One does rather wonder about the implications for tactical voting, and whether those urging voting for Tories or LDs will be disciplined. And at the futility of going to the trouble of writing a legalistic letter accusing someone of supporting a non-existent organization.
When I first saw this letter I thought it must be a photoshop mock up. However it seems to be real, so we have a London Labour official kicking out a SLAB member. At the end of the day SLAB have their own SEC which if they're serious about kicking out members should at least have that power. I don't know how SLAB hope to recover in Scotland when the Head Office is taking this sort of petty action.
On Topic...Thank You Mr Herdson for an interesting article. I love commentaries that add a historical perspective to current events.
I think that the alleged rowdiness of the SNP MPs has been greatly exaggerated. They are paragons of good behaviour compared to some of the events that routinely go on in the chamber when it turns into what sounds like a bear pit during a spirited PMQ.
Why is applauding considered unacceptable, for example, but loud baying and waving of order papers is apparently OK?
It's not for nothing that the most familiar image of the Speaker is of someone yelling "Order! Order!"
It's about time ALL MPs grew up a bit.
I think you are 100% correct about the need for braying creating the atmosphere in the commons. Encouraging MPs to call out instead of a reasonable applause has to be at the core of their ludicrous and over the top behaviour.
On Topic...Thank You Mr Herdson for an interesting article. I love commentaries that add a historical perspective to current events.
I think that the alleged rowdiness of the SNP MPs has been greatly exaggerated. They are paragons of good behaviour compared to some of the events that routinely go on in the chamber when it turns into what sounds like a bear pit during a spirited PMQ.
Why is applauding considered unacceptable, for example, but loud baying and waving of order papers is apparently OK?
It's not for nothing that the most familiar image of the Speaker is of someone yelling "Order! Order!"
It's about time ALL MPs grew up a bit.
I think you are 100% correct about the need for braying creating the atmosphere in the commons. Encouraging MPs to call out instead of a reasonable applause has to be at the core of their ludicrous and over the top behaviour.
Most of them are donkeys so braying is appropriate
On Free Schools, I didn't know that was what she specifically said. From what I'd heard her support for Free Schools was Govesque - as in an ideological commitment to them, and belief they are the 'saviour', of the education system. If she'll keep open the good ones (if they arise), and close down the poor ones, then I think that's reasonable.
I'm also happy to see what she said in the extract you posted - it was her saying things like that, that was the main reason why I supported her. Can I ask, why specifically White working class people are 'alienated'? I've always seen it, that many of the working classes in general feel quite alienated from society.
I am not really qualified to speak for the WWC (indeed I am not sure any individual is!) being quite middle class in origin. It is clear though that Labour has lost support in C2DE SE groups, in part to UKIP and in part to NOTA. If they want to become competitive again in county town England and Suburban metropolitan areas then they need to listen to the people there.
The impression that the Labour party is only interested in minority voters and guardianistas is a dangerous one, whether true or not. Labour had manifesto's for Wales, Scotland, and BME groups. It is quite legitimate for a white bloke in Leicester to believe that Labour was not interested in him. Liz sits for Leicester West, the most WWC of Leicester's seats. Incidentally Leicester came bottom this week in the country for disposeable income per head, and can rightly feel poorly served by the government. I am sure she hears this on the doorstep.
On Topic...Thank You Mr Herdson for an interesting article. I love commentaries that add a historical perspective to current events.
I think that the alleged rowdiness of the SNP MPs has been greatly exaggerated. They are paragons of good behaviour compared to some of the events that routinely go on in the chamber when it turns into what sounds like a bear pit during a spirited PMQ.
Why is applauding considered unacceptable, for example, but loud baying and waving of order papers is apparently OK?
It's not for nothing that the most familiar image of the Speaker is of someone yelling "Order! Order!"
It's about time ALL MPs grew up a bit.
It's just a harmless tradition. Sure, people are making a meal out of the supposed rowdiness of SNP MPs, but that will die down in short order as unless they really are all uncouth idiots, which seems very unlikely to say the least, it just won't be amusing to anyone to keep it up.
Tangentially though, I really don't know why some people (Carswell is one unfortunately) who may have very good reforming instincts which achieve a lot of good, get into a mindset that therefore any 'rebelling' against something perhaps a bit silly but not actually harmful, forms part of some grand reformist cause they are undertaking.
If a tradition is harmful, it's a problem. If it is not harmful, it might be silly and maybe it will be removed sooner or later, but just because criticism of breaching those traditions can (and in this case has) be overdone, that doesn't make breaching them for the sake of it worthy either. How can it be worthy when there is no harm in what is being rebelled against? (I'm not convinced that the braying that people claim to dislike - if the people as a whole disliked it the politicians would stop it as it would harm them - is a result of this rule)?
This is indeed a silly little game, nothing more, and that applies to people getting overly offended at a breaches of parliamentary etiquette, and those attempting to make those breaches appear noble somehow by making those etiquettes more meaningful and sinister than in fact they are.
I think I'll save my energy for some other silly faux dispute though, I can only handle so many at a time despite being good breaks from 'serious' topics, rather than argue the point further.
Does PB have any London CLP members who have gone/are going to pick a mayoral nominee?
Me for one, in the massive Islington North CLP (one of the largest in Britain - several members in every significant street). I posted about my branch discussion the other day; the actual nomination is on Sunday, after speeches from Jeremy Corbyn and me (as "interesting non-London loser").
There is some support for Wolmar as he's a local member and interesting on transport, and some for Abbott as the one who writes most about issues in her 250 words (we agreed we didn't much care about all the personal background stuff). But we were pretty clear that it would come down to Khan or Jowell in the actual vote. I think Khan will probably get it. Haven't decided yet myself.
I'm doing an interview on Sky tomorrow at 1130, incidentally, with Bob Blizzard, on "Why did we lose and what does Labour need to change?"
Thanks for the reply.
Which "actual vote" - for the nomination? The CLP is obliged to nominate at least one woman (and in practice, one man).
If you mean the members' vote latter this summer, I do hope it's Khan or Jowell: I am nicely green.
On Free Schools, I didn't know that was what she specifically said. From what I'd heard her support for Free Schools was Govesque - as in an ideological commitment to them, and belief they are the 'saviour', of the education system. If she'll keep open the good ones (if they arise), and close down the poor ones, then I think that's reasonable.
I'm also happy to see what she said in the extract you posted - it was her saying things like that, that was the main reason why I supported her. Can I ask, why specifically White working class people are 'alienated'? I've always seen it, that many of the working classes in general feel quite alienated from society.
I am not really qualified to speak for the WWC (indeed I am not sure any individual is!) being quite middle class in origin. It is clear though that Labour has lost support in C2DE SE groups, in part to UKIP and in part to NOTA. If they want to become competitive again in county town England and Suburban metropolitan areas then they need to listen to the people there.
The impression that the Labour party is only interested in minority voters and guardianistas is a dangerous one, whether true or not. Labour had manifesto's for Wales, Scotland, and BME groups. It is quite legitimate for a white bloke in Leicester to believe that Labour was not interested in him. Liz sits for Leicester West, the most WWC of Leicester's seats. Incidentally Leicester came bottom this week in the country for disposeable income per head, and can rightly feel poorly served by the government. I am sure she hears this on the doorstep.
There was also the wimmins' manifesto. The White bloke in Leicester was probably correct to believe that the party wasn't interested in him.
Does PB have any London CLP members who have gone/are going to pick a mayoral nominee?
Me for one, in the massive Islington North CLP (one of the largest in Britain - several members in every significant street). I posted about my branch discussion the other day; the actual nomination is on Sunday, after speeches from Jeremy Corbyn and me (as "interesting non-London loser").
There is some support for Wolmar as he's a local member and interesting on transport, and some for Abbott as the one who writes most about issues in her 250 words (we agreed we didn't much care about all the personal background stuff). But we were pretty clear that it would come down to Khan or Jowell in the actual vote. I think Khan will probably get it. Haven't decided yet myself.
