Yes it is quite amazing how compact each of the Houses are. Even more so it must be when most of the standing room is occupied. Of course the HoC was not built for 650 MPs and the HoL has even more members.
If one may ask, where do you and your drunker Lord friend end up? Was that before Portcullis house was built?
I once had the chance to stand at the PM's Dispatch Box [very late night drunken tour by even drunker Lord] and it's the most intimidating place, even when empty.
It's such a tight space/surrounded by massed ranks of seats within just a few feet. I can imagine the roar being deafening and those stood behind it feeling the soundwaves.
I wonder if Corbyn will be a bit disconcerted by having to speak from the front bench? Has he spent his entire time in Parliament sitting and speaking from the back bench (against the back wall) on either side of the chamber? I can imagine that speaking from the front bench might feel very different, in a physical sense, and potentially far less comfortable, especially for someone who has got so used to where he is.
I've sat through a Starred Debate in the House of Lords having written the government brief. Those are fun because, unlike PQs, follow up questions do not have to bear any relation to the original question provided they are on the same very general subject (in this case Uganda - so follow ups could have been on any aspect of UK relations with Uganda). The debate is (or at least was in those days) more genteel than in the Commons, but questions could and did come out of left field, hence the civil servant sitting behind the Lord representing HMG.
Recidivist.... in those day the longest support props we could take down were six foot long and coal is a soft material..props just smash through it when the weight comes on..The seam must be supported on what was called Metal.. which was actually a very hard tough stone....Hydraulic props over five feet tall were very heavy and no doubt expensive....often a roof would drop before all of the supporting props were taken out..so wood was the cheapest way to do it..It could be massively different these days tho..no doubt some Coal Mine Man could bring us up to date..
What enemies of the UK has he stood shoulder to shoulder since the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland nearly two decades ago? (I dispute that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the IRA anyway, but accepting your definitions for now.)
Do you count the dictator Hugo Chavez?
Oooh, er! Let's see now, Thatcher was friends with Pinochet, Ceaușescu and many others that both you and I wouldn't like to live under. Blair was friendly with GWB and Muammar Gaddafi both of whom some people consider war criminals and guilty of crimes against humanity.
Some times, politicians have to befriend people to influence some sort of dialogue, whether they think the person is insane, evil or stupid is beside the point.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Pinochet - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Ceaucescu - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Saddam Hussein - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Suharto - millions Political killings at the hands of democratically elected Chavez - ~0 Tory ignorance of the real world - priceless.
I wouldn't play this game if I were you.
How about:
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Stalin - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Ceaucescu - ? Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Castro - tens of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Tito - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Mao - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Pol Pot - millions
We headed to the HoL about 2330 after too much horrible plonk on the Terrace, had a tour of that Other Place, the Queen's Robing Room - some lessons on etiquette from a very helpful official chappy en route and ended up in the HoC checking out the Speaker's Chair - and he dared me to try out the Dispatch Box and make a speech.
We somehow made it out without getting caught and then it all goes a bit blank. I awoke with an evil hangover back at my hotel - on my own!
Portcullis House is a soul sapping place and so cramped for a new building. I saw a very fat MP get stuck in the pod entrance too.
Yes it is quite amazing how compact each of the Houses are. Even more so it must be when most of the standing room is occupied. Of course the HoC was not built for 650 MPs and the HoL has even more members.
If one may ask, where do you and your drunker Lord friend end up? Was that before Portcullis house was built?
I once had the chance to stand at the PM's Dispatch Box [very late night drunken tour by even drunker Lord] and it's the most intimidating place, even when empty.
It's such a tight space/surrounded by massed ranks of seats within just a few feet. I can imagine the roar being deafening and those stood behind it feeling the soundwaves.
I wonder if Corbyn will be a bit disconcerted by having to speak from the front bench? Has he spent his entire time in Parliament sitting and speaking from the back bench (against the back wall) on either side of the chamber? I can imagine that speaking from the front bench might feel very different, in a physical sense, and potentially far less comfortable, especially for someone who has got so used to where he is.
Plato.. I made a short speech at the Despatch Box.. short because the Security men found me and booted me out... I was on a recce for a drama shoot there..and yes the place really is small..
Plato.. I made a short speech at the Despatch Box.. short because the Security men found me and booted me out... I was on a recce for a drama shoot there..and yes the place really is small..
Took my family from Spain round last summer. Photographed children sat in the speaker's chair and at the dispatch box. Did the whole tour and luckily as it was a fine day the terrace was very pleasant for the odd few tipples, whilst the children ran around a bit.
Agree Portcullis House seems to have been a lost opportunity on the inside.
We headed to the HoL about 2330 after too much horrible plonk on the Terrace, had a tour of that Other Place, the Queen's Robing Room - some lessons on etiquette from a very helpful official chappy en route and ended up in the HoC checking out the Speaker's Chair - and he dared me to try out the Dispatch Box and make a speech.
We somehow made it out without getting caught and then it all goes a bit blank. I awoke with an evil hangover back at my hotel - on my own!
Portcullis House is a soul sapping place and so cramped for a new building. I saw a very fat MP get stuck in the pod entrance too.
Yes it is quite amazing how compact each of the Houses are. Even more so it must be when most of the standing room is occupied. Of course the HoC was not built for 650 MPs and the HoL has even more members.
