - because of how the governments in those countries might treat them - then we have a serious problem with the credibility of that court.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10245907/The-terrorist-we-cant-deport-because-of-his-human-rights.html
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243

    Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?

    There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.

    The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
    Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
    Bloody prescient though....
    And it's not as if Thatcher was not subject to regular abuse by Labour.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,054
    edited May 2015
    So unnamed Labour insiders claiming that Labour's Last Best Hope is but Gordon Brown in a skirt?

    This is going well...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    DavidL said:

    Anyone think England can bat all day and get enough runs to save this test match? Looks vanishingly unlikely to me. Given the rate the NZ team can score at and the lack of deterioration in the wicket I think even lunch tomorrow is likely to prove problematic.

    Fingers crossed for a rainy day!
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    This is one of those situations where the opponents of the law have all kinds of mistaken ideas about what it actually does, so the obvious solution is to repeal the current law and replace it with a new one that uses different words to mean the same thing, then say, "See, our new law doesn't do [things people wrongly thought the old one did]".
    Sounds like a lawyer's paradise to me. Indeed, friends of mine who do immigration are already genuinely hopeful that all the failed arguments used to prevent deportation can be re-run if they only have fractionally different words to play with.

    But that just demonstrates the stupidity of the idea. Putting Gove in charge of this may prove to be a serious mistake. The man has considerable talents but reconciling differing views in a harmonious way is not one of them.
    Gove's abrasive style is pretty certain to mess this up when there is a tiny majority to deal with. Any long term constitutional issue that needs resolving should have cross party support if it is to be tenable in the long term.

    The HRA and European courts may well be essential protections of ancient British rights when May attempts her illiberal Snoopers Charter and Terrorism Disruption orders.
    What cobblers. Let's all vote for a lefty 'make it easy for the ratbags to blow us up' bill. Thank goodness the pointless LDs are reduced to a sleazy rump.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    I fail to see what is ipso facto idiotic about having home-grown legislation to protect human rights, rather than import wholesale a foreign document rooted in alien concepts. What we will need to see us what replaces it and how it will work. Only then will it be possible to say whether it is idiotic or not.
    Firstly, it was largely British lawyers that wrote it.

    Secondly, what is "alien" about preventing torture, illegal detention, the right to a fair trial, the protection of private property rights or respect for family life? Much of the Convention might be regarded as no more than an updated version of the Magna Carta.

    Thirdly, the occasionally annoying decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are an inevitable feature of any system which holds elected politicians to the rule of law and puts limits on their competence. A UK bill of rights would have the feature.
    I think the most important issue is not of the rights themselves, but of national sovereignty and the role of the activist judges in the European courts - who are often not senior judges in their home countries but appointed as political favours by their governments.
    It's our own activist judges interpreting the legislation. But you are correct, the judges have been twisting and pushing the boundaries of the convention.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,693
    Sounds like Len, Tom and Charlie are back together again smearing their enemies within the party.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Flightpath Thatcher is still abused by Labour..many years after she left politics and then died.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    Bloody hell, why do I agree with (only slighty) more than half what Hattie is saying?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Interesting Eurovision review here:

    http://schlagerblog.blogspot.co.at/2015/05/sweden-its-win-for-new-schlager.html?m=1

    It does look as if it is not just the UK but also the other founding countries that struggle to win, and while the Scandanavians have dominated recent times, the French, Spanish, Italians and Germans have all done as badly as us in recent years. Germany won a couple of years back but is very much the exception to the modern pattern. The emerging countries of Eastern Europe have won a fair number of times, but the success has been very thinly spread with no one country dominating.

    Better luck next year...

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,315
    Mr. Sandpit, have you been drinking? :p
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,489
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    I fail to see what is ipso facto idiotic about having home-grown legislation to protect human rights, rather than import wholesale a foreign document rooted in alien concepts. What we will need to see us what replaces it and how it will work. Only then will it be possible to say whether it is idiotic or not.
    Firstly, it was largely British lawyers that wrote it.

    Secondly, what is "alien" about preventing torture, illegal detention, the right to a fair trial, the protection of private property rights or respect for family life? Much of the Convention might be regarded as no more than an updated version of the Magna Carta.

