With every politician in the northern hemisphere rushing to opine about FIFA's troubles, have we now definitely reached the bread and circuses stage of western civilisation?
The idea there is going to be serious reform is fairly fanciful,but the chances of it diminish further still when it emerges that many Tory MPs are ideologically committed to subservience to Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg whatever the terms.
Tosh again. Almost no-one in the Conservative Party is 'ideologically committed' to the EU (although Damian Green might be one of the very rare exceptions). Most take the sensible view that there are pros and cons to being members of the EU, and it's a question of balancing the disadvantages of staying in against the advantages. They further take the view that, if we are going to stay in, we should try to build on the advantages and mitigate the disadvantages.
Labour trying to pretend that the scale of the 2008/2009 crash was nothing to do with them, is akin to the Tories pretending that Black Wednesday was beyond their control.
It's simply not credible. And fighting a decade old war isn't convincing anyone that isn't already part of the 30% Labour vote.
Labour needs to swallow the pill and move on. The longer they deny what most people think - the worse it gets for them.
I don't think Labour can achieve a majority in the foreseeable future whether they appeal to guys and gals working in call centres or not. They are contrained from the economic left by SNP, from the social conservative WWC right by UKIP and by Tories coming onto their turf. They need alliances to deny the Tories a majority. But I agree their main fight is with the Tories.
I don't think the problem for Labour was the broadness of their appeal. Many of their policies were popular according to the polls :-).
I think they had two problems. 1)- the politically correct agenda (eg proposed laws against Islamophobia) which not only repelled WWC but many middle of the road voters. They need to reduce this sort of stuff even if they lose a segment. 2) - the difficulty they had telling a vivid convincing story. The Tories excel at this. Labour needs a leader who can tell appealing stories. Such a leader would not have let the Tories away with successfully labelling the 2008 recession as the "Great Labour Recession". I don't know whether any of the current contenders for the Labour leadership would be good at this. Ed and Ed were hopeless.
The Tory Story has stuck. As you say, most people believe it. It should have been tackled robustly in 2010 when the economy was beginning to recover until it was struck down by Osborne. Anyway, I agree we should move on. Other stories to tell.
You continue with the same delusional twaddle about the economyy Labour left to the Coalition.
There was a pre-election uptick. Not a surprise - Gordon Brown would have done ANYTHING to try to cling to power.
What nobody in Labour will ever acknowledge is that their was no SUSTAINABLE recovery. You can pretend all you like. But Liam Byrne (bless him...) gave the game away: "I'm sorry there is no money.."
So it look like there's going to be an electoral petition against Carmichael - here's a nice summary of its chance of succeeding. Short answer: thin but not zero.
It would appear that their sole objective is to cause chaos in the HoC and to object to everything that may impact Scotland - not taking note that their MPs are only 8.6 of the total membership. Constructive government for the best result for the UK electorate seems to be furthest from their minds.
So it look like there's going to be an electoral petition against Carmichael - here's a nice summary of its chance of succeeding. Short answer: thin but not zero.
Labour trying to pretend that the scale of the 2008/2009 crash was nothing to do with them, is akin to the Tories pretending that Black Wednesday was beyond their control.
It's simply not credible. And fighting a decade old war isn't convincing anyone that isn't already part of the 30% Labour vote.
Labour needs to swallow the pill and move on. The longer they deny what most people think - the worse it gets for them.
I don't think Labour can achieve a majority in the foreseeable future whether they appeal to guys and gals working in call centres or not. They are contrained from the economic left by SNP, from the social conservative WWC right by UKIP and by Tories coming onto their turf. They need alliances to deny the Tories a majority. But I agree their main fight is with the Tories.
I don't think the problem for Labour was the broadness of their appeal. Many of their policies were popular according to the polls :-).
I think they had two problems. 1)- the politically correct agenda (eg proposed laws against Islamophobia) which not only repelled WWC but many middle of the road voters. They need to reduce this sort of stuff even if they lose a segment. 2) - the difficulty they had telling a vivid convincing story. The Tories excel at this. Labour needs a leader who can tell appealing stories. Such a leader would not have let the Tories away with successfully labelling the 2008 recession as the "Great Labour Recession". I don't know whether any of the current contenders for the Labour leadership would be good at this. Ed and Ed were hopeless.
The Tory Story has stuck. As you say, most people believe it. It should have been tackled robustly in 2010 when the economy was beginning to recover until it was struck down by Osborne. Anyway, I agree we should move on. Other stories to tell.
You continue with the same delusional twaddle about the economyy Labour left to the Coalition.
There was a pre-election uptick. Not a surprise - Gordon Brown would have done ANYTHING to try to cling to power.
What nobody in Labour will ever acknowledge is that their was no SUSTAINABLE recovery. You can pretend all you like. But Liam Byrne (bless him...) gave the game away: "I'm sorry there is no money.."
As I said, the Tory Story has stuck. You clearly believe it. No use anyone fighting it now.That game is lost. But it shows the power of a good story.
Children grow up a lot in five years. No hope for Dennis Skinner or the bloke from that band but some of the SNP MPs might. Five years of musical chairs would be very, very tiresome.
The SNP are complaining about a 'Tory Veto' in the Scotland Bill - do they mean this? ... Seems reasonable enough to me.....file under 'good governance' vs 'I'll do it if I want to!'
Clause 25 of the Bill is a tortuous provision. How can the same statutory power (Social Security Administration Act 1992, s. 5(1)(i)) be exercisable in Scotland by both governments at the same time? Bear in mind that where an Act of Parliament confers a power to make regulations, it includes an implied power to amend or revoke subordinate legislation made under that power (Interpretation Act 1978, s. 14). So clause 25 of the Bill would appear to allow the Scottish Ministers to amend or revoke legislation made by the Secretary of State under s. 5(1)(i) of the 1992 Act, and vica versa, which is a recipe for chaos if the two governments disagree about what the content of the regulations ought to be. "Tory veto" or not, that clause should be not able to withstand serious parliamentary scrutiny (which will likely be absent).
Given you've spotted the apparent problem in seconds/minutes, I find it somewhat concerning it would likely not be picked up on at some point.
Comments
A very sensible approach, in other words.
New thread
There was a pre-election uptick. Not a surprise - Gordon Brown would have done ANYTHING to try to cling to power.
What nobody in Labour will ever acknowledge is that their was no SUSTAINABLE recovery. You can pretend all you like. But Liam Byrne (bless him...) gave the game away: "I'm sorry there is no money.."
They've a teenage arrogance that does them no credit as adults.