Plato go to my Chelsy Swann blogspot and read about the USS NIMITZ and the Nuclear submarine I did a tour on.strange world these boys, and girls, live in.
Posted a new pic, of sister ship with one gun. Google USS Gabrielle Giffords images, and you'll get a very good selection of the new US littoral combat vessels, all of which break the mold of what we thought of as warships as kids.
Plato go to my Chelsy Swann blogspot and read about the USS NIMITZ and the Nuclear submarine I did a tour on.strange world these boys, and girls, live in.
From yesterday's thread: An item from the 2010 leadership contest with swing voters (SOUTHERN swing voters at that) saw Andy Burnham emerge as the top choice, ahead of both Milibands.
Posted a new pic, of sister ship with one gun. Google USS Gabrielle Giffords images, and you'll get a very good selection of the new US littoral combat vessels, all of which break the mold of what we thought of as warships as kids.
Posted a new pic, of sister ship with one gun. Google USS Gabrielle Giffords images, and you'll get a very good selection of the new US littoral combat vessels, all of which break the mold of what we thought of as warships as kids.
Plato go to my Chelsy Swann blogspot and read about the USS NIMITZ and the Nuclear submarine I did a tour on.strange world these boys, and girls, live in.
Worst survival rate of any of the German services in WWII
@Plato re the photo of the sailing warship and the modern destroyer. Today USS Gabrielle Giffords was christened - the first warship with no guns. The first image I posted did not work. Here is one of a sister ship (Independence) which has one gun.
@Plato re the photo of the sailing warship and the modern destroyer. Today USS Gabrielle Giffords was christened - the first warship with no guns. The first image I posted did not work. Here is one of a sister ship (Independence) which has one gun.
@Plato re the photo of the sailing warship and the modern destroyer. Today USS Gabrielle Giffords was christened - the first warship with no guns. The first image I posted did not work. Here is one of a sister ship (Independence) which has one gun.
Posted a new pic, of sister ship with one gun. Google USS Gabrielle Giffords images, and you'll get a very good selection of the new US littoral combat vessels, all of which break the mold of what we thought of as warships as kids.
"Guys, I want it to have enough firepower to smack a small state into next Tuesday, a shit load of offensive weaponry, anti-submarine capability, state of the art defensive stuff that can knock out an incoming gnat. But mostly I want it to be able to do donuts...."
Worst survival rate of any of the German services in WWII
In fact it was even crazier than that - if you take away the ones taken prisoner, the trainees, training crews and the uboat crew reserved for the Type 21s (which didn't quite arrive), you find that the U-Boat arm had pretty much no survivors among those who went to sea!
U Boat deaths..not a good way to die. I imagine some of those lads are still in a mummified condition,locked in their sealed ,airtight chambers,at the bottom of some ocean. just waiting...
From yesterday's thread: An item from the 2010 leadership contest with swing voters (SOUTHERN swing voters at that) saw Andy Burnham emerge as the top choice, ahead of both Milibands.
Interesting to watch that now. I'd concur that Burnham did best in that segment, perhaps because he focused on policy rather than platitudes. David Miliband was awful - addressing voters as if he were giving a brand strategy seminar.
Musing on the art or otherwise of leadership, I'm thinking about the extent to which the personal views of the leader of a party and the policy position of that party should be identical. In other words, do the leader's personal policies and viewpoints inform the party or does the Party expect that the leader should follow its defined line ?
I'm not talking about a central policy plank or a key issue but something on the periphery. Let me offer an example - the Conservatives and foxhunting.
Could one be a Conservative member and be opposed to foxhunting ? Clearly, yes. Could one be a Member, be opposed to foxhunting and accept a party line that says MPs should have a free vote on a bill to restore foxhunting ? Clearly, yes. Could one be a Conservative member, be opposed to foxhunting and support the Party if the view was there would be a 3-line whip to support a bill aimed at legalising foxhunting ? That would depend on how important to the individual as a matter of moral conscience foxhunting was.
Now, that's apply to the same questions to the Party leader - could the party leader be opposed to foxhunting if the party line was to allow a free vote ? Yes, why not ? As an MP, the leader has a right to a free vote and will vote as he or she regards a matter of conscience.
Could the Party leader, even if he or she personally from a point of moral principle, opposed foxhunting, stand up and support the Party if the overwhelming view was that MPs should be forced to support foxhunting in the Commons ?