I'm doing an interview on Sky tomorrow at 1130, incidentally, with Bob Blizzard, on "Why did we lose and what does Labour need to change?"
Thanks for the reply.
Which "actual vote" - for the nomination? The CLP is obliged to nominate at least one woman (and in practice, one man).
If you mean the members' vote latter this summer, I do hope it's Khan or Jowell: I am nicely green.
Mr. Palmer, does Khan's proposal for ethnic quotas in the workplace not concern you?
It's a lie down dead approach. He was on PB when it was incorrectly announced that Broxtowe was to be an all women shortlist. His response was pathetic. It was of the kind "its a shame, im disappointed but good luck to whoever they choose".
This happened to be an error as we now know, Broxtowe was not to be an AWS. But what is shocking was how quickly he accepted that he was being actively discriminated . Him, NP, was being told that because of his sexual characteristics, that he would not be allowed to stand in a seat he lost by the slimmest of margins only a few years before, and the seat that the good people of his constituency had repeatedly voted to represent them in Parliament.
If a man is so spineless that he refuses to stand up for himself when he is being so clearly wronged, how can we have confidence to stand up for others who are being discriminated against?
Two separate issues here. I don't see my Labour Party activity as being about me but about helping the cause, and I'm not part of any underrepresented group, so if it's decided that I shouldn't do something because priority should go to someone else who is, I can understand that (without enthusiasm, but hey), and it doesn't affect support for the movement.
Quotas and reserved shortlists are a blunt instrument, the case for which is normally that they change the image to the point that you don't need them (I think Labour is getting to the point where we don't especially need AWSs, as evidenced by the fact that 3 out of 4 leadership candidates are women). When nearly all MPs were middle-aged white men, then anyone who isn't but wants to be an MP both looks and feels out of place. When I was first elected in 1997, the division lobbies only had men's loos - the authorites felt that there weren't enough women MPs to worry about their being caught short. Clearly something needed to be done.
Any organisation whose senior people all look much the same has a case to answer on whether they're really taking the best people or just lazily following a standard pattern, and if we think it's the latter, maybe quotas are needed to nudge them into action? Khan's policy as described here:
Of course the "white rose of Scotland" brought to notice by the SNP this week (see the phto of Salmond above) relates to the poem by Hugh McDairmid, the famous Nazi sympathizer, who the SNP revere to this day. Give the enough rope and they will reveal themselves for what they are...nasty racist thugs
Lucky for the SNP they weren't smart enough to actually use White Scottish Roses.
Instead we got the 56 Eejits with White English Tea Roses on their lapels.
Mr. Palmer, does Khan's proposal for ethnic quotas in the workplace not concern you?
It's a lie down dead approach. He was on PB when it was incorrectly announced that Broxtowe was to be an all women shortlist. His response was pathetic. It was of the kind "its a shame, im disappointed but good luck to whoever they choose".
This happened to be an error as we now know, Broxtowe was not to be an AWS. But what is shocking was how quickly he accepted that he was being actively discriminated . Him, NP, was being told that because of his sexual characteristics, that he would not be allowed to stand in a seat he lost by the slimmest of margins only a few years before, and the seat that the good people of his constituency had repeatedly voted to represent them in Parliament.
If a man is so spineless that he refuses to stand up for himself when he is being so clearly wronged, how can we have confidence to stand up for others who are being discriminated against?
Two separate issues here. I don't see my Labour Party activity as being about me but about helping the cause, and I'm not part of any underrepresented group, so if it's decided that I shouldn't do something because priority should go to someone else who is, I can understand that (without enthusiasm, but hey), and it doesn't affect support for the movement.
Quotas and reserved shortlists are a blunt instrument, the case for which is normally that they change the image to the point that you don't need them (I think Labour is getting to the point where we don't especially need AWSs, as evidenced by the fact that 3 out of 4 leadership candidates are women). When nearly all MPs were middle-aged white men, then anyone who isn't but wants to be an MP both looks and feels out of place. When I was first elected in 1997, the division lobbies only had men's loos - the authorites felt that there weren't enough women MPs to worry about their being caught short. Clearly something needed to be done.
Any organisation whose senior people all look much the same has a case to answer on whether they're really taking the best people or just lazily following a standard pattern, and if we think it's the latter, maybe quotas are needed to nudge them into action? Khan's policy as described here:
looks arguable. I wouldn't vote for or against him on that account.
In Medicine the quotas need to be for white males, Leicester Medical school is 45% BME and 765% female. State educated white males (like myself!) Are going to be extinct in the profession shortly.
In Medicine the quotas need to be for white males, Leicester Medical school is 45% BME and 765% female. State educated white males (like myself!) Are going to be extinct in the profession shortly.
Yeah, OK, 765% is a bit too much. :-)
Do you think there's any inverse sterotyping happening there, so is it just that men are getting less interested for some reason?
Mr. Palmer, does Khan's proposal for ethnic quotas in the workplace not concern you?
It's a lie down dead approach. He was on PB when it was incorrectly announced that Broxtowe was to be an all women shortlist. His response was pathetic. It was of the kind "its a shame, im disappointed but good luck to whoever they choose".
This happened to be an error as we now know, Broxtowe was not to be an AWS. But what is shocking was how quickly he accepted that he was being actively discriminated . Him, NP, was being told that because of his sexual characteristics, that he would not be allowed to stand in a seat he lost by the slimmest of margins only a few years before, and the seat that the good people
If a man is so spineless that he refuses to stand up for himself when he is being so clearly wronged, how can we have confidence to stand up for others who are being discriminated against?
Two separate issues here. I don't see my Labour Party activity as being about me but about helping the cause, and I'm not part of any underrepresented group, so if it's decided that I shouldn't do something because priority should go to someone else who is, I can understand that (without enthusiasm, but hey), and it doesn't affect support for the movement.
Quotas and reserved shortlists are a blunt instrument, the case for which is normally that they change the image to the point that you don't need them (I think Labour is getting to the point where we don't especially need AWSs, as evidenced by the fact that 3 out of 4 leadership candidates are women). When nearly all MPs were middle-aged white men, then anyone who isn't but wants to be an MP both looks and feels out of place. When I was first elected in 1997, the division lobbies only had men's loos - the authorites felt that there weren't enough women MPs to worry about their being caught short. Clearly something needed to be done.
Any organisation whose senior people all look much the same has a case to answer on whether they're really taking the best people or just lazily following a standard pattern, and if we think it's the latter, maybe quotas are needed to nudge them into action? Khan's policy as described here:
In Medicine the quotas need to be for white males, Leicester Medical school is 45% BME and 765% female. State educated white males (like myself!) Are going to be extinct in the profession shortly.
Yeah, OK, 765% is a bit too much. :-)
Do you think there's any inverse sterotyping happening there, so is it just that men are getting less interested for some reason?
Should be 65%!
I sat on the interview panel last year. The process is fair and above board. One aspect is that male applicants are generally less good at the communication station and also a bit clumsy with the ethical questions. Basically 18 year old boys are less articulate and socially skilled as girls the same age, but they are under-represented at the application stage too. Scientifically skilled males go in other directions now.
"Basically 18 year old boys are less articulate and socially skilled as girls the same age, but they are under-represented at the application stage too. Scientifically skilled males go in other directions now."
Scientifically skilled males tend to be less articulate and socially skilled.
"Basically 18 year old boys are less articulate and socially skilled as girls the same age, but they are under-represented at the application stage too. Scientifically skilled males go in other directions now."
Scientifically skilled males tend to be less articulate and socially skilled.
Scientifically skilled females at the same age definitely do better on those stations (we introduced a station on scientific critical analysis to help compensate for the bias).
I think that by the end of the course a lot of the males have better communication skills. It is a major aspect of modern training.