    Thirdly, the occasionally annoying decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are an inevitable feature of any system which holds elected politicians to the rule of law and puts limits on their competence. A UK bill of rights would have the feature.
    The "alien" comment was based on the fact that most European countries have quite different legal systems based on civil (Roman) law, rather than our common law. I am not sure the right to family life should trump everything else, not sure there should be right to privacy as currently constituted, and there is insufficient support for freedom of speech.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    This is one of those situations where the opponents of the law have all kinds of mistaken ideas about what it actually does, so the obvious solution is to repeal the current law and replace it with a new one that uses different words to mean the same thing, then say, "See, our new law doesn't do [things people wrongly thought the old one did]".
    Sounds like a lawyer's paradise to me. Indeed, friends of mine who do immigration are already genuinely hopeful that all the failed arguments used to prevent deportation can be re-run if they only have fractionally different words to play with.

    But that just demonstrates the stupidity of the idea. Putting Gove in charge of this may prove to be a serious mistake. The man has considerable talents but reconciling differing views in a harmonious way is not one of them.
    Gove's abrasive style is pretty certain to mess this up when there is a tiny majority to deal with. Any long term constitutional issue that needs resolving should have cross party support if it is to be tenable in the long term.

    The HRA and European courts may well be essential protections of ancient British rights when May attempts her illiberal Snoopers Charter and Terrorism Disruption orders.
    What cobblers. Let's all vote for a lefty 'make it easy for the ratbags to blow us up' bill. Thank goodness the pointless LDs are reduced to a sleazy rump.
    Terrorists want to force governments into illiberal crackdowns which force marginalised communities into more radical positions.

    Were the IRA disarmed by internment and Bloody Sunday? Or by careful intelligence and application of the law?

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    Mr. Sandpit, have you been drinking? :p

    Not yet! It would be rude to watch the Monaco GP without a glass of something though ;)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,054
    Sandpit said:

    Bloody hell, why do I agree with (only slighty) more than half what Hattie is saying?

    This must be why Labour are getting shot of her as leader in an unseemly rush.

    The smart move would be to keep her in place until 2016, to take some flak for things such as the EU-referendum U-turn and other movement away from the crapness of the Ed years. But the new leader would come in with the political scenery already changed.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,010
    edited May 2015
    Telegraph said:

    Senior judges have now ruled AH is not entitled to asylum, and therefore has no right to be in this country, but because he faces a “well founded fear of persecution” in his homeland he is likely to remain here indefinitely.

    Wtf - If that's not asylum, then what is ?!

    If you fail asylum you should be sent back to your state of origin, no ifs, no buts.

    Which bleeding heart beak is keeping him in. And another thing, convicted terrorists lawyers should be forced to do this shit on a pro bono basis. I don't even think this is about the EU or EHCR - this is a problem with some of our own judges/lawyers on the hard left.
  • GasmanGasman Posts: 132


    Nurses and midwives are all trade unionists too, once again for professional indemnity purposes.

    Medical Royal Colleges are not trade unions though. Their charters specifically ban them from negotiations on terms and conditions, or acting as advocates over individual disputes. The BMA takes this role, with about 60% of UK doctors as members. I find the BMA rather supine so am a member of the TUC affiated HCSA, and militant junior doctors often quite like Remedy UK which formed in the aftermath of the disastrous MMC changes pushed through by Patricia Hewitt with support from the BMA.

    I very much agree with you regarding the BMA - I think we (doctors) would be a lot better off if it ceased to pretend to be a trade union, allowing a proper one to take its place.

    Remedy UK closed a few years ago - the decided they couldn't do what the wanted/needed to do effectively. It was a shame, because I think an effective junior doctors union would be very useful.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,489
    edited May 2015

    Mr. Tokyo, was it not the case that the Human Rights Act prevented the deportation of a youth who murdered a headmaster because he [the youth] could not speak Italian?

    Apparently not.