I'm interested to know what other people think and it's not a debate about foxhunting or even about the Conservatives but how parties work, how party leaders can and should influence the debate and at what point the Party can and should override the view of the leader ?
Just a mild topic for a quiet Sunday afternoon and a diversion from endless wittering about the Punic Wars about which we've all heard quite enough !!
I'm interested to know what other people think and it's not a debate about foxhunting or even about the Conservatives but how parties work, how party leaders can and should influence the debate and at what point the Party can and should override the view of the leader ?
Just a mild topic for a quiet Sunday afternoon and a diversion from endless wittering about the Punic Wars about which we've all heard quite enough !!
Stodge, it seems to me that your question is somewhat old fashioned and from a different age. In the olden days parties were vaguely democratic (even Labour). They had conferences and votes which determined policy in a range of areas. That policy might be opposed by the leadership on the basis they didn't agree or thought it would be an electoral liability.
First the Tories and then Labour dropped all that. Newer parties like UKIP never really had it. In all of these parties the policy of the party is what the leadership thinks it should be and the democratic influence is largely restricted to appointing the leader in the first place.
Only the Lib Dems have hung on to the concept of Conferences voting against the leadership line. It cannot be claimed to be a success. I think that time has passed.
Does that lead to better policy? Not really. Very few politicians have the knowledge or expertise to make policy in several areas. But unity is supposed to be the key and that means what the boss says goes.
Sepp Blatter is planning to UN-RESIGN after receiving support from African and Asian football federations, claim Swiss media. Swiss media claim Sepp Blatter is reconsidering his decision to quit Sources close to the Blatter said he has strong support in Africa and Asia Blatter is due to resign as FIFA president once his replacement is elected
Sepp Blatter is planning to UN-RESIGN after receiving support from African and Asian football federations, claim Swiss media. Swiss media claim Sepp Blatter is reconsidering his decision to quit Sources close to the Blatter said he has strong support in Africa and Asia Blatter is due to resign as FIFA president once his replacement is elected
England need to set a test match field with about 5 slips to have any hope of defending ~ 300 imo. No chance they'll defend it with a normal defensive field. Need quick wickets.
England need to set a test match field with about 5 slips to have any hope of defending ~ 300 imo. No chance they'll defend it with a normal defensive field. Need quick wickets.
It's amazing how much cricket has changed. A few years ago you'd be delighted making 300.
My twitter feed remains in FFA and Cybernat meltdown as the massed ranks of the MSM's "political commentators" carpet bomb twitter by retweeting each others links. What the MSM fails to report on is that for every extreme Cybernat there are at least many Cyberunionists, indeed most of these commentators are Cyberunionists and seem unable to recognise this. I'm happy to condemn the extremists on both sides.
In terms of FFA, I've had the following link retweeted over 30 times in the last 24 hours, the chap who writes this blog tweeted about expecting Cybernat abuse, so far he has 9 comments which are all very polite:
F1 [ish]: Hulkenberg was part of the winning team at Le Mans. That won't hurt his seat prospects in the sport, but it may be contingent on Raikkonen being axed at Ferrari.
Rosberg and Hamilton will be there for a few years, McLaren have been poor for a few years (although the basic car seems alright, it's the Honda engine which is awful, and Button will leave soon), and there might be a seat at Williams, but as it's a customer team that's a bit of a disadvantage.
Ferrari's the place to go, mostly because of James Allison.
England need to set a test match field with about 5 slips to have any hope of defending ~ 300 imo. No chance they'll defend it with a normal defensive field. Need quick wickets.
It's amazing how much cricket has changed. A few years ago you'd be delighted making 300.
Geoff M, any comments on the forthcoming elections in Gibraltar?
Posted a new pic, of sister ship with one gun. Google USS Gabrielle Giffords images, and you'll get a very good selection of the new US littoral combat vessels, all of which break the mold of what we thought of as warships as kids.
"Guys, I want it to have enough firepower to smack a small state into next Tuesday, a shit load of offensive weaponry, anti-submarine capability, state of the art defensive stuff that can knock out an incoming gnat. But mostly I want it to be able to do donuts...."
Stodge, it seems to me that your question is somewhat old fashioned and from a different age. In the olden days parties were vaguely democratic (even Labour). They had conferences and votes which determined policy in a range of areas. That policy might be opposed by the leadership on the basis they didn't agree or thought it would be an electoral liability.