Incidentally there are even fewer afro-caribbean applicants, male or female.
"Many of them must have been selected before this surge came about, possibly fighting what they thought were hopeless seats nobody else wanted to. How might that impact on both the way they see Westminster and how they respond to it?
If anyone has any information I'd be interested to hear it. "
Other than the great detail already posted here by Calum, it is worth pointing out that none of the SNP candidates were selected until after the Referendum (all or virtually all in 2015), and none before it became clear that there was an enormous surge to the SNP.
So all the SNP candidates thought they had a great chance of election, and the 3 who were defeated will have been genuinely disappointed.
Nobody was unexpectedly elected as there were no hopeless seats at the time they were selected or even applied for selection..
Of course the "white rose of Scotland" brought to notice by the SNP this week (see the phto of Salmond above) relates to the poem by Hugh McDairmid, the famous Nazi sympathizer, who the SNP revere to this day. Give the enough rope and they will reveal themselves for what they are...nasty racist thugs
Lucky for the SNP they weren't smart enough to actually use White Scottish Roses.
Instead we got the 56 Eejits with White English Tea Roses on their lapels.
"Many of them must have been selected before this surge came about, possibly fighting what they thought were hopeless seats nobody else wanted to. How might that impact on both the way they see Westminster and how they respond to it?
If anyone has any information I'd be interested to hear it. "
Other than the great detail already posted here by Calum, it is worth pointing out that none of the SNP candidates were selected until after the Referendum (all or virtually all in 2015), and none before it became clear that there was an enormous surge to the SNP.
So all the SNP candidates thought they had a great chance of election, and the 3 who were defeated will have been genuinely disappointed.
Nobody was unexpectedly elected as there were no hopeless seats at the time they were selected or even applied for selection..
That's my understanding as well. Taking my constituency, Stirling, as an example, we had 8 candidates to choose from. In terms of their backgrounds 4 had political backgrounds, 3 were local business folk and 1 academic. We selected our candidate, Steven Patterson a local councillor in January 2015. There were 1,822 members eligible to vote, this gives a good indication of the strength of SNP membership across Scotland.
How many white working-class men are studying at British medical schools?
Not many at all. I know a few asian doctors from working class backgrounds though.
I did work with a White British background Doctor who had left school at 16 and did his A levels at night school while working in a factory. He had great rapport with patients.
"It was recently asserted in the British Medical Journal that medicine has ‘remained in the grip of the middle class’, and analysis of UCAS data over the decades confirms this assertion. Research into medical school admissions between 1956 and 2001 shows ‘little systematic change in social class of UK medical students over half a century’, with minimal variation in the dominance of those from professional or managerial occupational backgrounds or in the under-representation
Medical school admissions and acceptances in the UK continue to be dominated by those from higher socio-economic backgrounds. Between 2003 and 2008, the top three socio-economic classes represented between 71 and 74 per cent of accepted applicants to medical school, but only between about 52 and 55 per cent of the UK working population. In contrast, lower socio-of those from partly skilled or unskilled backgrounds."
The FIFA Women's World Cup starts in Vancouver next week. Presumably Blatter will be there for the final. Presumably he will make every effort to avoid a stop on US territory - you know the feds would love to have a chat.
rcs1000 Not so past in that he now has a 27 year old girlfriend, I suppose being a billionaire ex PM has its attractions even if you are well past retirement age and old enough to be her grandfather
The latest from O&S now that the papers have been lodged with the court the next steps are:
- Pay £5,000 into the court on Monday morning. - The papers must be formally served on Alistair Carmichael. - From being served, Mr Carmichael has a week to respond if he choses to and must give the grounds of his objection. - Then there is a period of ‘adaptation’ where what is agreed is agreed – and here the basis of his conduct is not in doubt. He has admitted it after all. - The Court of Session officials set a date for the trial – that is the word being used – that could take place in Edinburgh, Lerwick or Kirkwall. - Then it all happens. Witnesses can be called and two judges will take the decision and then of course, there could be an appeal.
I think the O&S electorate seems quite capable of sorting this all out locally. The letters page of the Shetland News gives some sense of local feeling:
Turning to the Scottish LibDems they have recently launched a rather bizarre the LibDems are listening campaign, when they are in the middle of trying to ignore the O&S electorate:
SeanF Against anyone but Hillary probably, but Hillary still leads most head to head polls, I think it will be close but she still edges it for me, though Rubio has a shot, but I think it unlikely he wins Iowa or NH and is more likely to be VP nominee
The latest from O&S now that the papers have been lodged with the court the next steps are:
- Pay £5,000 into the court on Monday morning. - The papers must be formally served on Alistair Carmichael. - From being served, Mr Carmichael has a week to respond if he choses to and must give the grounds of his objection. - Then there is a period of ‘adaptation’ where what is agreed is agreed – and here the basis of his conduct is not in doubt. He has admitted it after all. - The Court of Session officials set a date for the trial – that is the word being used – that could take place in Edinburgh, Lerwick or Kirkwall. - Then it all happens. Witnesses can be called and two judges will take the decision and then of course, there could be an appeal.
I think the O&S electorate seems quite capable of sorting this all out locally. The letters page of the Shetland News gives some sense of local feeling:
Turning to the Scottish LibDems they have recently launched a rather bizarre the LibDems are listening campaign, when they are in the middle of trying to ignore the O&S electorate:
Mr Disraeli, drunken MPs are a different matter to the normal lively way the house has operated.
You are absolutely correct on that. I suppose that we will just have to agree to disagree as to how acceptable we each find the current "lively" nature of the house.
The FIFA Women's World Cup starts in Vancouver next week. Presumably Blatter will be there for the final. Presumably he will make every effort to avoid a stop on US territory - you know the feds would love to have a chat.
If I were Blatter, I'd be setting up shop in Moscow and not traveling to any Western capital until all the indictments are served and court cases have started showing precisely what evidence the Feds have.
Mr Disraeli, drunken MPs are a different matter to the normal lively way the house has operated.
You are absolutely correct on that. I suppose that we will just have to agree to disagree as to how acceptable we each find the current "lively" nature of the house.
I suppose. But even when you have people like Balls 'flatlining' and annoying the PM etc its a better system of face to face debate than other versions.
Mr Disraeli, drunken MPs are a different matter to the normal lively way the house has operated.
You are absolutely correct on that. I suppose that we will just have to agree to disagree as to how acceptable we each find the current "lively" nature of the house.
I suppose. But even when you have people like Balls 'flatlining' and annoying the PM etc its a better system of face to face debate than other versions.
I quite like the baying crowd of backbenchers. Reminds me of the footy.
The latest from O&S now that the papers have been lodged with the court the next steps are:
- Pay £5,000 into the court on Monday morning. - The papers must be formally served on Alistair Carmichael. - From being served, Mr Carmichael has a week to respond if he choses to and must give the grounds of his objection. - Then there is a period of ‘adaptation’ where what is agreed is agreed – and here the basis of his conduct is not in doubt. He has admitted it after all. - The Court of Session officials set a date for the trial – that is the word being used – that could take place in Edinburgh, Lerwick or Kirkwall. - Then it all happens. Witnesses can be called and two judges will take the decision and then of course, there could be an appeal.
I think the O&S electorate seems quite capable of sorting this all out locally. The letters page of the Shetland News gives some sense of local feeling:
Turning to the Scottish LibDems they have recently launched a rather bizarre the LibDems are listening campaign, when they are in the middle of trying to ignore the O&S electorate:
Maybe Lord A could undertake one last constituency poll to gauge where things stand on the ground !!
He won't lodge any response, and nor will he turn up. And I think it is highly unlikely that the court will choose to proceed against him.
I think it could take the court a few months to come to a decision about whether to proceed or not. The damage which is being done to Tavish Scott and Liam McArthur's Holyrood re-election hopes is significant. They have both made lukewarm statements in defence of Carmichael.