    Firstly because the case was mainly about an EU freedom of movement directive, not human rights/ See:
    http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/11/29/failure-to-deport-philip-lawrence-killer-was-not-about-human-rights/

    Secondly because even if the Human Rights Act hadn't existed but the rights in it had applied in this case he'd presumably have taken the case to Strasbourg instead, probably at taxpayer expense, and got the same result.
    In any case, I agreed with that decision on the grounds that Chindamo had lived here since he was a child, and as an Italian has the right to reside. So no grounds to deport.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    Sandpit said:

    Bloody hell, why do I agree with (only slighty) more than half what Hattie is saying?

    This must be why Labour are getting shot of her as leader in an unseemly rush.

    The smart move would be to keep her in place until 2016, to take some flak for things such as the EU-referendum U-turn and other movement away from the crapness of the Ed years. But the new leader would come in with the political scenery already changed.
    Agree completely.

    I have been no fan of Labour for the past 10 years, but a government needs an effective opposition and most centrists should feel that they have a choice when the election comes around.

    Labour needs as long a campaign as is necessary for them to work out what they stand for and who they are as a party - the stories of the unions trying to stitch up the election so it's a two horse race between Mrs Balls and Mr Stafford Hospital are ever so worrying to this centrist voter.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,010

    Mr. Tokyo, was it not the case that the Human Rights Act prevented the deportation of a youth who murdered a headmaster because he [the youth] could not speak Italian?

    Apparently not.

    Firstly because the case was mainly about an EU freedom of movement directive, not human rights/ See:
    http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/11/29/failure-to-deport-philip-lawrence-killer-was-not-about-human-rights/

    Secondly because even if the Human Rights Act hadn't existed but the rights in it had applied in this case he'd presumably have taken the case to Strasbourg instead, probably at taxpayer expense, and got the same result.
    In any case, I agreed with that decision on the grounds that Chindamo had lived here since he was a child, and as an Italian has the right to reside. So no grounds to deport.

    This tbh isn't such a major issue with being in the EU. Probably more home grown terrorists in England than other countries in the EU. If we could sort our housing etc benefits system out properly they might even move to other EU countries !
    The English language is a big problem for us though in this regard in that everyone pretty much speaks English and thats a pull for both desirables and undesirables.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,923

    Flightpath Thatcher is still abused by Labour..many years after she left politics and then died.

    Your point is?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    Mr. Tokyo, was it not the case that the Human Rights Act prevented the deportation of a youth who murdered a headmaster because he [the youth] could not speak Italian?

    Apparently not.

    Firstly because the case was mainly about an EU freedom of movement directive, not human rights/ See:
    http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/11/29/failure-to-deport-philip-lawrence-killer-was-not-about-human-rights/

    Secondly because even if the Human Rights Act hadn't existed but the rights in it had applied in this case he'd presumably have taken the case to Strasbourg instead, probably at taxpayer expense, and got the same result.
    In any case, I agreed with that decision on the grounds that Chindamo had lived here since he was a child, and as an Italian has the right to reside. So no grounds to deport.

    Why the f... should freedom of movement extend to serious criminals in the first place? It is supposed to be free movement of workers, those with jobs.
    We have enough problems with our own convicts. If he has an Italian passport we should be able to deport him back to Italy.

    I can understand the rules on not returning people to where they may be tortured, but the idea that we can't deport people back to other EU and ECHR countries is bonkers.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    This is one of those situations where the opponents of the law have all kinds of mistaken ideas about what it actually does, so the obvious solution is to repeal the current law and replace it with a new one that uses different words to mean the same thing, then say, "See, our new law doesn't do [things people wrongly thought the old one did]".
    Sounds like a lawyer's paradise to me. Indeed, friends of mine who do immigration are already genuinely hopeful that all the failed arguments used to prevent deportation can be re-run if they only have fractionally different words to play with.

    But that just demonstrates the stupidity of the idea. Putting Gove in charge of this may prove to be a serious mistake. The man has considerable talents but reconciling differing views in a harmonious way is not one of them.
    Gove's abrasive style is pretty certain to mess this up when there is a tiny majority to deal with. Any long term constitutional issue that needs resolving should have cross party support if it is to be tenable in the long term.