First the Tories and then Labour dropped all that. Newer parties like UKIP never really had it. In all of these parties the policy of the party is what the leadership thinks it should be and the democratic influence is largely restricted to appointing the leader in the first place.
Only the Lib Dems have hung on to the concept of Conferences voting against the leadership line. It cannot be claimed to be a success. I think that time has passed.
Does that lead to better policy? Not really. Very few politicians have the knowledge or expertise to make policy in several areas. But unity is supposed to be the key and that means what the boss says goes.
The Greens still have policy made by conference, up to a point, though some policies were hastily jettisoned when they came under pressure in the election run-up, so i think it reflects novelty rather than long-term strategy. With Labour, I noticed at the time - 2-3 years before he left - that Tony Blair stopped saying "we" and started saying "I" about policy direction. I don't think it was even conscious, just a recognition that he was out there on his own, shouting "come on chaps". It contributed to a decline in membership - as someone I know who'd been a member for decades said, "It's not that I don't agree with the policy as that I can neither influence nor predict it - it's just what the leader happens to think at the moment". Tony was reasonably consistent, as was Maggie in later years, but with others on both sides it's been pretty hard to predict what they'll think on any particular new issue.
That said, we don't in either major party normally have the leader quite deciding- rather, the leader makes it known which direction he wants, and colleagues in the (Shadow) Cabinet let him know how much he can get away with.
The one area where free voting still really works is quasi-religious "conscience" voting. I voted to lower the abortion limit to 22 weeks, after brooding on the evidence and deciding, rightly or wrongly, that the foetus could feel pain at that point. Nobody ever pressured me or told me off for it, even the hard-core pro-choicers on the one hand or the hard-core pro-lifers on the other. Mild regret coupled with respect of right to my opinion was the order of the day - rather to my surprise.
Musing on the art or otherwise of leadership, I'm thinking about the extent to which the personal views of the leader of a party and the policy position of that party should be identical. In other words, do the leader's personal policies and viewpoints inform the party or does the Party expect that the leader should follow its defined line ?
I'm not talking about a central policy plank or a key issue but something on the periphery. Let me offer an example - the Conservatives and foxhunting.
Could one be a Conservative member and be opposed to foxhunting ? Clearly, yes. Could one be a Member, be opposed to foxhunting and accept a party line that says MPs should have a free vote on a bill to restore foxhunting ? Clearly, yes. Could one be a Conservative member, be opposed to foxhunting and support the Party if the view was there would be a 3-line whip to support a bill aimed at legalising foxhunting ? That would depend on how important to the individual as a matter of moral conscience foxhunting was.
Now, that's apply to the same questions to the Party leader - could the party leader be opposed to foxhunting if the party line was to allow a free vote ? Yes, why not ? As an MP, the leader has a right to a free vote and will vote as he or she regards a matter of conscience.
Could the Party leader, even if he or she personally from a point of moral principle, opposed foxhunting, stand up and support the Party if the overwhelming view was that MPs should be forced to support foxhunting in the Commons ?
I'm interested to know what other people think and it's not a debate about foxhunting or even about the Conservatives but how parties work, how party leaders can and should influence the debate and at what point the Party can and should override the view of the leader ?
Just a mild topic for a quiet Sunday afternoon and a diversion from endless wittering about the Punic Wars about which we've all heard quite enough !!
I cannot imagine a leader could for long stay out of step with his or her party on any truly central policy plank. The leader would either have to bring the party with him or her, or the party would have to find a new leader.
You cannot be successful with that level of dissonance at the top levels of an organization. All truly successful organizations have a solid, internally consistent culture.
Mr. Palmer, instead of seeking to alter the voting system (PR remains the work of Satan), I'd like to move to a looser, freer voting system within the Commons itself, so three line whips are a rarity. I'd even be happy considering the idea to ban political parties and instead have every candidate campaign as an independent, perhaps indicating their own key policy priorities and which men/women they'd prefer to see as Prime Minister.
England need to set a test match field with about 5 slips to have any hope of defending ~ 300 imo. No chance they'll defend it with a normal defensive field. Need quick wickets.
It's amazing how much cricket has changed. A few years ago you'd be delighted making 300.
Geoff M, any comments on the forthcoming elections in Gibraltar?
The Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party and its leader Fabian Picardo aren't constrained by any fixed parliament dates and can pretty much call the election to suit them. There's no word on when that will be but a GSLP driving advert van thingy (what do you call them technically?) started doing the rounds last week and politiking is in the air. The GSLP won the last one against the Social Democrats (GSD) by a few hundred votes and the previous election turned on a similar number, so elections are tight here.