Latest polls from Denmark are interestingly reminiscent of Britain. The centre-right Opposition is 3% ahead, but the PM (Helle Thorning Schmidt, Mr Kinnock jr's wife) leads the Opposition leader by 5 points in economic competence, by 40 points in ethical standards and on a number of other indicators, such as "best at representing the country abroad". The Danish press is chewing over whether it's possible for the Opposition to win against such a relatively popular PM. On the other hand, the centre-right have had the same sort of lead of 3-5 points for over a year, and Danish politics are much less marked by showmanship and personality politics.
Latest polls from Denmark are interestingly reminiscent of Britain. The centre-right Opposition is 3% ahead, but the PM (Helle Thorning Schmidt, Mr Kinnock jr's wife) leads the Opposition leader by 5 points in economic competence, by 40 points in ethical standards and on a number of other indicators, such as "best at representing the country abroad". The Danish press is chewing over whether it's possible for the Opposition to win against such a relatively popular PM. On the other hand, the centre-right have had the same sort of lead of 3-5 points for over a year, and Danish politics are much less marked by showmanship and personality politics.
On Free Schools, I didn't know that was what she specifically said. From what I'd heard her support for Free Schools was Govesque - as in an ideological commitment to them, and belief they are the 'saviour', of the education system. If she'll keep open the good ones (if they arise), and close down the poor ones, then I think that's reasonable.
I'm also happy to see what she said in the extract you posted - it was her saying things like that, that was the main reason why I supported her. Can I ask, why specifically White working class people are 'alienated'? I've always seen it, that many of the working classes in general feel quite alienated from society.
I am not really qualified to speak for the WWC (indeed I am not sure any individual is!) being quite middle class in origin. It is clear though that Labour has lost support in C2DE SE groups, in part to UKIP and in part to NOTA. If they want to become competitive again in county town England and Suburban metropolitan areas then they need to listen to the people there.
The impression that the Labour party is only interested in minority voters and guardianistas is a dangerous one, whether true or not. Labour had manifesto's for Wales, Scotland, and BME groups. It is quite legitimate for a white bloke in Leicester to believe that Labour was not interested in him. Liz sits for Leicester West, the most WWC of Leicester's seats. Incidentally Leicester came bottom this week in the country for disposeable income per head, and can rightly feel poorly served by the government. I am sure she hears this on the doorstep.
Interesting.
I don't know why Labour needed a different manifesto for so many groups. I am all for supporting equality - on the issues of social, gender, sexuality, and race - but you do that by trying to bring people together in a vision we can all invest in. Different manifestos imply distinctly different visions for the Welsh, Scottish, BMEs, and so on.
Someone else on this thread (I think it was @Sean_F) mentioned the womens' manifesto. As a feminist, I personally don't understand Labour's approach to the issue if gender equality. An awful lot of appears token, and cosmetic, rather than dealing with the root causes, to say, why less women participate in politics, or why less women vote and so on.
Mr Disraeli, drunken MPs are a different matter to the normal lively way the house has operated.
You are absolutely correct on that. I suppose that we will just have to agree to disagree as to how acceptable we each find the current "lively" nature of the house.
I suppose. But even when you have people like Balls 'flatlining' and annoying the PM etc its a better system of face to face debate than other versions.
I quite like the baying crowd of backbenchers. Reminds me of the footy.
Its going to get a whole lot more rowdy from what I hear. The SNP will use every cheap trick to get themselves heard. Its going to be a difficult for Bercow to keep control.. I expect his veins will burst.. he gets that excited.
Latest polls from Denmark are interestingly reminiscent of Britain. The centre-right Opposition is 3% ahead, but the PM (Helle Thorning Schmidt, Mr Kinnock jr's wife) leads the Opposition leader by 5 points in economic competence, by 40 points in ethical standards and on a number of other indicators, such as "best at representing the country abroad". The Danish press is chewing over whether it's possible for the Opposition to win against such a relatively popular PM. On the other hand, the centre-right have had the same sort of lead of 3-5 points for over a year, and Danish politics are much less marked by showmanship and personality politics.
You can get 1.35 of the opposition (Rasmussen) and 3.25 on Thorning-Schmidt for those interested (with traditional bookies).
They already have 4 guilty pleas, and evidence from Blazer wearing a wire for over 3 years, so the investigation has been going for about 4 years already..much evidence was gathered during the London Olympics.
Jack Warner (the Caribbean answer to Dixon of Dock Green, or a movie mogul?) was shopped by his own sons after the FBI and IRS flipped them.
This is going to be like the way the Feds went after the Mob: it may well take years - but sooner or later someone will flip or some fact comes to light and the investigation moves up a notch. It will take as long as it takes.
The feds - in this case both IRS and FBI - have infinite patience, limitless resources, and are unbelievably thorough.
They will almost never initiate a prosecution unless they have a water tight case. I know this first hand from when my then business partner was prosecuted for tax evasion. They spent almost 2 years before indictment, at which point an IRS audit on me suddenly was cancelled.
The fact that in a single day they issued 47 counts to 14 folks / companies (including Nike!), and the Swiss arrested the 7 in Zurich at US request suggests that they have much good evidence, and when all the 20+ folks are here and interviewed they will get more.
It's odd that the world is looking to one of the few countries where soccer is not a major sport to bring down the monster that is FIFA - for the game. For the World
They already have 4 guilty pleas, and evidence from Blazer wearing a wire for over 3 years, so the investigation has been going for about 4 years already..much evidence was gathered during the London Olympics.
Jack Warner (the Caribbean answer to Dixon of Dock Green, or a movie mogul?) was shopped by his own sons after the FBI and IRS flipped them.
This is going to be like the way the Feds went after the Mob: it may well take years - but sooner or later someone will flip or some fact comes to light and the investigation moves up a notch. It will take as long as it takes.
The feds - in this case both IRS and FBI - have infinite patience, limitless resources, and are unbelievably thorough.
They will almost never initiate a prosecution unless they have a water tight case. I know this first hand from when my then business partner was prosecuted for tax evasion. They spent almost 2 years before indictment, at which point an IRS audit on me suddenly was cancelled.
The fact that in a single day they issued 47 counts to 14 folks / companies (including Nike!), and the Swiss arrested the 7 in Zurich at US request suggests that they have much good evidence, and when all the 20+ folks are here and interviewed they will get more.
It's odd that the world is looking to one of the few countries where soccer is not a major sport to bring down the monster that is FIFA - for the game. For the World
Tax evasion was hidden among the charges... the ol' Al Capone line of attack.
You can get 1.35 of the opposition (Rasmussen) and 3.25 on Thorning-Schmidt for those interested (with traditional bookies).
Thorning looks long at those odds. The Berlingske Tidende, the Daily Telegraph of Danish media, is saying that it would surprise nobody if she pulls ahead. I'm actually a bit sceptical myself - Danish politics is very stable - but the odds should be less than 3.25.
Latest polls from Denmark are interestingly reminiscent of Britain. The centre-right Opposition is 3% ahead, but the PM (Helle Thorning Schmidt, Mr Kinnock jr's wife) leads the Opposition leader by 5 points in economic competence, by 40 points in ethical standards and on a number of other indicators, such as "best at representing the country abroad". The Danish press is chewing over whether it's possible for the Opposition to win against such a relatively popular PM. On the other hand, the centre-right have had the same sort of lead of 3-5 points for over a year, and Danish politics are much less marked by showmanship and personality politics.
If I've understood the reports correctly, the leader of the centre-right party will become PM even if the far-right party gets more votes than they do, (assuming their coalition wins the election). Maybe that's a tactic to keep centrist voters on board.
They already have 4 guilty pleas, and evidence from Blazer wearing a wire for over 3 years, so the investigation has been going for about 4 years already..much evidence was gathered during the London Olympics.