    The HRA and European courts may well be essential protections of ancient British rights when May attempts her illiberal Snoopers Charter and Terrorism Disruption orders.
    What cobblers. Let's all vote for a lefty 'make it easy for the ratbags to blow us up' bill. Thank goodness the pointless LDs are reduced to a sleazy rump.
    Terrorists want to force governments into illiberal crackdowns which force marginalised communities into more radical positions.

    Were the IRA disarmed by internment and Bloody Sunday? Or by careful intelligence and application of the law?

    The IRA were 'disarmed', ie the peace process began, because of the increasing loyalist violence against innocent catholics. Murderous attrition encouraged the peace process. Coming out with crude misinterpretations like 'snoopers charter' is no way to defend ourselves against suicide bombers.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,716
    Pulpstar said:

    Telegraph said:

    Senior judges have now ruled AH is not entitled to asylum, and therefore has no right to be in this country, but because he faces a “well founded fear of persecution” in his homeland he is likely to remain here indefinitely.

    Wtf - If that's not asylum, then what is ?!

    If you fail asylum you should be sent back to your state of origin, no ifs, no buts.

    Which bleeding heart beak is keeping him in. And another thing, convicted terrorists lawyers should be forced to do this shit on a pro bono basis. I don't even think this is about the EU or EHCR - this is a problem with some of our own judges/lawyers on the hard left.
    What was he convicted of? It seems weird for it to have been terrorism if the French only gave him two years. They're not exactly soft when it comes to Algerian terrorism.

    Either way you really need to read a proper summary of the case before drawing conclusions about the judge - unfortunately British newspapers hardly ever summarize them accurately.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,315
    Mr. Sandpit, quite agree.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    MG Go away little man..
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243

    There's an interesting report in the Sunday Times about how many car manufacturers' figures for NO2 emissions are not in line with reality, and can be up to ten times the recorded figure.

    It's important as NO2 is seen as being responsible for tens of thousands of deaths through Europe every year.

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article1560165.ece

    Tens of thousands?
    The test figures will be run rolling roads and laboratory produced won't they? , like fuel consumption. How else can the engine be tested to meet the standard.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,644
    CD13 said:

    It seems that the group of NOTA voters is gradually growing. Could it be anything to do with the post-election post-mortems?

    During the campaign, they all say how great it's going, how their leader is the font of all wisdom, and their policies are perfect for the country.

    Afterwards, most say that they knew all the time that there were problems, the strategy was wrong and the policies were misdirected. And as for their leader ....

    So they must have been lying beforehand or they are lying now.

    The excuse is party loyalty. The press would make it a story of it.

    In how many professions is it necessary to lie as a routine? Generally those whose public trust is negligible. Estate agents, the press and politics.

    (There is one exception to this and that's show business where for some reason, the public seems to trust 'stars' who are always assuring everyone how much the love each other. It's only in the autobiography that some tell the truth.)

    So we can assume that politicians lie as a routine.

    In general, politicians don't lie, they answer a different question which sounds a bit similar. "Do you think Ed Miliband is doing well?" "I think he's absolutely right to say that people want a change from the tired government, because...(find something interesting to say about that which the interviewer will follow up)." I tend to blame the media, who will take any criticism and blow it up out of context and proportion. But it'd be difficult anyway in ANY competitive situation.

    Effectively you're applying for a job. A classic interview question is "What are your weaknesses?" Doesn't everyone think, "What weakness can I admit to that won't be damaging to my chances?" If the reality is, say, that you tend to drink too much or you're rather lazy, is anyone going to be truthful in that situation?

    On the doorstep, I said things about Ed like, "Well, he's obviously not a super salesman, but he stands up to vested interests and I think people will be pleasantly surprised." That was more or less what I thought, but if it had been on TV, it would certainly have been a story: "Candidate admits doubts about Miliband as Labour panic spreads" or the like.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    And to pass MOTs.

    There's an interesting report in the Sunday Times about how many car manufacturers' figures for NO2 emissions are not in line with reality, and can be up to ten times the recorded figure.

    It's important as NO2 is seen as being responsible for tens of thousands of deaths through Europe every year.