If one may ask, where do you and your drunker Lord friend end up? Was that before Portcullis house was built?
I once had the chance to stand at the PM's Dispatch Box [very late night drunken tour by even drunker Lord] and it's the most intimidating place, even when empty.
It's such a tight space/surrounded by massed ranks of seats within just a few feet. I can imagine the roar being deafening and those stood behind it feeling the soundwaves.
I wonder if Corbyn will be a bit disconcerted by having to speak from the front bench? Has he spent his entire time in Parliament sitting and speaking from the back bench (against the back wall) on either side of the chamber? I can imagine that speaking from the front bench might feel very different, in a physical sense, and potentially far less comfortable, especially for someone who has got so used to where he is.
Compassion. What Corbynites’ political views are inspired by, along with empathy, kindness, decency and fellow feeling. That and Aneurin Bevan’s dictum that all Tories are “lower than vermin”.
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
.
Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for decades. He has observed minute silences for the murderers of British troops. If you are comfortable with that, so be it.
But there have been times when our Armed Forces have been used as instruments of evil. When that has happened - Iraq in 2003 for example - human decency would have been best served by their being defeated.
Common decency would have it that British mother's lost their sons, British wives their husbands and British children their fathers because you feel that they were used as an instrument of evil? What an interesting view! I suppose you burn guns rather than jail murderers as well ? Meanwhile it would have made precisely no difference to the overall outcome, but might salve your conscience a bit ?
...
...
The true traitors are those who turn a blind eye to evil when committed by their own country. Doubtless had you been a German you would have seen Stauffenberg as a traitor and heartily approved of Freisler's People's Court verdicts.
You don't have to be German to see that von Stauffenberg was a traitor.
But he was a good brave man - being a traitor when faced with evil is a label to be worn with pride. Far better that than be an accomplice to evil by one's own country. I am sure there are many Americans who were happy to see the US defeated in Vietnam.
The US were not defeated in Vietnam. They successfully bombed North Vietnam, if not back to the stone age, then back to the Paris Peace Conference Table. They 'Vietnamesed' the South's army and withdrew. It was only thanks to a Democrat controlled Congress which banned any other land sea and air involvement that encouraged the North to mount a full army invasion which broke the terms of the peace treaty and defeated the Souths army. The North of course then commenced murdering anybody of an official nature they could lay their hands on - including vietcong. I'm sure these people and the boat people that survived these massacres, fully appreciated this US 'defeat' which you describe.
"And the Iraq War was a brilliant success, if it hadn't been for that pesky socialist Obama"
What enemies of the UK has he stood shoulder to shoulder since the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland nearly two decades ago? (I dispute that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the IRA anyway, but accepting your definitions for now.)
Do you count the dictator Hugo Chavez?
Oooh, er! Let's see now, Thatcher was friends with Pinochet, Ceaușescu and many others that both you and I wouldn't like to live under. Blair was friendly with GWB and Muammar Gaddafi both of whom some people consider war criminals and guilty of crimes against humanity.
Some times, politicians have to befriend people to influence some sort of dialogue, whether they think the person is insane, evil or stupid is beside the point.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Pinochet - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Ceaucescu - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Saddam Hussein - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Suharto - millions Political killings at the hands of democratically elected Chavez - ~0 Tory ignorance of the real world - priceless.
I wouldn't play this game if I were you.
How about:
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Stalin - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Ceaucescu - ? Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Castro - tens of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Tito - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Mao - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Pol Pot - millions
What enemies of the UK has he stood shoulder to shoulder since the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland nearly two decades ago? (I dispute that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the IRA anyway, but accepting your definitions for now.)
Do you count the dictator Hugo Chavez?
Oooh, er! Let's see now, Thatcher was friends with Pinochet, Ceaușescu and many others that both you and I wouldn't like to live under. Blair was friendly with GWB and Muammar Gaddafi both of whom some people consider war criminals and guilty of crimes against humanity.
Some times, politicians have to befriend people to influence some sort of dialogue, whether they think the person is insane, evil or stupid is beside the point.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Pinochet - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Ceaucescu - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Saddam Hussein - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Suharto - millions Political killings at the hands of democratically elected Chavez - ~0 Tory ignorance of the real world - priceless.
I wouldn't play this game if I were you.
How about:
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Stalin - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Ceaucescu - ? Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Castro - tens of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Tito - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Mao - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Pol Pot - millions
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
.
Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for decades. He has observed minute silences for the murderers of British troops. If you are comfortable with that, so be it.
But there have been times when our Armed Forces have been used as instruments of evil. When that has happened - Iraq in 2003 for example - human decency would have been best served by their being defeated.
Common decency would have it that British mother's lost their sons, British wives their husbands and British children their fathers because you feel that they were used as an instrument of evil? What an interesting view! I suppose you burn guns rather than jail murderers as well ? Meanwhile it would have made precisely no difference to the overall outcome, but might salve your conscience a bit ?
...
...
The true traitors are those who turn a blind eye to evil when committed by their own country. Doubtless had you been a German you would have seen Stauffenberg as a traitor and heartily approved of Freisler's People's Court verdicts.
You don't have to be German to see that von Stauffenberg was a traitor.
But he was a good brave man - being a traitor when faced with evil is a label to be worn with pride. Far better that than be an accomplice to evil by one's own country. I am sure there are many Americans who were happy to see the US defeated in Vietnam.