Jack Warner (the Caribbean answer to Dixon of Dock Green, or a movie mogul?) was shopped by his own sons after the FBI and IRS flipped them.
This is going to be like the way the Feds went after the Mob: it may well take years - but sooner or later someone will flip or some fact comes to light and the investigation moves up a notch. It will take as long as it takes.
The feds - in this case both IRS and FBI - have infinite patience, limitless resources, and are unbelievably thorough.
They will almost never initiate a prosecution unless they have a water tight case. I know this first hand from when my then business partner was prosecuted for tax evasion. They spent almost 2 years before indictment, at which point an IRS audit on me suddenly was cancelled.
The fact that in a single day they issued 47 counts to 14 folks / companies (including Nike!), and the Swiss arrested the 7 in Zurich at US request suggests that they have much good evidence, and when all the 20+ folks are here and interviewed they will get more.
It's odd that the world is looking to one of the few countries where soccer is not a major sport to bring down the monster that is FIFA - for the game. For the World
Tax evasion was hidden among the charges... the ol' Al Capone line of attack.
Blazer had no reported income for a decade, yet ran up over $25 million in credit card charges and had 2 apartments at Trump Tower - one just for his cat.
I always thought J Edgar Hoover had the best strategy for accepting bribes. Sam Giancana paid off Hoover by fixing horse races and passing the big tips through Walter Winchell to the FBI Chief. That way J. Edgar Hoover could legitimately claim that he never directly accepted Mafia cash. It is a matter of record that Hoover was, however, remarkably successful at the races.
Of course Hoover’s view of organised crime was astonishing, to say the least. As late as January 1962, Hoover denied its existence in the United States. He stated that ‘No single individual or coalition of racketeers dominates organized crime across the nation.’ It was not until gangster Joe Valachi was brought to Washington by Attorney General Robert Kennedy’s Justice Department to testify before the Senate that Hoover was forced to admit that his opinion about organised crime in American needed some serious re-thinking.
I always thought J Edgar Hoover had the best strategy for accepting bribes. Sam Giancana paid off Hoover by fixing horse races and passing the big tips through Walter Winchell to the FBI Chief. That way J. Edgar Hoover could legitimately claim that he never directly accepted Mafia cash. It is a matter of record that Hoover was, however, remarkably successful at the races.
Of course Hoover’s view of organised crime was astonishing, to say the least. As late as January 1962, Hoover denied its existence in the United States. He stated that ‘No single individual or coalition of racketeers dominates organized crime across the nation.’ It was not until gangster Joe Valachi was brought to Washington by Attorney General Robert Kennedy’s Justice Department to testify before the Senate that Hoover was forced to admit that his opinion about organised crime in American needed some serious re-thinking.
That's not a million miles different from how bribes are paid in China (allegedly): local officials have a trip to Macau where they come back a winner.
I always thought J Edgar Hoover had the best strategy for accepting bribes. Sam Giancana paid off Hoover by fixing horse races and passing the big tips through Walter Winchell to the FBI Chief. That way J. Edgar Hoover could legitimately claim that he never directly accepted Mafia cash. It is a matter of record that Hoover was, however, remarkably successful at the races.
Of course Hoover’s view of organised crime was astonishing, to say the least. As late as January 1962, Hoover denied its existence in the United States. He stated that ‘No single individual or coalition of racketeers dominates organized crime across the nation.’ It was not until gangster Joe Valachi was brought to Washington by Attorney General Robert Kennedy’s Justice Department to testify before the Senate that Hoover was forced to admit that his opinion about organised crime in American needed some serious re-thinking.
Hoover - read the Anthony Summers book "Official and Confidential" for more info than you could possibly want on this revolting man.
I rarely comment on Scottish politics because I don't comment from a position of knowledge (not that seems to stop some). I've always presumed the SNP was a coalition like most other parties held together by the desire for an independent Scotland which is fair enough.
I suspect Nicola Sturgeon wasn't too disappointed by the outcome of the election. The SNP has been politically well served by successive Conservative and Labour Governments and the argument that the current Government is an English administration imposed on a Scotland which didn't want it is hard to counter.
The question for the SNP is how they will use their domination of Scottish politics over the next few years. Assuming they retain control of Holyrood next year and strengthen their domination into the lower tiers of Scottish local Government, the SNP will be in a unique position to shape Scottish policy and with Devomax will presumably come more responsibility and authority.
Unlike some on here, I've always been entirely relaxed about the prospect of Scottish independence. Had YES won last September, I'm absolutely convinced the rhetoric of the campaign would have been replaced by a willingness on all sides to compromise to make the reality of an independent Scotland work not only for the Scots but for the other parts of the United Kingdom.
The same of course would be true of an EU Referendum - if we vote to leave, all sides will then sit down to work out an amicable and effective separation but until then the dire warnings of disaster from both sides will be what passes for debate.
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
She is their diversity officer.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has defended something as a joke between friends.
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
I don't think a 'one nation' party exists in British politics, tbh. I don't there is any party which is capable, or which does unite all groups in society together.
Latest polls from Denmark are interestingly reminiscent of Britain. The centre-right Opposition is 3% ahead, but the PM (Helle Thorning Schmidt, Mr Kinnock jr's wife) leads the Opposition leader by 5 points in economic competence, by 40 points in ethical standards and on a number of other indicators, such as "best at representing the country abroad". The Danish press is chewing over whether it's possible for the Opposition to win against such a relatively popular PM. On the other hand, the centre-right have had the same sort of lead of 3-5 points for over a year, and Danish politics are much less marked by showmanship and personality politics.
If I've understood the reports correctly, the leader of the centre-right party will become PM even if the far-right party gets more votes than they do, (assuming their coalition wins the election). Maybe that's a tactic to keep centrist voters on board.
Yes, the far-right party is very like UKIP, critical of immigration without being openly racist, and quite populist, with economic policies that flirt with the anti-austerity left. They aren't seen as ready to lead a government; it's only relatively recently that they were seen as ready to accept in a coalition (as opposed to a confidence and supply arrangement).
The Danish PR system allows a wide range of choice (a dozen parties in all) in the two broad left/right blocs, and a fair amount of tolerance is needed. The centre-left includes a merger of Trotskyist and Communist (my former home) parties who would feel comfortable with Syriza, as well as a mild centrist party reminiscent of Roy Jenkins' SDP and a new outfit who are very anti-austerity. The centre-right has a strong liberal leadership plus a small conservative party and the far-right guys.
That said, everyone is very house-trained and discussions in Parliament proceed with a civilised restraint that would be unusually calm for a meeting of the PLP or the 1922 Committee. Everyone is more or less signed up to the basics of welfare state, highish taxes, Blairite public services and semi-detached EU membership. Borgen is a good represenation of how it works.
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
She is their diversity officer.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has defended something as a joke between friends.
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
People should not be treated differently depending on the colour of their skin. Their words and their actions should not be treated differently either. Calling for one racial group to be killed, or banning one racial group from attending events, as that student union has done, is racism, and should be treated as such.
Laughable nonsense. I would be interested, however, to know why you are in favour of the UK remaining shackled to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court.
Laughable nonsense. I would be interested, however, to know why you are in favour of the UK remaining shackled to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court.
The principles of the ECHR are designed to make sure all countries stick to some universal rights, that we here take for granted.
Because we find the court rules against a few times, we're going to walk away from it, seems childish and irrational. When you compare on average the less dozen or so times they rule against us, compared to the hundreds of times local judges do so, are we going to walk away from the principels of Magna Carta as well?
Walking away sends a terrible signal to other countries, we should stay in and help revise it, unlike the EU/EC, we helped craft and design it.
Oh God the Outers won't accept the will of the public, will go all EU & want a 2nd referendum to get the right result
Cabinet ministers are warning there will be a second referendum on whether the UK should quit the European Union if David Cameron fails to win a radical new deal in Brussels.