Declaration: I was on the GSD candidates long-list last election. I'm not this time. I am also related to MPs on both sides of the chamber.
The GSLP, as soon as they were elected, started spending the GSD's accumulated cash reserves on many populist projects. Most visible and expensive of these has been complete internal and external refurbishment of all of the old "council" tower blocks and a huge building scheme of new blocks that will be effectively given away to local residents - making those on the list a paper fortune overnight. To be fair these things were neglected for decades, needed doing and have got general cross-party support. But the GSLP got on with it and they will reap the electoral rewards.
This week some blank spaces have been prepared for plaques to mark the refurbishment. As soon as the plaques are commissioned with an unveiling date on them we'll know that the election will be a fortnight or so after that. Nobody around here is subtle.
In short - I believe that the GSLP will win and the marmite Daniel Feetham will step down as leader of the opposition GSD. Daniel's leadership has been solid and unexceptional which is a surprise because he maneuvered hard to get it in the first place. Damon Bossino is my bet to succeed him. He's dynamic, popular and very very clever.
At the last election I persuaded the trader at Stan James (a drinking pal from the pub) to price up the election here and a couple of other bookies copied his prices. But he's moved on since then so I don't know if anyone will trade it. If they do my vote and my money will be going in different directions.
Mr. Palmer, instead of seeking to alter the voting system (PR remains the work of Satan), I'd like to move to a looser, freer voting system within the Commons itself, so three line whips are a rarity. I'd even be happy considering the idea to ban political parties and instead have every candidate campaign as an independent, perhaps indicating their own key policy priorities and which men/women they'd prefer to see as Prime Minister.
The problem is that these things are semi-voluntary. You simply couldn't ban political parties effectively - how do you prevent a group of "people interested in British policy" getting together and agreeing to follow a set of policies, previously known as a party manifesto? And with rare exceptions, people don't really like voting against their usual colleagues and mingling with a crowd of gloating opponents ("How nice to have you with us, dear boy, do come again").
What I think leaders could afford to do would be to make it known that occasional dissent on matters not affecting the survival of the Government would be tolerated, rather than the current arrangement that breaking a 3-line whip on anything at all means dismissal. This already exists in subterranean form, in that people make excuses for abstention and the whips look the other way. Perhaps making only survival issues (e.g. the Budget) a 2-line whip is the way forward.
Voters could, of course, facilitate independence by voting for it. Loads of people told me they'd vote for me if I stood as an independent, but even if they had, it would have been deceitful (since I'm a pretty loyal lefty) and would simply have split the vote from the mass of voters who simply pick a party. I think you do need the Work of Satan (aka PR) to facilitate genuine nuance of choice, as we're seeing in Denmark this week - a clear choice of two blocs, but five varieties on each side to choose from.
Mr. Palmer, instead of seeking to alter the voting system (PR remains the work of Satan), I'd like to move to a looser, freer voting system within the Commons itself, so three line whips are a rarity. I'd even be happy considering the idea to ban political parties and instead have every candidate campaign as an independent, perhaps indicating their own key policy priorities and which men/women they'd prefer to see as Prime Minister.
And the first group to organise would dominate. All voting is a compromise, all parties are coalitions. All politics is a compromise. What happens to your 'independent' when he/she has to compromise on his/her (see how PC I am?) key priorities. Furthermore, what happens to the nation when despite 'events' your independents stick to their 'key priories' because of high principle (ie base electoral instincts) and thus throw the nation into chaos?
Mr. Flightpath, got a mild knocking when I didn't have him/her in a post a few months ago
I find it extremely helpful when individuals pick up on that sort of thing. It clearly marks out their concentrated bellendery, broken-brainedness and general unworthiness of any further consideration.
Posted a new pic, of sister ship with one gun. Google USS Gabrielle Giffords images, and you'll get a very good selection of the new US littoral combat vessels, all of which break the mold of what we thought of as warships as kids.
They do have guns, one 57mm gun made by BAE. Several missiles and 2 helicopters. Its a 2000 tonne frigate type ship optimised for coastal waters. The gun is in fact very sophisticated.
I have to agree with John Rentoul regarding his article in The Independent about the poor calibre of Labour's new intake of MPs'.