The US were not defeated in Vietnam. They successfully bombed North Vietnam, if not back to the stone age, then back to the Paris Peace Conference Table. They 'Vietnamesed' the South's army and withdrew. It was only thanks to a Democrat controlled Congress which banned any other land sea and air involvement that encouraged the North to mount a full army invasion which broke the terms of the peace treaty and defeated the Souths army. The North of course then commenced murdering anybody of an official nature they could lay their hands on - including vietcong. I'm sure these people and the boat people that survived these massacres, fully appreciated this US 'defeat' which you describe.
You object to " defeated ", would you at least agree that the US lost in Vietnam?
What enemies of the UK has he stood shoulder to shoulder since the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland nearly two decades ago? (I dispute that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the IRA anyway, but accepting your definitions for now.)
Do you count the dictator Hugo Chavez?
Oooh, er! Let's see now, Thatcher was friends with Pinochet, Ceaușescu and many others that both you and I wouldn't like to live under. Blair was friendly with GWB and Muammar Gaddafi both of whom some people consider war criminals and guilty of crimes against humanity.
Some times, politicians have to befriend people to influence some sort of dialogue, whether they think the person is insane, evil or stupid is beside the point.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Pinochet - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Ceaucescu - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Saddam Hussein - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Suharto - millions Political killings at the hands of democratically elected Chavez - ~0 Tory ignorance of the real world - priceless.
I wouldn't play this game if I were you.
How about:
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Stalin - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Ceaucescu - ? Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Castro - tens of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Tito - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Mao - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Pol Pot - millions
Indeed, Hussein, Ceaucescu and Suharto had many Labour apologists too. Who can forget George Galloway's visit to and praise of Saddam?
What enemies of the UK has he stood shoulder to shoulder since the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland nearly two decades ago? (I dispute that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the IRA anyway, but accepting your definitions for now.)
Do you count the dictator Hugo Chavez?
Oooh, er! Let's see now, Thatcher was friends with Pinochet, Ceaușescu and many others that both you and I wouldn't like to live under. Blair was friendly with GWB and Muammar Gaddafi both of whom some people consider war criminals and guilty of crimes against humanity.
Some times, politicians have to befriend people to influence some sort of dialogue, whether they think the person is insane, evil or stupid is beside the point.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Pinochet - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Ceaucescu - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Saddam Hussein - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Suharto - millions Political killings at the hands of democratically elected Chavez - ~0 Tory ignorance of the real world - priceless.
I wouldn't play this game if I were you.
How about:
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Stalin - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Ceaucescu - ? Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Castro - tens of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Tito - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Mao - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Pol Pot - millions
Is Nikolai being claimed for both sides here ?
He was a communist who was officially an ally of the USSR but regarded as america's man in the enemy camp.
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
It is the current Tory government that has earmarked billions to support carbon capture and storage. Guess they must be loony left greenies too.
There is a massive difference between funding small-scale projects to investigate new and untried technology (such as White Rose), and - as Ed did - banning any new coal-fired power stations unless they used the new and untried technology.
It was absolute madness, and the fact he did it after being harangued by a z-list celebrity shows why we had a lucky escape from him being PM.
Funnily enough, the old coal board back in the 60's and 70's was a world leader in cleaning and scrubbing coal fumes. The governments then didn't want to use the technology as it would increase the cost of the coal fired power stations. Believe it or not, the cost was peanuts compared to the price of the building of the power stations.
I understand that the by products of the scrubbing process would have been able to offset the costs to the extent of making a decent profit .
Might be interesting to see what updating the technology solutions could do today.
I worked (in an exceptionally small way) on the flue gas desulpharisation scheme at Ratcliffe-on-Soar. ISTR it recalls one or two trains of limestone a day to operate - hardly peanuts in terms of cost.
Desulphurisation coal plants do produce a high quality gypsum from the reaction of the lime with the acid gas produced from combustion,this is usually used in plasterboard manufacture,and its abundance has all but finished the mining of natural gypsum. Interestingly enough,the waste from plasterboard production and use, then finds its way into cement manufacture to retard the curing rate.
What enemies of the UK has he stood shoulder to shoulder since the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland nearly two decades ago? (I dispute that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the IRA anyway, but accepting your definitions for now.)
Do you count the dictator Hugo Chavez?
Oooh, er! Let's see now, Thatcher was friends with Pinochet, Ceaușescu and many others that both you and I wouldn't like to live under. Blair was friendly with GWB and Muammar Gaddafi both of whom some people consider war criminals and guilty of crimes against humanity.
Some times, politicians have to befriend people to influence some sort of dialogue, whether they think the person is insane, evil or stupid is beside the point.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Pinochet - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Ceaucescu - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Saddam Hussein - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Suharto - millions Political killings at the hands of democratically elected Chavez - ~0 Tory ignorance of the real world - priceless.
I wouldn't play this game if I were you.
How about:
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Stalin - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Ceaucescu - ? Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Castro - tens of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Tito - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Mao - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Pol Pot - millions
Indeed, Hussein, Ceaucescu and Suharto had many Labour apologists too. Who can forget George Galloway's visit to and praise of Saddam?
Both camps have and still support questionable people for either ideological or foreign policy reasons.
Thatcher was a fierce supported of brutal communist dictator Pol Pot and brutal anti-communist dictator Pinochet at the same time, as long as they were anti-soviet.