High-ranking Tories believe the EU referendum campaign will create powerful momentum for leaving Europe over the next 18 months, in the same way that nationalism in Scotland has grown since the Scottish independence vote last September.
A major split has now opened up between Mr Cameron and ministers who want to be free to campaign for Britain to leave the EU if they do not like the new deal that the Prime Minister negotiates.
One member of his Cabinet has warned that the promised “in/out” referendum in 2017 will not be “the end game” if voters choose to remain in a seriously flawed EU. A second referendum could be held as early as 2020, the minister said.
Laughable nonsense. I would be interested, however, to know why you are in favour of the UK remaining shackled to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court.
The principles of the ECHR are designed to make sure all countries stick to some universal rights, that we here take for granted.
Because we find the court rules against a few times, we're going to walk away from it, seems childish and irrational. When you compare on average the less dozen or so times they rule against us, compared to the hundreds of times local judges do so, are we going to walk away from the principels of Magna Carta as well?
Walking away sends a terrible signal to other countries, we should stay in and help revise it, unlike the EU/EC, we helped craft and design it.
There is nothing wrong with the theory, but the practice is another matter. By failing to protect LGBT, gypsy/traveller and many other rights - whilst pushing others too far - the ECtHR is bringing the whole concept of human rights into disrepute. As far as the UK is concerned, delegating the task to Strasbourg is a moral failure that could, ultimately, prove very damaging.
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
She is their diversity officer.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has defended something as a joke between friends.
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
People should not be treated differently depending on the colour of their skin. Their words and their actions should not be treated differently either. Calling for one racial group to be killed, or banning one racial group from attending events, as that student union has done, is racism, and should be treated as such.
Yes, I'd rather she hadn't said it; yes, it is damaging.
But it does not call for the same response as if a man had called for death to all women. "Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate?" is not the right question.
A quick thought on FIFA- the documents released by DOJ on Wednesday detail the movement of dirty money - including though several British banks in the UK (Barclays and HSBC among others were mentioned).
Why did the Serious Fraud Office not get involved?
Oh God the Outers won't accept the will of the public, will go all EU & want a 2nd referendum to get the right result
Cabinet ministers are warning there will be a second referendum on whether the UK should quit the European Union if David Cameron fails to win a radical new deal in Brussels.
High-ranking Tories believe the EU referendum campaign will create powerful momentum for leaving Europe over the next 18 months, in the same way that nationalism in Scotland has grown since the Scottish independence vote last September.
A major split has now opened up between Mr Cameron and ministers who want to be free to campaign for Britain to leave the EU if they do not like the new deal that the Prime Minister negotiates.
One member of his Cabinet has warned that the promised “in/out” referendum in 2017 will not be “the end game” if voters choose to remain in a seriously flawed EU. A second referendum could be held as early as 2020, the minister said.
An article that sums up Labour's problem. The "nasty party is back". And the nasty Tories are "blaming the slaves.".
This is such a ridiculous, histrionic piece of silliness I presumed it was written by some teenager at Lampeter University. In which case one might forgive.
But then I checked. It was written by a LABOUR MP. And quite a senior one. It turns out he wa active in student politics for many years.
And that sums up modern Labour. Miliband was a studenty leader, surrounded by studenty advisors, with studenty activists agreeing with his studenty ideas and staying up all night coming up with studenty notions like a Policy Megalith.
Labour is now the party of the NUS: whiny, narcissistic, and dim. Unless they grow up they will never win again.
It really is poor stuff. You do wonder how people like that are selected as MPs, and then despair when you realise it's because he puts himself on committees.
A quick thought on FIFA- the documents released by DOJ on Wednesday detail the movement of dirty money - including though several British banks in the UK (Barclays and HSBC among others were mentioned).
Why did the Serious Fraud Office not get involved?
Private Eye refer to them as the Serious Farce Office because of how useless they are
Oh God the Outers won't accept the will of the public, will go all EU & want a 2nd referendum to get the right result
Cabinet ministers are warning there will be a second referendum on whether the UK should quit the European Union if David Cameron fails to win a radical new deal in Brussels.
High-ranking Tories believe the EU referendum campaign will create powerful momentum for leaving Europe over the next 18 months, in the same way that nationalism in Scotland has grown since the Scottish independence vote last September.
A major split has now opened up between Mr Cameron and ministers who want to be free to campaign for Britain to leave the EU if they do not like the new deal that the Prime Minister negotiates.
One member of his Cabinet has warned that the promised “in/out” referendum in 2017 will not be “the end game” if voters choose to remain in a seriously flawed EU. A second referendum could be held as early as 2020, the minister said.
A quick thought on FIFA- the documents released by DOJ on Wednesday detail the movement of dirty money - including though several British banks in the UK (Barclays and HSBC among others were mentioned).
Why did the Serious Fraud Office not get involved?
Private Eye refer to them as the Serious Farce Office because of how useless they are
OT, I just watched a video series about the South Sea Company bubble and related financial shenanigans, and I learned two things:
1) Robert Walpole was much more of an impressive and shady figure than I had realised (though given he is regarded as our first PM I guess I should not have been surprised), and
2) I still have no real conception of how finance works, even when explained centuries later with all the context and clarification that can provide.
A quick thought on FIFA- the documents released by DOJ on Wednesday detail the movement of dirty money - including though several British banks in the UK (Barclays and HSBC among others were mentioned).
Why did the Serious Fraud Office not get involved?
Private Eye refer to them as the Serious Farce Office because of how useless they are
To be fair to the SFO, they really haven't recovered since Blair cut their balls off into the BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Sent a signal to them not to investigate things that might be difficult/awkward/embarrassing.
A quick thought on FIFA- the documents released by DOJ on Wednesday detail the movement of dirty money - including though several British banks in the UK (Barclays and HSBC among others were mentioned).
Why did the Serious Fraud Office not get involved?
Private Eye refer to them as the Serious Farce Office because of how useless they are
To be fair to the SFO, they really haven't recovered since Blair cut their balls off into the BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Sent a signal to them not to investigate things that might be difficult/awkward/embarrassing.
Wait...are you saying sometimes arms deals are a bit shady?
A quick thought on FIFA- the documents released by DOJ on Wednesday detail the movement of dirty money - including though several British banks in the UK (Barclays and HSBC among others were mentioned).
Why did the Serious Fraud Office not get involved?
Private Eye refer to them as the Serious Farce Office because of how useless they are
To be fair to the SFO, they really haven't recovered since Blair cut their balls off into the BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Sent a signal to them not to investigate things that might be difficult/awkward/embarrassing.
Wait...are you saying sometimes arms deals are a bit shady?
Jonathan Aitken was a former arms dealer, so I don't know how you can say that arms deals are a bit shady
A quick thought on FIFA- the documents released by DOJ on Wednesday detail the movement of dirty money - including though several British banks in the UK (Barclays and HSBC among others were mentioned).
Why did the Serious Fraud Office not get involved?
Private Eye refer to them as the Serious Farce Office because of how useless they are
To be fair to the SFO, they really haven't recovered since Blair cut their balls off into the BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Sent a signal to them not to investigate things that might be difficult/awkward/embarrassing.
Wait...are you saying sometimes arms deals are a bit shady?
Cor blimey! Never! I trust the arms dealers as much as I trust Sepp Blatter.
The principles of the ECHR are designed to make sure all countries stick to some universal rights, that we here take for granted.
Because we find the court rules against a few times, we're going to walk away from it, seems childish and irrational. When you compare on average the less dozen or so times they rule against us, compared to the hundreds of times local judges do so, are we going to walk away from the principels of Magna Carta as well?
Walking away sends a terrible signal to other countries, we should stay in and help revise it, unlike the EU/EC, we helped craft and design it.