I watch the Parliament channel most days and I have to say they are a pretty uninspiring lot, especially the ladies. All I've heard is 'savage cuts' and 'childcare'. If women want to be taken seriously for the top jobs, then (and this applies to all parties) they have to start discussing and taking part in defence and foreign affairs questions.
I think Labour's all women short-lists are now having a detrimental impact on the quality of female MPs'. This also applies to the 'Union stooges.'
Unless my eyes are failing me, I could have sworn I saw a female Labour MP wearing flip flops in the HoC!!
Although not a Labour supporter as you can guess, I think Parliament is much better for having a strong opposition and I don't see this happening anytime soon.
Posted a new pic, of sister ship with one gun. Google USS Gabrielle Giffords images, and you'll get a very good selection of the new US littoral combat vessels, all of which break the mold of what we thought of as warships as kids.
They do have guns, one 57mm gun made by BAE. Several missiles and 2 helicopters. Its a 2000 tonne frigate type ship optimised for coastal waters. The gun is in fact very sophisticated.
What a shame its named after such a thoroughly unpleasant person though. The naming is a trolling exercise by the Obama administration. After they managed to get the "USS John P Murtha" past true patriots they're just taking the piss with this one.
Posted a new pic, of sister ship with one gun. Google USS Gabrielle Giffords images, and you'll get a very good selection of the new US littoral combat vessels, all of which break the mold of what we thought of as warships as kids.
They do have guns, one 57mm gun made by BAE. Several missiles and 2 helicopters. Its a 2000 tonne frigate type ship optimised for coastal waters. The gun is in fact very sophisticated.
What a shame its named after such a thoroughly unpleasant person though. The naming is a trolling exercise by the Obama administration. After they managed to get the "USS John P Murtha" past true patriots they're just taking the piss with this one.
@Flightpath Each of the Independence series will be variants. The Independence has one gun. I think it is planned for the USS GG to have none.
Posted a new pic, of sister ship with one gun. Google USS Gabrielle Giffords images, and you'll get a very good selection of the new US littoral combat vessels, all of which break the mold of what we thought of as warships as kids.
They do have guns, one 57mm gun made by BAE. Several missiles and 2 helicopters. Its a 2000 tonne frigate type ship optimised for coastal waters. The gun is in fact very sophisticated.
What a shame its named after such a thoroughly unpleasant person though. The naming is a trolling exercise by the Obama administration. After they managed to get the "USS John P Murtha" past true patriots they're just taking the piss with this one.
@Flightpath Each of the Independence series will be variants. The Independence has one gun. I think it is planned for the USS GG to have none.
The one area where free voting still really works is quasi-religious "conscience" voting. I voted to lower the abortion limit to 22 weeks, after brooding on the evidence and deciding, rightly or wrongly, that the foetus could feel pain at that point. Nobody ever pressured me or told me off for it, even the hard-core pro-choicers on the one hand or the hard-core pro-lifers on the other. Mild regret coupled with respect of right to my opinion was the order of the day - rather to my surprise.
I was really thinking about the "conscience" issue and wondering the extent to which, on a such issue, the leader's personal view, if stated, carried much weight.
To take abortion as an issue, if the Conservative Party (or indeed Labour though I consider it less likely) elected a leader whose view on abortion was discovered, after the election, to be out of step with the party majority, what (if any) difference would it make ?
If said leader, while remaining firm to their personal view, continued to follow the party line, there would be no issue and, as a member, I wouldn't have a problem. If the leader instigated a debate within the party with a view to changing the policy, would that be a concern ?
DavidL's point is true but depressing. It seems strange that party leaders espouse democracy for others (particularly in countries ruled by despots) but often lead their parties in a quasi-despotic way. For example, why is the Prime Minister so concerned about Ministers on both sides of the EU Referendum argument ? The short answer may be that he wants all his Ministers to publicly support HIS re-negotiated terms and collective responsibility as a meme of Cabinet Government implies the Prime Minister should be able to expect that from his Cabinet.
Is it therefore impossible for a Cabinet Minister to remain in post if not supporting the Prime Minister's re-negotiated terms ? You'd have to think so. The problem is unlike 1975 it's not a free vote on a simple proposition.
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3123168/Labour-mistakes-Gordon-Brown-Ed-Miliband-says-MP.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YwOWckI3gs
http://www.marinelink.com/news/keellaid-austal-navys367345.aspx
In fact it was even crazier than that - if you take away the ones taken prisoner, the trainees, training crews and the uboat crew reserved for the Type 21s (which didn't quite arrive), you find that the U-Boat arm had pretty much no survivors among those who went to sea!