I'm beginning to think that Mr Wisemann is yet another OGH nom de plume when he's feeling bored.
There are those on this site, Miss P, who are posting under new names. There are those who post under false pretenses i.e. pretending to be a person or of age etc. that they are not.. Then there are those who are real people, who can, and sometimes have been, met in person. It is only the last group that are worth engaging with.
You still owe me lunch (but only when you are feeling better).
By some accounts, his rule was the most rigidly Stalinist in the Soviet bloc !
Yeap, but he didn't follow Moscow's orders, you see the key in the cold war was that the west supported anyone who was willing to stand up to the soviets, no matter what he did.
This debate's just getting silly. For right or wrong, the UK electorate will support (or at least not care significantly about) any arguably dubious foreign policy as long as it is seen as being pursued in the UK national interest. And in a discussion about "electability" that is all that matters.
This debate's just getting silly. For right or wrong, the UK electorate will support (or at least not care significantly about) any arguably dubious foreign policy as long as it is seen as being pursued in the UK national interest. And in a discussion about "electability" that is all that matters.
I agree, but parliament not the government should have final say on foreign policy.
This debate's just getting silly. For right or wrong, the UK electorate will support (or at least not care significantly about) any arguably dubious foreign policy as long as it is seen as being pursued in the UK national interest. And in a discussion about "electability" that is all that matters.
I agree, but parliament not the government should have final say on foreign policy.
Bit of a non-sequitur (I think?), but depends what you mean by foreign policy and the level of presumed Parliamentary involvement. Much of foreign policy must inevitably be conducted in secret, with Parliament only receiving periodic updates, and occasionally being called upon to provide official approval eg. signing of treaties, maybe declarations of war etc. Although what happens when a declaration of war is made obligatory by a previous treaty?
What enemies of the UK has he stood shoulder to shoulder since the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland nearly two decades ago? (I dispute that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the IRA anyway, but accepting your definitions for now.)
Do you count the dictator Hugo Chavez?
Ogainst humanity.
Some times, politicians have to befriend people to influence some sort of dialogue, whether they think the person is insane, evil or stupid is beside the point.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Po Tory ignorance of the real world - priceless.
I wouldn't play this game if I were you.
How about:
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Stalin - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Ceaucescu - ? Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Castro - tens of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Tito - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Mao - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Pol Pot - millions
Indeed, Hussein, Ceaucescu and Suharto had many Labour apologists too. Who can forget George Galloway's visit to and praise of Saddam?
Both camps have and still support questionable people for either ideological or foreign policy reasons.
Thatcher was a fierce supported of brutal communist dictator Pol Pot and brutal anti-communist dictator Pinochet at the same time, as long as they were anti-soviet.
i lways find it amusing how much Pinochet is brought up by the left. He was a military dictator for 27 years, and handed over power peacefully to a democratic country at the end of it. It is thought that about 3,500 people were directly killed or just disappeared under the regime. That number needs a bit of perspective. Here is a league table.
So if Hitler was Jupitor, and Stalin was Saturn, with Idi Amin being maybe mercury. On that scale Pinochet would rank as Charon the tiny little moon that orbits Mars.
So why the outrage over this one man? We all know the reason, it was because he was the wrong kind of military dictator. He believed in a free market liberalised economy.
OchEye there is a massive amount of coal under the British Isles..unfortunately some of the seams are too thick..over six feet high..and deep to mine..
Curious. My point was, using robot technology along with 3D mapping is that we are only at the beginning of possibilities which doesn't put human lives at risk underground, or at risk of bolshie miners for the continuation of power supplies.
There is, believe it or not, a major supply of manganese nodules lying on the sea bed between the Falklands and Australia which, the last I heard admittedly a few years ago, are being investigated for sub sea robotic mining/harvesting.
Scientists are thinking about robotic mining in the asteroid belt.
What enemies of the UK has he stood shoulder to shoulder since the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland nearly two decades ago? (I dispute that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the IRA anyway, but accepting your definitions for now.)
Do you count the dictator Hugo Chavez?
Oooh, er! Let's see now, Thatcher was friends with Pinochet, Ceaușescu and many others that both you and I wouldn't like to live under. Blair was friendly with GWB and Muammar Gaddafi both of whom some people consider war criminals and guilty of crimes against humanity.
Some times, politicians have to befriend people to influence some sort of dialogue, whether they think the person is insane, evil or stupid is beside the point.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Pinochet - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Ceaucescu - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Saddam Hussein - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Suharto - millions Political killings at the hands of democratically elected Chavez - ~0 Tory ignorance of the real world - priceless.
I wouldn't play this game if I were you.
How about:
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Stalin - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Ceaucescu - ? Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Castro - tens of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Tito - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Mao - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Pol Pot - millions
This debate's just getting silly. For right or wrong, the UK electorate will support (or at least not care significantly about) any arguably dubious foreign policy as long as it is seen as being pursued in the UK national interest. And in a discussion about "electability" that is all that matters.
I agree, but parliament not the government should have final say on foreign policy.
Bit of a non-sequitur (I think?), but depends what you mean by foreign policy and the level of presumed Parliamentary involvement. Much of foreign policy must inevitably be conducted in secret, with Parliament only receiving periodic updates, and occasionally being called upon to provide official approval eg. signing of treaties, maybe declarations of war etc. Although what happens when a declaration of war is made obligatory by a previous treaty?