I wonder. The problem is not simply the daft judgments of the Strasbourg Court, of which there are many, but the idea of universal human rights themselves. Can it really be asserted that there is a universal right to a paid holiday, as article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides?
No one has ever been able to identify what the content of universal rights ought to be. On what basis does the European Convention have any more validity as a universal statement than, say, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990), signed by 45 states, which states that no one may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith (article 22(c)). Article 24 provides that '[a]ll the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah, while article 25 confirms that 'the Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.' I have no idea why these values are any less universal or infallible than the ECHR, other than the fact I strongly disagree with them. If reasonable people can disagree about the content of human rights, it strongly suggests they are not universal.
In any event, while much of the European Convention reflects laudable political aspirations, such as the right to respect for a family life, attempting to convert such political aspirations into justiciable legal rights is problematic. Leaving aside the inevitable enrichment of lawyers, I have never come across a compelling argument for why issues like abortion, assisted suicide, fox hunting or whole life tariffs should be converted into issues for the courts, which is inevitable if you are a signatory to the Convention.
Comments
Brighton Pavilion 22,871
Bristol West 17,227
Isle of Wight 9,404
Buckingham 7,400
Hackney North & Stoke Newington 7,281
Holborn & St Pancras 7,013
Sheffield Central 6,999
Norwich South 6,749
Lewisham Deptford 5,932
Oxford East 5,890
Bristol South 5,861
Bath 5,634
Hackney South & Shoreditch 5,519
Somerton & Frome 5,434
Liverpool Riverside 5,372
Camberwell & Peckham 5,187
Islington North 5,043
The impression that the Labour party is only interested in minority voters and guardianistas is a dangerous one, whether true or not. Labour had manifesto's for Wales, Scotland, and BME groups. It is quite legitimate for a white bloke in Leicester to believe that Labour was not interested in him. Liz sits for Leicester West, the most WWC of Leicester's seats. Incidentally Leicester came bottom this week in the country for disposeable income per head, and can rightly feel poorly served by the government. I am sure she hears this on the doorstep.
Tangentially though, I really don't know why some people (Carswell is one unfortunately) who may have very good reforming instincts which achieve a lot of good, get into a mindset that therefore any 'rebelling' against something perhaps a bit silly but not actually harmful, forms part of some grand reformist cause they are undertaking.
If a tradition is harmful, it's a problem. If it is not harmful, it might be silly and maybe it will be removed sooner or later, but just because criticism of breaching those traditions can (and in this case has) be overdone, that doesn't make breaching them for the sake of it worthy either. How can it be worthy when there is no harm in what is being rebelled against? (I'm not convinced that the braying that people claim to dislike - if the people as a whole disliked it the politicians would stop it as it would harm them - is a result of this rule)?
This is indeed a silly little game, nothing more, and that applies to people getting overly offended at a breaches of parliamentary etiquette, and those attempting to make those breaches appear noble somehow by making those etiquettes more meaningful and sinister than in fact they are.
I think I'll save my energy for some other silly faux dispute though, I can only handle so many at a time despite being good breaks from 'serious' topics, rather than argue the point further.
Which "actual vote" - for the nomination? The CLP is obliged to nominate at least one woman (and in practice, one man).
If you mean the members' vote latter this summer, I do hope it's Khan or Jowell: I am nicely green.
Quotas and reserved shortlists are a blunt instrument, the case for which is normally that they change the image to the point that you don't need them (I think Labour is getting to the point where we don't especially need AWSs, as evidenced by the fact that 3 out of 4 leadership candidates are women). When nearly all MPs were middle-aged white men, then anyone who isn't but wants to be an MP both looks and feels out of place. When I was first elected in 1997, the division lobbies only had men's loos - the authorites felt that there weren't enough women MPs to worry about their being caught short. Clearly something needed to be done.
Any organisation whose senior people all look much the same has a case to answer on whether they're really taking the best people or just lazily following a standard pattern, and if we think it's the latter, maybe quotas are needed to nudge them into action? Khan's policy as described here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/labour-ethnic-minority-voters-manifesto-top-jobs-quotas-hate-crime-reforms
looks arguable. I wouldn't vote for or against him on that account.
Instead we got the 56 Eejits with White English Tea Roses on their lapels.
1983: 20,837
1987: 22,156
1992: 22,574
1997: 22,580
2001: 18,014
2005: 17,184
2010: 13,745
2015: 16,051
White-working class voting for Labour in lower numbers than 1983 and 1987: Labour's biggest problem.
Do you think there's any inverse sterotyping happening there, so is it just that men are getting less interested for some reason?
Kendall may be annoying Diane Abbott but has a good insight into Labours problems, and the truth that dare not speak its name.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32946237
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32944061
I think your party is killing itself, with its belief in affirmative action.
I sat on the interview panel last year. The process is fair and above board. One aspect is that male applicants are generally less good at the communication station and also a bit clumsy with the ethical questions. Basically 18 year old boys are less articulate and socially skilled as girls the same age, but they are under-represented at the application stage too. Scientifically skilled males go in other directions now.
"Basically 18 year old boys are less articulate and socially skilled as girls the same age, but they are under-represented at the application stage too. Scientifically skilled males go in other directions now."
Scientifically skilled males tend to be less articulate and socially skilled.
I think that by the end of the course a lot of the males have better communication skills. It is a major aspect of modern training.
Incidentally there are even fewer afro-caribbean applicants, male or female.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-william/11641043/Prince-William-to-Fifa-tackle-corruption-and-put-sport-first.html
"Many of them must have been selected before this surge came about, possibly fighting what they thought were hopeless seats nobody else wanted to. How might that impact on both the way they see Westminster and how they respond to it?
If anyone has any information I'd be interested to hear it. "
Other than the great detail already posted here by Calum, it is worth pointing out that none of the SNP candidates were selected until after the Referendum (all or virtually all in 2015), and none before it became clear that there was an enormous surge to the SNP.
So all the SNP candidates thought they had a great chance of election, and the 3 who were defeated will have been genuinely disappointed.
Nobody was unexpectedly elected as there were no hopeless seats at the time they were selected or even applied for selection..
I did work with a White British background Doctor who had left school at 16 and did his A levels at night school while working in a factory. He had great rapport with patients.
http://bma.org.uk/-/media/Files/PDFs/Developing your career/Becoming a doctor/Equality diversity in medical schools 2011.pdf
"It was recently asserted in the British Medical Journal that medicine has ‘remained in the grip of the middle class’, and analysis of UCAS data over the decades confirms this assertion. Research into medical school admissions between 1956 and 2001 shows ‘little systematic change in social class of UK medical students over half a century’, with minimal variation in the dominance of those from professional or managerial occupational backgrounds or in the under-representation
Medical school admissions and acceptances in the UK continue to be dominated by those from higher socio-economic backgrounds. Between 2003 and 2008, the top three socio-economic classes represented between 71 and 74 per cent of accepted applicants to medical school, but only between about 52 and 55 per cent of the UK working population. In contrast, lower socio-of those from partly skilled or unskilled backgrounds."
Following the election, ten owned up to having been Tories (one voted Lab in Scotland).
Pretty middle class, all in all.
- Pay £5,000 into the court on Monday morning.
- The papers must be formally served on Alistair Carmichael.
- From being served, Mr Carmichael has a week to respond if he choses to and must give the grounds of his objection.
- Then there is a period of ‘adaptation’ where what is agreed is agreed – and here the basis of his conduct is not in doubt. He has admitted it after all.
- The Court of Session officials set a date for the trial – that is the word being used – that could take place in Edinburgh, Lerwick or Kirkwall.
- Then it all happens. Witnesses can be called and two judges will take the decision and then of course, there could be an appeal.