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article1560165.ece

    Tens of thousands?
    The test figures will be run rolling roads and laboratory produced won't they? , like fuel consumption. How else can the engine be tested to meet the standard.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,999

    So unnamed Labour insiders claiming that Labour's Last Best Hope is but Gordon Brown in a skirt?

    This is going well...

    I am convinced that this piece in the notoriously Labour-friendly Daily Mail, written by an unnamed Mail reporter, is not in any way made up.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,923

    MG Go away little man..

    Ha Ha Ha , intelligent response as ever , you really are a dumpling. Go stare at your portrait of Maggie.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    MG Point made.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,923

    MG Point made.

    Yes , you are unable to post anything sensible, we know.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243

    Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?

    Being a soldier does not stop personal attacks on Prince Harry. Being a former military helicopter pilot does not stop personal attacks on Prince Andrew.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,802
    Listening to Harriet Harman on Marr this morning was surreal. She is now endorsing the referendum and has much the same aims as David Cameron apparently but when Andrew Marr summed up her position as wanting and demanding a changed Europe but that if Europe refuses she agreed that she would still campaign to stay in an unreformed Europe !!!!!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,067
    edited May 2015
    DavidL said:


    The problem with home grown legislation is that politicians can change it. Unless you create a series of constitutional hurdles in the way, as the US does, the concept of there being limitations on the power of the State is lost

    I had thought that was one of the fundamental aspects of our system.

    The problem I have with this HRA business is that, at present, it is not apparent how things will actually be improved. Overly activist judges from the ECHR, making political decisions essentially that, under our own system, politicians could always get around if they wanted, can be a problem, but while I'm sure we are not about to abolish human rights by replacing the HRA, some whispers seem to be that in essence very little will change, in which case why both doing it when the party will face internal troubles about it which are not as easily dismissed as some of the more crackpot rebellious types, and they have in no way prepared the public for why the change is 'needed', and it will in fact be very easy to portray it as some heartless attack on human rights themselves.

    I think that Dave's victory the other week has put paid to the idea that a posh person cannot win for the Tories,

    So long as someone is not obviously a sneery elitist, if anything a posh person to some degree might be a help. A lot of people used to fall back on that Cameron just looks and sounds like a PM, and his poshness is part of that. We expect MPs to be white, middle aged men, probably with a legal or medical background (ok, he misses that one), and while that is less overwhelmingly true now, it is still the default image people have of MPs. And PMs being Eton and Oxbridge educated also just fits with a mental image of PMs specifically.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,067

    Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?

    Being a soldier does not stop personal attacks on Prince Harry. Being a former military helicopter pilot does not stop personal attacks on Prince Andrew.
    It precludes the lazier personal attacks from being made as easily, though you are right nothing prevents them, particular if there is something else that allows personal attacks which might override that.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    Plato said:

    And to pass MOTs.

    There's an interesting report in the Sunday Times about how many car manufacturers' figures for NO2 emissions are not in line with reality, and can be up to ten times the recorded figure.

    It's important as NO2 is seen as being responsible for tens of thousands of deaths through Europe every year.

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article1560165.ece

    Tens of thousands?
    The test figures will be run rolling roads and laboratory produced won't they? , like fuel consumption. How else can the engine be tested to meet the standard.
    Is NO2 part of the mot?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    There's an interesting report in the Sunday Times about how many car manufacturers' figures for NO2 emissions are not in line with reality, and can be up to ten times the recorded figure.

    It's important as NO2 is seen as being responsible for tens of thousands of deaths through Europe every year.

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article1560165.ece

    Tens of thousands?
    The test figures will be run rolling roads and laboratory produced won't they? , like fuel consumption. How else can the engine be tested to meet the standard.
    The tests on new cars are done in a lab under standardised conditions, same as the fuel consumption tests.

    While in the real world the figures may not be as good, what the tests do is to enable comparisons between similar cars in a class.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,067

    CD13 said:

    It seems that the group of NOTA voters is gradually growing. Could it be anything to do with the post-election post-mortems?

    During the campaign, they all say how great it's going, how their leader is the font of all wisdom, and their policies are perfect for the country.

    Afterwards, most say that they knew all the time that there were problems, the strategy was wrong and the policies were misdirected. And as for their leader ....