Musing on the art or otherwise of leadership, I'm thinking about the extent to which the personal views of the leader of a party and the policy position of that party should be identical. In other words, do the leader's personal policies and viewpoints inform the party or does the Party expect that the leader should follow its defined line ?
I'm not talking about a central policy plank or a key issue but something on the periphery. Let me offer an example - the Conservatives and foxhunting.
Could one be a Conservative member and be opposed to foxhunting ? Clearly, yes. Could one be a Member, be opposed to foxhunting and accept a party line that says MPs should have a free vote on a bill to restore foxhunting ? Clearly, yes. Could one be a Conservative member, be opposed to foxhunting and support the Party if the view was there would be a 3-line whip to support a bill aimed at legalising foxhunting ? That would depend on how important to the individual as a matter of moral conscience foxhunting was.
Now, that's apply to the same questions to the Party leader - could the party leader be opposed to foxhunting if the party line was to allow a free vote ? Yes, why not ? As an MP, the leader has a right to a free vote and will vote as he or she regards a matter of conscience.
Could the Party leader, even if he or she personally from a point of moral principle, opposed foxhunting, stand up and support the Party if the overwhelming view was that MPs should be forced to support foxhunting in the Commons ?
I'm interested to know what other people think and it's not a debate about foxhunting or even about the Conservatives but how parties work, how party leaders can and should influence the debate and at what point the Party can and should override the view of the leader ?
Just a mild topic for a quiet Sunday afternoon and a diversion from endless wittering about the Punic Wars about which we've all heard quite enough !!
First the Tories and then Labour dropped all that. Newer parties like UKIP never really had it. In all of these parties the policy of the party is what the leadership thinks it should be and the democratic influence is largely restricted to appointing the leader in the first place.
Only the Lib Dems have hung on to the concept of Conferences voting against the leadership line. It cannot be claimed to be a success. I think that time has passed.
Does that lead to better policy? Not really. Very few politicians have the knowledge or expertise to make policy in several areas. But unity is supposed to be the key and that means what the boss says goes.
Sepp Blatter is planning to UN-RESIGN after receiving support from African and Asian football federations, claim Swiss media. Swiss media claim Sepp Blatter is reconsidering his decision to quit
Sources close to the Blatter said he has strong support in Africa and Asia
Blatter is due to resign as FIFA president once his replacement is elected
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3123245/Sepp-Blatter-planning-RESIGN-receiving-support-African-Asian-football-federations-claim-Swiss-media.html#ixzz3d2WmVzyd
I think the Africa/Asia portions of FIFA should take their ball and go home.
Then the rest of the world can have their own world cup.
In terms of FFA, I've had the following link retweeted over 30 times in the last 24 hours, the chap who writes this blog tweeted about expecting Cybernat abuse, so far he has 9 comments which are all very polite:
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/lets-talk-about-growth.html
https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/609826545394290689
Be interesting to see Osborne at PMQs. Will he be facing Harman?
Glad to hear Philae's revived. I wonder what the working life of the probe is. Could we see it sleeping and waking for years to come?
If Blatter un-resigns it'll be a disgrace. So it may well happen.
Rosberg and Hamilton will be there for a few years, McLaren have been poor for a few years (although the basic car seems alright, it's the Honda engine which is awful, and Button will leave soon), and there might be a seat at Williams, but as it's a customer team that's a bit of a disadvantage.
Ferrari's the place to go, mostly because of James Allison.
That said, we don't in either major party normally have the leader quite deciding- rather, the leader makes it known which direction he wants, and colleagues in the (Shadow) Cabinet let him know how much he can get away with.
The one area where free voting still really works is quasi-religious "conscience" voting. I voted to lower the abortion limit to 22 weeks, after brooding on the evidence and deciding, rightly or wrongly, that the foetus could feel pain at that point. Nobody ever pressured me or told me off for it, even the hard-core pro-choicers on the one hand or the hard-core pro-lifers on the other. Mild regret coupled with respect of right to my opinion was the order of the day - rather to my surprise.
You cannot be successful with that level of dissonance at the top levels of an organization. All truly successful organizations have a solid, internally consistent culture.
Declaration: I was on the GSD candidates long-list last election. I'm not this time. I am also related to MPs on both sides of the chamber.