I think the O&S electorate seems quite capable of sorting this all out locally. The letters page of the Shetland News gives some sense of local feeling:
http://www.shetnews.co.uk/letters/
Turning to the Scottish LibDems they have recently launched a rather bizarre the LibDems are listening campaign, when they are in the middle of trying to ignore the O&S electorate:
http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/rennie_lib_dems_are_listening
Maybe Lord A could undertake one last constituency poll to gauge where things stand on the ground !!
I suppose that we will just have to agree to disagree as to how acceptable we each find the current "lively" nature of the house.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/08/the-first-litmus-test-nuneaton-is-a-tory-hold/
I don't know why Labour needed a different manifesto for so many groups. I am all for supporting equality - on the issues of social, gender, sexuality, and race - but you do that by trying to bring people together in a vision we can all invest in. Different manifestos imply distinctly different visions for the Welsh, Scottish, BMEs, and so on.
Someone else on this thread (I think it was @Sean_F) mentioned the womens' manifesto. As a feminist, I personally don't understand Labour's approach to the issue if gender equality. An awful lot of appears token, and cosmetic, rather than dealing with the root causes, to say, why less women participate in politics, or why less women vote and so on.
Jack Warner (the Caribbean answer to Dixon of Dock Green, or a movie mogul?) was shopped by his own sons after the FBI and IRS flipped them.
This is going to be like the way the Feds went after the Mob: it may well take years - but sooner or later someone will flip or some fact comes to light and the investigation moves up a notch. It will take as long as it takes.
The feds - in this case both IRS and FBI - have infinite patience, limitless resources, and are unbelievably thorough.
They will almost never initiate a prosecution unless they have a water tight case. I know this first hand from when my then business partner was prosecuted for tax evasion. They spent almost 2 years before indictment, at which point an IRS audit on me suddenly was cancelled.
The fact that in a single day they issued 47 counts to 14 folks / companies (including Nike!), and the Swiss arrested the 7 in Zurich at US request suggests that they have much good evidence, and when all the 20+ folks are here and interviewed they will get more.
It's odd that the world is looking to one of the few countries where soccer is not a major sport to bring down the monster that is FIFA - for the game. For the World
In his case even 'slam dunk' doesn't cover it.
http://lbc.audioagain.com/player_popup.php?item_id=83773&channel_id=0&user_id=0&sec_id=nosubscription&guid=2015-05/09/f51eccdb4b8632c3ae2f35982c280d6a
Of course Hoover’s view of organised crime was astonishing, to say the least. As late as January 1962, Hoover denied its existence in the United States. He stated that ‘No single individual or coalition of racketeers dominates organized crime across the nation.’ It was not until gangster Joe Valachi was brought to Washington by Attorney General Robert Kennedy’s Justice Department to testify before the Senate that Hoover was forced to admit that his opinion about organised crime in American needed some serious re-thinking.
I rarely comment on Scottish politics because I don't comment from a position of knowledge (not that seems to stop some). I've always presumed the SNP was a coalition like most other parties held together by the desire for an independent Scotland which is fair enough.
I suspect Nicola Sturgeon wasn't too disappointed by the outcome of the election. The SNP has been politically well served by successive Conservative and Labour Governments and the argument that the current Government is an English administration imposed on a Scotland which didn't want it is hard to counter.
The question for the SNP is how they will use their domination of Scottish politics over the next few years. Assuming they retain control of Holyrood next year and strengthen their domination into the lower tiers of Scottish local Government, the SNP will be in a unique position to shape Scottish policy and with Devomax will presumably come more responsibility and authority.
Unlike some on here, I've always been entirely relaxed about the prospect of Scottish independence. Had YES won last September, I'm absolutely convinced the rhetoric of the campaign would have been replaced by a willingness on all sides to compromise to make the reality of an independent Scotland work not only for the Scots but for the other parts of the United Kingdom.
The same of course would be true of an EU Referendum - if we vote to leave, all sides will then sit down to work out an amicable and effective separation but until then the dire warnings of disaster from both sides will be what passes for debate.
Labour's constant preference for dividing society into different groups is highly divisive and belies their claim to be a One Nation party. I don't know why anyone who subscribes to racial equality thinks it is a good idea to emphasise difference on racial grounds. Sadly, this sort of thinking is endemic in public life. The BBC hosted a debate just for racially Asian people. Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate? It seems like racism only counts if it benefits white people. The black leader of Goldsmiths Student Union tweeted "kill all white men" and the police did nothing.
It should be obvious, I hope, that statements have different implications in different contexts. As with everyone who has defended something as a joke between friends.
Thus a statement made by an ethnic minority is made in a different context to one made by a white person, and should be treated differently. Its implications could be far more or far less serious.
The Danish PR system allows a wide range of choice (a dozen parties in all) in the two broad left/right blocs, and a fair amount of tolerance is needed. The centre-left includes a merger of Trotskyist and Communist (my former home) parties who would feel comfortable with Syriza, as well as a mild centrist party reminiscent of Roy Jenkins' SDP and a new outfit who are very anti-austerity. The centre-right has a strong liberal leadership plus a small conservative party and the far-right guys.
That said, everyone is very house-trained and discussions in Parliament proceed with a civilised restraint that would be unusually calm for a meeting of the PLP or the 1922 Committee. Everyone is more or less signed up to the basics of welfare state, highish taxes, Blairite public services and semi-detached EU membership. Borgen is a good represenation of how it works.
David Cameron is a lucky swine. Who can blame him if he quits in 2018 to spend more time with Sam Cameron.
I might try and subtly segue in the front page of the Mail on Sunday into tomorrow morning's thread header
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-leadership-contender-liz-kendall-5793577
Because we find the court rules against a few times, we're going to walk away from it, seems childish and irrational. When you compare on average the less dozen or so times they rule against us, compared to the hundreds of times local judges do so, are we going to walk away from the principels of Magna Carta as well?
Walking away sends a terrible signal to other countries, we should stay in and help revise it, unlike the EU/EC, we helped craft and design it.
Cabinet ministers are warning there will be a second referendum on whether the UK should quit the European Union if David Cameron fails to win a radical new deal in Brussels.
High-ranking Tories believe the EU referendum campaign will create powerful momentum for leaving Europe over the next 18 months, in the same way that nationalism in Scotland has grown since the Scottish independence vote last September.
A major split has now opened up between Mr Cameron and ministers who want to be free to campaign for Britain to leave the EU if they do not like the new deal that the Prime Minister negotiates.
One member of his Cabinet has warned that the promised “in/out” referendum in 2017 will not be “the end game” if voters choose to remain in a seriously flawed EU. A second referendum could be held as early as 2020, the minister said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11641133/Second-referendum-in-five-years-if-voters-choose-to-stay-in-EU.html
But it does not call for the same response as if a man had called for death to all women. "Can you imagine if they had done a white only debate?" is not the right question.
Why did the Serious Fraud Office not get involved?
1) Robert Walpole was much more of an impressive and shady figure than I had realised (though given he is regarded as our first PM I guess I should not have been surprised), and
2) I still have no real conception of how finance works, even when explained centuries later with all the context and clarification that can provide.
Sent a signal to them not to investigate things that might be difficult/awkward/embarrassing.
No one has ever been able to identify what the content of universal rights ought to be. On what basis does the European Convention have any more validity as a universal statement than, say, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990), signed by 45 states, which states that no one may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith (article 22(c)). Article 24 provides that '[a]ll the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah, while article 25 confirms that 'the Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.' I have no idea why these values are any less universal or infallible than the ECHR, other than the fact I strongly disagree with them. If reasonable people can disagree about the content of human rights, it strongly suggests they are not universal.
In any event, while much of the European Convention reflects laudable political aspirations, such as the right to respect for a family life, attempting to convert such political aspirations into justiciable legal rights is problematic. Leaving aside the inevitable enrichment of lawyers, I have never come across a compelling argument for why issues like abortion, assisted suicide, fox hunting or whole life tariffs should be converted into issues for the courts, which is inevitable if you are a signatory to the Convention.