That's why parliament must have more say. The government more often than not will tend to mess around if not checked.
Also Flightpath should look at this documentary on why America lost in Vietnam:
People in South Vietnam had the impression they were occupied by the americans and they didn't like the clash of culture and corruption that american troops brought there, the american army was so corrupt they even sold tanks to the communists in the black market. From start to finish the south vietnamese saw the communists as national liberators.
Och Eye..Robots are expensive..not yet developed for deep seam mining and the support system would still need to be in place..but no doubt it could be done..cheaper to import coal from Mars probably..
Och Eye..Robots are expensive..not yet developed for deep seam mining and the support system would still need to be in place..but no doubt it could be done..cheaper to import coal from Mars probably..
If there was coal on mars. I read a study 15 years ago that said that Britain had enough coal reserves to last till the 25th century.
Speedy... it was probably right.. and who knows.. one day we may need to go back to digging the stuff out again..first tho we need to get rid of the Greens ..dadum
Speedy... it was probably right.. and who knows.. one day we may need to go back to digging the stuff out again..first tho we need to get rid of the Greens ..dadum
I'm against coal as a source of energy. It is no longer needed, there are cheaper and cleaner ways to produce energy with today's technology. Though coal is still needed in the metals and chemicals industry.
Och Eye..Robots are expensive..not yet developed for deep seam mining and the support system would still need to be in place..but no doubt it could be done..cheaper to import coal from Mars probably..
If there was coal on mars. I read a study 15 years ago that said that Britain had enough coal reserves to last till the 25th century.
The reserves will last a lot longer than that if we're not mining them.
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
.
?
I don't distinguish between people on the basis of nationality. You appear to do so. Everything you have said about British mothers-wives-husbands - children etc - could be said about the many Iraqi victims. The only real difference ,of course, is that the British had no business being there. We were the aggressor and that is why I yearn to see Blair brought before the Hague Court. Failing that seeing him share the fate of Bin Laden - including being dumped at sea - would be very welcome.
So you are just as much as traitor as Corbyn then... thanks for the heads up
"... organization to undermine our soldiers and give aid and succor to the enemy"
The true traitors are those who turn a blind eye to evil when committed by their own country. Doubtless had you been a German you would have seen Stauffenberg as a traitor and heartily approved of Freisler's People's Court verdicts.
You don't have to be German to see that von Stauffenberg was a traitor.
But he was a good brave man - being a traitor when faced with evil is a label to be worn with pride. Far better that than be an accomplice to evil by one's own country. I am sure there are many Americans who were happy to see the US defeated in Vietnam.
Fortunately for the sane amongst us should you and you fellow believers get too carried away, the Treason Act 1351 (as amended) is still in force
Undoubtedly there are people who will back our Armed Forces unconditionally even when confronted with the clearest evidence of their having committed SS type atrocities. Perhaps you are such a person. I can only say that such people not only show themselves to be utterly hypocritical when they condemn similar acts by other countries, they reveal themselves to be morally and spiritually destitute.
@Indigo Undoubtedly there are people who will back our Armed Forces unconditionally even when confronted with the clearest evidence of their having committed SS type atrocities. Perhaps you are such a person. I can only say that such people not only show themselves to be utterly hypocritical when they condemn similar acts by other countries, they reveal themselves to be morally and spiritually destitute.
Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement. One thing is for sure, the repercussions of JC winning the leadership race will have a profound effect within the Labour party over the next few years, whether they will split into two factions etc is hard to call, but it certainly will not be the same party come 2020 as it was at GE2015.
Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)
The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
great to see the focus on improving our defence is working well - we managed to scrape a draw with just a 2-0 lead & 12 mins left - normal spurs defence would have seen a defeat having been in that precarious a position....
Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement. One thing is for sure, the repercussions of JC winning the leadership race will have a profound effect within the Labour party over the next few years, whether they will split into two factions etc is hard to call, but it certainly will not be the same party come 2020 as it was at GE2015.
Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)
The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
They could raise it differently, though - pursue a higher top rate of tax?
Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement. One thing is for sure, the repercussions of JC winning the leadership race will have a profound effect within the Labour party over the next few years, whether they will split into two factions etc is hard to call, but it certainly will not be the same party come 2020 as it was at GE2015.
Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)
The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
If Holyrood raises income tax by 1%, your pocket money is decreased by the same amount? That can't be right, and if it is, it should be changed. The whole point for the power was to let Scotland raise their own money to fund whatever they wanted.
Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement. One thing is for sure, the repercussions of JC winning the leadership race will have a profound effect within the Labour party over the next few years, whether they will split into two factions etc is hard to call, but it certainly will not be the same party come 2020 as it was at GE2015.
Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)
The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
They could raise it differently, though - pursue a higher top rate of tax?
Yes that would work well, raise an absolute fortune, when we are tied to and our budgets are all decided by London how could we ever vary the tax up , another idiot economist.
Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement. One thing is for sure, the repercussions of JC winning the leadership race will have a profound effect within the Labour party over the next few years, whether they will split into two factions etc is hard to call, but it certainly will not be the same party come 2020 as it was at GE2015.
Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)
The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
If Holyrood raises income tax by 1%, your pocket money is decreased by the same amount? That can't be right, and if it is, it should be changed. The whole point for the power was to let Scotland raise their own money to fund whatever they wanted.