    So they must have been lying beforehand or they are lying now.

    The excuse is party loyalty. The press would make it a story of it.

    In how many professions is it necessary to lie as a routine? Generally those whose public trust is negligible. Estate agents, the press and politics.

    (There is one exception to this and that's show business where for some reason, the public seems to trust 'stars' who are always assuring everyone how much the love each other. It's only in the autobiography that some tell the truth.)

    So we can assume that politicians lie as a routine.

    In general, politicians don't lie, they answer a different question which sounds a bit similar. .
    I'd actually agree with that. Outright lies are rare because they are too risky, changing the subject, non-answers and obfuscations are much better tactics.

    I think this was notable at the Progress event (sorry to mention again, but it's about the only thing during the Labour leadership contest I've seen), where Cooper, Burnham and Creagh all waffled and gave non-answers about why they had not said anything sooner if they are not saying they could see what was wrong with the Labour campaign, Kendall tried to indicate she had done what she could despite having misgivings, and Hunt said he had thought at the time it was ok.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    CD13 said:

    It seems that the group of NOTA voters is gradually growing. Could it be anything to do with the post-election post-mortems?

    During the campaign, they all say how great it's going, how their leader is the font of all wisdom, and their policies are perfect for the country.

    Afterwards, most say that they knew all the time that there were problems, the strategy was wrong and the policies were misdirected. And as for their leader ....

    So they must have been lying beforehand or they are lying now.

    The excuse is party loyalty. The press would make it a story of it.

    In how many professions is it necessary to lie as a routine? Generally those whose public trust is negligible. Estate agents, the press and politics.

    (There is one exception to this and that's show business where for some reason, the public seems to trust 'stars' who are always assuring everyone how much the love each other. It's only in the autobiography that some tell the truth.)

    So we can assume that politicians lie as a routine.

    On the doorstep, I said things about Ed like, "Well, he's obviously not a super salesman, but he stands up to vested interests and I think people will be pleasantly surprised." That was more or less what I thought, but if it had been on TV, it would certainly have been a story: "Candidate admits doubts about Miliband as Labour panic spreads" or the like.
    Agree with you Nick that the media need to be more adult about minor differences between individual candidates within a party. Do they really want everyone to be relentlessly on-message and therefore clones of each other?
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    Sandpit said:

    There's an interesting report in the Sunday Times about how many car manufacturers' figures for NO2 emissions are not in line with reality, and can be up to ten times the recorded figure.

    It's important as NO2 is seen as being responsible for tens of thousands of deaths through Europe every year.

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article1560165.ece

    Tens of thousands?
    The test figures will be run rolling roads and laboratory produced won't they? , like fuel consumption. How else can the engine be tested to meet the standard.
    The tests on new cars are done in a lab under standardised conditions, same as the fuel consumption tests.
    While in the real world the figures may not be as good, what the tests do is to enable comparisons between similar cars in a class.
    Yes that seems right

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,067
    Sandpit said:

    CD13 said:

    It seems that the group of NOTA voters is gradually growing. Could it be anything to do with the post-election post-mortems?

    During the campaign, they all say how great it's going, how their leader is the font of all wisdom, and their policies are perfect for the country.

    Afterwards, most say that they knew all the time that there were problems, the strategy was wrong and the policies were misdirected. And as for their leader ....

    So they must have been lying beforehand or they are lying now.

    The excuse is party loyalty. The press would make it a story of it.

    In how many professions is it necessary to lie as a routine? Generally those whose public trust is negligible. Estate agents, the press and politics.

    (There is one exception to this and that's show business where for some reason, the public seems to trust 'stars' who are always assuring everyone how much the love each other. It's only in the autobiography that some tell the truth.)

    So we can assume that politicians lie as a routine.

    On the doorstep, I said things about Ed like, "Well, he's obviously not a super salesman, but he stands up to vested interests and I think people will be pleasantly surprised." That was more or less what I thought, but if it had been on TV, it would certainly have been a story: "Candidate admits doubts about Miliband as Labour panic spreads" or the like.
    Agree with you Nick that the media need to be more adult about minor differences between individual candidates within a party. Do they really want everyone to be relentlessly on-message and therefore clones of each other?
    Indeed. I do have some sympathy with our political classes (some at least) - some of the things they do and say in the way they do is because that is what works, and bland, identikit party hack automatons have been working for awhile now.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Well this MOT garage says it's one of 4 gases they test for http://www.petercoopercarrepairs.co.uk/new_page_2.htm

    Plato said:

    And to pass MOTs.