The GSLP, as soon as they were elected, started spending the GSD's accumulated cash reserves on many populist projects. Most visible and expensive of these has been complete internal and external refurbishment of all of the old "council" tower blocks and a huge building scheme of new blocks that will be effectively given away to local residents - making those on the list a paper fortune overnight. To be fair these things were neglected for decades, needed doing and have got general cross-party support. But the GSLP got on with it and they will reap the electoral rewards.
This week some blank spaces have been prepared for plaques to mark the refurbishment. As soon as the plaques are commissioned with an unveiling date on them we'll know that the election will be a fortnight or so after that. Nobody around here is subtle.
In short - I believe that the GSLP will win and the marmite Daniel Feetham will step down as leader of the opposition GSD. Daniel's leadership has been solid and unexceptional which is a surprise because he maneuvered hard to get it in the first place. Damon Bossino is my bet to succeed him. He's dynamic, popular and very very clever.
At the last election I persuaded the trader at Stan James (a drinking pal from the pub) to price up the election here and a couple of other bookies copied his prices. But he's moved on since then so I don't know if anyone will trade it. If they do my vote and my money will be going in different directions.
I hope that helps, and thanks for asking.
Edit to remove rogue apostrophe
What I think leaders could afford to do would be to make it known that occasional dissent on matters not affecting the survival of the Government would be tolerated, rather than the current arrangement that breaking a 3-line whip on anything at all means dismissal. This already exists in subterranean form, in that people make excuses for abstention and the whips look the other way. Perhaps making only survival issues (e.g. the Budget) a 2-line whip is the way forward.
Voters could, of course, facilitate independence by voting for it. Loads of people told me they'd vote for me if I stood as an independent, but even if they had, it would have been deceitful (since I'm a pretty loyal lefty) and would simply have split the vote from the mass of voters who simply pick a party. I think you do need the Work of Satan (aka PR) to facilitate genuine nuance of choice, as we're seeing in Denmark this week - a clear choice of two blocs, but five varieties on each side to choose from.
If you're worried about my political correctness, do have a look at Sir Edric's Temple, on Amazon.
You and Mr. Palmer may be right. But PR is loathsome, and I'd sooner stick with the status quo than move that way.
It clearly marks out their concentrated bellendery, broken-brainedness and general unworthiness of any further consideration.
I watch the Parliament channel most days and I have to say they are a pretty uninspiring lot, especially the ladies. All I've heard is 'savage cuts' and 'childcare'. If women want to be taken seriously for the top jobs, then (and this applies to all parties) they have to start discussing and taking part in defence and foreign affairs questions.
I think Labour's all women short-lists are now having a detrimental impact on the quality of female MPs'. This also applies to the 'Union stooges.'
Unless my eyes are failing me, I could have sworn I saw a female Labour MP wearing flip flops in the HoC!!
Although not a Labour supporter as you can guess, I think Parliament is much better for having a strong opposition and I don't see this happening anytime soon.
The naming is a trolling exercise by the Obama administration.
After they managed to get the "USS John P Murtha" past true patriots they're just taking the piss with this one.
You can find it on 4OD I hope. Well worth 60mins investment.
http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/06/uss-gabrielle-giffords-christened-gun-free/
OK, reading the article in full, it is clearly an Onion-type article.
*SNPers may be amused to hear I typoed that as 'Union' originally
To take abortion as an issue, if the Conservative Party (or indeed Labour though I consider it less likely) elected a leader whose view on abortion was discovered, after the election, to be out of step with the party majority, what (if any) difference would it make ?
If said leader, while remaining firm to their personal view, continued to follow the party line, there would be no issue and, as a member, I wouldn't have a problem. If the leader instigated a debate within the party with a view to changing the policy, would that be a concern ?
DavidL's point is true but depressing. It seems strange that party leaders espouse democracy for others (particularly in countries ruled by despots) but often lead their parties in a quasi-despotic way. For example, why is the Prime Minister so concerned about Ministers on both sides of the EU Referendum argument ? The short answer may be that he wants all his Ministers to publicly support HIS re-negotiated terms and collective responsibility as a meme of Cabinet Government implies the Prime Minister should be able to expect that from his Cabinet.
Is it therefore impossible for a Cabinet Minister to remain in post if not supporting the Prime Minister's re-negotiated terms ? You'd have to think so. The problem is unlike 1975 it's not a free vote on a simple proposition.