There is no power Rob, all that happens is they say oh income tax is £x billion and then they whip the same amount off the budget. It is a con , there are no transfers of powers, only sleight of hand on some numerics..
POS , unless you have real power across a range of taxes it is just a sham.
Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement. One thing is for sure, the repercussions of JC winning the leadership race will have a profound effect within the Labour party over the next few years, whether they will split into two factions etc is hard to call, but it certainly will not be the same party come 2020 as it was at GE2015.
Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)
The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
If Holyrood raises income tax by 1%, your pocket money is decreased by the same amount? That can't be right, and if it is, it should be changed. The whole point for the power was to let Scotland raise their own money to fund whatever they wanted.
There is no power Rob, all that happens is they say oh income tax is £x billion and then they whip the same amount off the budget. It is a con , there are no transfers of powers, only sleight of hand on some numerics..
POS , unless you have real power across a range of taxes it is just a sham.
Not that I don't trust you malc , but I wonder if anyone else could chime in on this on what the exact powers (or 'powers') are.
Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement. One thing is for sure, the repercussions of JC winning the leadership race will have a profound effect within the Labour party over the next few years, whether they will split into two factions etc is hard to call, but it certainly will not be the same party come 2020 as it was at GE2015.
Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)
The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
They could raise it differently, though - pursue a higher top rate of tax?
Yes that would work well, raise an absolute fortune, when we are tied to and our budgets are all decided by London how could we ever vary the tax up , another idiot economist.
I thought the top rate of tax was justified whether or not it raised additional revenues for the Treasury?
Plato.. I made a short speech at the Despatch Box.. short because the Security men found me and booted me out... I was on a recce for a drama shoot there..and yes the place really is small..
When the Stone of Scone was returned to Scotland, it was placed in the Great Hall of Edinburgh Castle for the ceremony which was televised. After the camera rehearsal while the officials had wandered off, one of the cameramen had a quick seat on it, just to see if it worked
great to see the focus on improving our defence is working well - we managed to scrape a draw with just a 2-0 lead & 12 mins left - normal spurs defence would have seen a defeat having been in that precarious a position....
And next week you have to face Leicester City. Have you noticed that we are top of the league and scored six in two games?
Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement. One thing is for sure, the repercussions of JC winning the leadership race will have a profound effect within the Labour party over the next few years, whether they will split into two factions etc is hard to call, but it certainly will not be the same party come 2020 as it was at GE2015.
Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)
The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
If Holyrood raises income tax by 1%, your pocket money is decreased by the same amount? That can't be right, and if it is, it should be changed. The whole point for the power was to let Scotland raise their own money to fund whatever they wanted.
There is no power Rob, all that happens is they say oh income tax is £x billion and then they whip the same amount off the budget. It is a con , there are no transfers of powers, only sleight of hand on some numerics..
POS , unless you have real power across a range of taxes it is just a sham.
Not that I don't trust you malc , but I wonder if anyone else could chime in on this on what the exact powers (or 'powers') are.
great to see the focus on improving our defence is working well - we managed to scrape a draw with just a 2-0 lead & 12 mins left - normal spurs defence would have seen a defeat having been in that precarious a position....
And next week you have to face Leicester City. Have you noticed that we are top of the league and scored six in two games?
I have indeed - great form & no points for my lot nor I fear the week after against Everton.
I'm already looking at the big match for Spurs though and that's in 3 games time when we have our 6-pointer with Sunderland. Lose that and it's cheerio Poch.
Well it would be normally but this season has clearly been written off anyway and its all about the stadium really. Fans & Sky money just to be milked until then.....
Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)
The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
They could raise it differently, though - pursue a higher top rate of tax?
Yes that would work well, raise an absolute fortune, when we are tied to and our budgets are all decided by London how could we ever vary the tax up , another idiot economist.
I thought the top rate of tax was justified whether or not it raised additional revenues for the Treasury?
If it does not raise money it is totally pointless
Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)
The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
If Holyrood raises income tax by 1%, your pocket money is decreased by the same amount? That can't be right, and if it is, it should be changed. The whole point for the power was to let Scotland raise their own money to fund whatever they wanted.
There is no power Rob, all that happens is they say oh income tax is £x billion and then they whip the same amount off the budget. It is a con , there are no transfers of powers, only sleight of hand on some numerics..
POS , unless you have real power across a range of taxes it is just a sham.
Malcolm is right to say that Scottish varying powers were and are rather limited... are any changes coming in post-referendum?
Nevertheless I'm not sure whether the Westminster government would cut Edinburgh's budget accordingly. Although it can do so, surely people like Malcolm would be all over it. Not sure Cameron would touch it with a barge pole.
Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)
The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
fund whatever they wanted.
There is no power Rob, all that happens is they say oh income tax is £x billion and then they whip the same amount off the budget. It is a con , there are no transfers of powers, only sleight of hand on some numerics..
POS , unless you have real power across a range of taxes it is just a sham.
Malcolm is right to say that Scottish varying powers were and are rather limited... are any changes coming in post-referendum?
Nevertheless I'm not sure whether the Westminster government would cut Edinburgh's budget accordingly. Although it can do so, surely people like Malcolm would be all over it. Not sure Cameron would touch it with a barge pole.
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is required, you need control of multiple taxes to be able to make a difference, it is just like a bludgeon , increase and you lose jobs, decrease and you slash public services , an absolute poisoned chalice. Hence why it was chosen.
Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
[...] The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
fund whatever they wanted.
There is no power Rob, all that happens is they say oh income tax is £x billion and then they whip the same amount off the budget. It is a con , there are no transfers of powers, only sleight of hand on some numerics..
POS , unless you have real power across a range of taxes it is just a sham.
Malcolm is right to say that Scottish varying powers were and are rather limited... are any changes coming in post-referendum?
Nevertheless I'm not sure whether the Westminster government would cut Edinburgh's budget accordingly. Although it can do so, surely people like Malcolm would be all over it. Not sure Cameron would touch it with a barge pole.
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is required, you need control of multiple taxes to be able to make a difference, it is just like a bludgeon , increase and you lose jobs, decrease and you slash public services , an absolute poisoned chalice. Hence why it was chosen.
It's a definite straightjacket at the moment.
Will the referendum-related powers affect anything?
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is required, you need control of multiple taxes to be able to make a difference, it is just like a bludgeon , increase and you lose jobs, decrease and you slash public services , an absolute poisoned chalice. Hence why it was chosen.
I don't see why they'd be opposed to the SNP raising income tax. Wasn't the Chancellor goading them into using the powers in his recent Budget?
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is required, you need control of multiple taxes to be able to make a difference, it is just like a bludgeon , increase and you lose jobs, decrease and you slash public services , an absolute poisoned chalice. Hence why it was chosen.
I don't see why they'd be opposed to the SNP raising income tax. Wasn't the Chancellor goading them into using the powers in his recent Budget?
Under the 2012 settlement, they can only vary all the rates of income tax. So they'd have to add a penny to get 21/41/46 for example.
Clearly there was never any intention of them using that.
i lways find it amusing how much Pinochet is brought up by the left. He was a military dictator for 27 years, and handed over power peacefully to a democratic country at the end of it. It is thought that about 3,500 people were directly killed or just disappeared under the regime. That number needs a bit of perspective. Here is a league table.
So if Hitler was Jupitor, and Stalin was Saturn, with Idi Amin being maybe mercury. On that scale Pinochet would rank as Charon the tiny little moon that orbits Mars.
So why the outrage over this one man? We all know the reason, it was because he was the wrong kind of military dictator. He believed in a free market liberalised economy.
Also he committed two other atrocious sins: 1, he overthrew some filthy commie, who was about to destroy Chile, and 2, he went on to turn Chile into the most prosperous, stable nation in South America.
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is required, you need control of multiple taxes to be able to make a difference, it is just like a bludgeon , increase and you lose jobs, decrease and you slash public services , an absolute poisoned chalice. Hence why it was chosen.
I don't see why they'd be opposed to the SNP raising income tax. Wasn't the Chancellor goading them into using the powers in his recent Budget?
Under the 2012 settlement, they can only vary all the rates of income tax. So they'd have to add a penny to get 21/41/46 for example.
Clearly there was never any intention of them using that.
Ah I see, I had thought it was only the higher/additional rate they could change. Didn't realise they were all tied together.
i lways find it amusing how much Pinochet is brought up by the left. He was a military dictator for 27 years, and handed over power peacefully to a democratic country at the end of it. It is thought that about 3,500 people were directly killed or just disappeared under the regime. That number needs a bit of perspective. Here is a league table.
So if Hitler was Jupitor, and Stalin was Saturn, with Idi Amin being maybe mercury. On that scale Pinochet would rank as Charon the tiny little moon that orbits Mars.
So why the outrage over this one man? We all know the reason, it was because he was the wrong kind of military dictator. He believed in a free market liberalised economy.
Also he committed two other atrocious sins: 1, he overthrew some filthy commie, who was about to destroy Chile, and 2, he went on to turn Chile into the most prosperous, stable nation in South America.
What enemies of the UK has he stood shoulder to shoulder since the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland nearly two decades ago? (I dispute that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the IRA anyway, but accepting your definitions for now.)
Do you count the dictator Hugo Chavez?
On is insane, evil or stupid is beside the point.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Po Tory ignorance of the real world - priceless.
I wouldn't play this game if I were you.
- millions
I visit to and praise of Saddam?
Both s a fierce supported of brutal communist dictator Pol Pot and brutal anti-communist dictator Pinochet at the same time, as long as they were anti-soviet.
i lways find it amusing how much Pinochet is brought up by the left. He was a military dictator for 27 years, and handed over power peacefully to a democratic country at the end of it. It is thought that about 3,500 people were directly killed or just disappeared under the regime. That number needs a bit of perspective. Here is a league table.
So if Hitler was Jupitor, and Stalin was Saturn, with Idi Amin being maybe mercury. On that scale Pinochet would rank as Charon the tiny little moon that orbits Mars.
So why the outrage over this one man? We all know the reason, it was because he was the wrong kind of military dictator. He believed in a free market liberalised economy.
Also he committed two other atrocious sins: 1, he overthrew some filthy commie, who was about to destroy Chile, and 2, he went on to turn Chile into the most prosperous, stable nation in South America.
It was quite a complicated mess, wasnt it? Wasnt Pinochet asked to take control by both the congress and the judiciary?
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is required, you need control of multiple taxes to be able to make a difference, it is just like a bludgeon , increase and you lose jobs, decrease and you slash public services , an absolute poisoned chalice. Hence why it was chosen.