    There's an interesting report in the Sunday Times about how many car manufacturers' figures for NO2 emissions are not in line with reality, and can be up to ten times the recorded figure.

    It's important as NO2 is seen as being responsible for tens of thousands of deaths through Europe every year.

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article1560165.ece

    Tens of thousands?
    The test figures will be run rolling roads and laboratory produced won't they? , like fuel consumption. How else can the engine be tested to meet the standard.
    Is NO2 part of the mot?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,200

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    This is one of those situations where the opponents of the law have all kinds of mistaken ideas about what it actually does, so the obvious solution is to repeal the current law and replace it with a new one that uses different words to mean the same thing, then say, "See, our new law doesn't do [things people wrongly thought the old one did]".
    Sounds like a lawyer's paradise to me. Indeed, friends of mine who do immigration are already genuinely hopeful that all the failed arguments used to prevent deportation can be re-run if they only have fractionally different words to play with.

    But that just demonstrates the stupidity of the idea. Putting Gove in charge of this may prove to be a serious mistake. The man has considerable talents but reconciling differing views in a harmonious way is not one of them.
    Gove's abrasive style is pretty certain to mess this up when there is a tiny majority to deal with. Any long term constitutional issue that needs resolving should have cross party support if it is to be tenable in the long term.

    The HRA and European courts may well be essential protections of ancient British rights when May attempts her illiberal Snoopers Charter and Terrorism Disruption orders.
    What cobblers. Let's all vote for a lefty 'make it easy for the ratbags to blow us up' bill. Thank goodness the pointless LDs are reduced to a sleazy rump.
    Terrorists want to force governments into illiberal crackdowns which force marginalised communities into more radical positions.

    Were the IRA disarmed by internment and Bloody Sunday? Or by careful intelligence and application of the law?

    The IRA were 'disarmed', ie the peace process began, because of the increasing loyalist violence against innocent catholics. Murderous attrition encouraged the peace process. Coming out with crude misinterpretations like 'snoopers charter' is no way to defend ourselves against suicide bombers.
    Simply not true. According to the Conflict Archive on the Internet - which is probably the definitive study of deaths in Northern Ireland due to the Troubles, the greatest period of loyalist violence against civilians was between 1974 and 1978.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    The many right wing MSM commentators I follow have gone very quiet on Frenchgate, which is in start contrast to when the DT broke "the story", when these guys went in to Twitter meltdown mode. Anyway while most are just ignoring it and hope it goes away the DT and Spectator continue to defend the indefensible. A good example is the Spectator which is continuing to cling to the idea that Sturgeon was backing Cameron:

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/sebastian-payne/2015/05/alistair-carmichael-responsible-for-nicola-sturgeon-leak/

    The best paragraph:

    "Sturgeon will undoubtedly continue to insist that her views were misrepresented by the memo. However, the fact that an independent investigation has shown she did say she’d prefer Cameron to be PM makes for an interesting postscript to the election. For Carmichael, who is now the only remaining Lib Dem MP north of the border, this revelation is a bitter conclusion to his time in office. Update: Nicola Sturgeon has now tweeted a copy of the letter she received from Carmichael. In it, he appears to suggest that the details of the account are not correct. This seems somewhat at odds with the findings of the independent report."

    I'm not sure which of the Spectator editors, Fraser or Isabel, reviewed this article, I think they could both do with a journalism refresher course. The Spectator and the DT seem to be intent on continuing to push water up hill on this story. The sad thing is any quality journalist would be seeking to hold Carmichael, Rennie and possibly Mundel to account on this story.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @politicshome: Harriet Harman warns Labour must elect a woman as either leader or deputy leader. http://t.co/RVBaGs7buK http://t.co/PQHXJiAWRh
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    I'm a fan of Halfon, and I was very pleased to see him take a party role. But my endorsement (such that it is) is Javid, who I think is more ready for the leadership. In a way I feel Halfon would be wasted in that sort of role. But I guess we have 3/4 years anyway to decide that!

    [The User Formerly Known as Grandiose.]
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,200
    On topic. I can see how a lot of Halfon's background ticks the right boxes and that is no bad thing. I do however worry about his apparent support for Homeopathy and his attack on overseas donations to UK universities.

    Like his support for apprenticeships though.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454

    On topic. I can see how a lot of Halfon's background ticks the right boxes and that is no bad thing. I do however worry about his apparent support for Homeopathy and his attack on overseas donations to UK universities.

    Like his support for apprenticeships though.

    On apprenticeships, there was some criticism today of the way places were allocated - with a large number going to those already working for the firm in question or over the age of 25. But reading it I couldn't help but notice the key fundamentals are good.

    Each position is oversubscribed: we've shown to young people that apprenticeships are a good option. And the apprenticeships are there, employers are using them.
  • WelshBertieWelshBertie Posts: 124
    Very good article TSE, Haalfon would be a very formidable campaigner as leader but I'm not sure if he'd go for it. I agree that the next leader will be one of Osborne's coterie but think Javid still remains the most likely option, like Halfon, he has a backstory that would be difficult for his opponents to pillory. The sad irony is that Osborne will almost certainly not run even though imho he would be the best leader available (on either side of the house). People misread him, he's not another Brown...he's another Mandelson and is too tactically astute to put himself forward but wants to use his influence to steer his party in the future.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    Sandpit said:

    There's an interesting report in the Sunday Times about how many car manufacturers' figures for NO2 emissions are not in line with reality, and can be up to ten times the recorded figure.

    It's important as NO2 is seen as being responsible for tens of thousands of deaths through Europe every year.

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article1560165.ece

    Tens of thousands?
    The test figures will be run rolling roads and laboratory produced won't they? , like fuel consumption. How else can the engine be tested to meet the standard.
    The tests on new cars are done in a lab under standardised conditions, same as the fuel consumption tests.
    While in the real world the figures may not be as good, what the tests do is to enable comparisons between similar cars in a class.
    Yes that seems right
    As someone who loves technology and cars, my favourite example of a manufacturer using the rules to their advantage is the Porsche 918 Spyder. This car does 200mph and 200mpg - although not at the same time.
    They managed to do pretty much the whole lab test using the battery hybrid developed from F1 and Le Mans, without having to fire up the 600bhp engine.
    It's exempt from the Congestion Charge in London and from paying road tax. Yours for $1m, except they sold all 918 of them!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_918
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,899

    There's an interesting report in the Sunday Times about how many car manufacturers' figures for NO2 emissions are not in line with reality, and can be up to ten times the recorded figure.

    It's important as NO2 is seen as being responsible for tens of thousands of deaths through Europe every year.

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article1560165.ece

    Tens of thousands?
    The test figures will be run rolling roads and laboratory produced won't they? , like fuel consumption. How else can the engine be tested to meet the standard.
    Yes, tens of thousands.

    As for your other question, for the initial values that are used in adverts and promotional materials:

    1) You make the profile of the rolling road better match typical driving profiles, and not the ideal. Stop testing at high altitude, and do a range of tests with varying loads.

    2) You also perform tests on the road in real-world conditions.

    3) You then alter the required MOT results downwards accordingly.

    As an aside, it's about time that manufacturers fiddling MPG figures in adverts was stopped.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/14/car-manufacturers-manipulating-fuel-efficiency-tests

    It can be done: Euro NCAP have done a superb job wrt safety.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?

    There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.

    The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
    Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
    Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.

    I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.

    Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.

    Those were my main criticisms of him.

    Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.

    That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.
    I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,237
    Russia came second?!?

    Media scare tactics on Putin (or should I say Vladolph?) clearly rapidly losing their effectiveness (except on PB).

    We got 5 points. But I'm sure this was the year when they said we've got a real, real, chance of winning?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,924
    Looks like little to choose between Osborne and the Blair Witch Project to me
This discussion has been closed.