Welcome to the real world. Increase taxes can be twinned with increase spending (if you believe you're the to the left of the laffer curve), decrease taxes is twinned with decreased spending.
Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)
The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
fund whatever they wanted.
There is no power Rob, all that happens is they say oh income tax is £x billion and then they whip the same amount off the budget. It is a con , there are no transfers of powers, only sleight of hand on some numerics..
POS , unless you have real power across a range of taxes it is just a sham.
Mh it can do so, surely people like Malcolm would be all over it. Not sure Cameron would touch it with a barge pole.
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is required, you need control of multiple taxes to be able to make a difference, it is just like a bludgeon , increase and you lose jobs, decrease and you slash public services , an absolute poisoned chalice. Hence why it was chosen.
Under the proposals that are being worked on, wont the Scottish Parliament soon have authority over a whole range of taxes (and spending)?
i lways find it amusing how much Pinochet is brought up by the left. He was a military dictator for 27 years, and handed over power peacefully to a democratic country at the end of it. It is thought that about 3,500 people were directly killed or just disappeared under the regime. That number needs a bit of perspective. Here is a league table.
So if Hitler was Jupitor, and Stalin was Saturn, with Idi Amin being maybe mercury. On that scale Pinochet would rank as Charon the tiny little moon that orbits Mars.
So why the outrage over this one man? We all know the reason, it was because he was the wrong kind of military dictator. He believed in a free market liberalised economy.
Also he committed two other atrocious sins: 1, he overthrew some filthy commie, who was about to destroy Chile, and 2, he went on to turn Chile into the most prosperous, stable nation in South America.
and 3: supported us re: Falklands.
That might be the gravest sin of all.
You may be mis remembering the Labour and Tory positions before the taskforce landed.
This is the Hansard for the recall debate, which is noteworthy for how strong Foot was in support of the taskforce:
And it was arch Thatcherite Nicholas Ridley who proposed in 1980 handing over the Falklands to the Argies, on a leaseback deal supported by the cabinet.
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is required, you need control of multiple taxes to be able to make a difference, it is just like a bludgeon , increase and you lose jobs, decrease and you slash public services , an absolute poisoned chalice. Hence why it was chosen.
I don't see why they'd be opposed to the SNP raising income tax. Wasn't the Chancellor goading them into using the powers in his recent Budget?
Under the 2012 settlement, they can only vary all the rates of income tax. So they'd have to add a penny to get 21/41/46 for example.
Clearly there was never any intention of them using that.
True but there is nothing that says the Scots cannot be required to pay more tax if the Scots' government wishes them to do so. I am sure more than a few of us on this site can remember when the BASIC rate of income tax was 33% and higher rates were even more extortionate. Other than that they have to keep the proportions between the rates, there is nothing to stop the Scots paying as much tax as they want to vote for.
i lways find it amusing how much Pinochet is brought up by the left. He was a military dictator for 27 years, and handed over power peacefully to a democratic country at the end of it. It is thought that about 3,500 people were directly killed or just disappeared under the regime. That number needs a bit of perspective. Here is a league table.
So if Hitler was Jupitor, and Stalin was Saturn, with Idi Amin being maybe mercury. On that scale Pinochet would rank as Charon the tiny little moon that orbits Mars.
So why the outrage over this one man? We all know the reason, it was because he was the wrong kind of military dictator. He believed in a free market liberalised economy.
Also he committed two other atrocious sins: 1, he overthrew some filthy commie, who was about to destroy Chile, and 2, he went on to turn Chile into the most prosperous, stable nation in South America.
and 3: supported us re: Falklands.
That might be the gravest sin of all.
You may be mis remembering the Labour and Tory positions before the taskforce landed.
This is the Hansard for the recall debate, which is noteworthy for how strong Foot was in support of the taskforce:
And it was arch Thatcherite Nicholas Ridley who proposed in 1980 handing over the Falklands to the Argies, on a leaseback deal supported by the cabinet.
Definitely, Foot was a much maligned figure for many reasons. He was a strong believer in peace, but also someone who knew the responsibility he held to support troops in battle. He was a patriot and was strongly against appeasement in the run up to WW2.
Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters
The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
fund whatever they wanted.
There is no power Rob, all that happens is they say oh income tax is £x billion and then they whip the same amount off the budget. It is a con , there are no transfers of powers, only sleight of hand on some numerics..
POS , unless you have real power across a range of taxes it is just a sham.
Mh it can do so, surely people like Malcolm would be all over it. Not sure Cameron would touch it with a barge pole.
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is required, you need control of multiple taxes to be able to make a difference, it is just like a bludgeon , increase and you lose jobs, decrease and you slash public services , an absolute poisoned chalice. Hence why it was chosen.
Under the proposals that are being worked on, wont the Scottish Parliament soon have authority over a whole range of taxes (and spending)?
Not the taxes which matter - APD, Corp Tax and Oil - SNP would be more likely to cut the taxes than raise them to boost the economy.
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is required, you need control of multiple taxes to be able to make a difference, it is just like a bludgeon , increase and you lose jobs, decrease and you slash public services , an absolute poisoned chalice. Hence why it was chosen.
I don't see why they'd be opposed to the SNP raising income tax. Wasn't the Chancellor goading them into using the powers in his recent Budget?
Under the 2012 settlement, they can only vary all the rates of income tax. So they'd have to add a penny to get 21/41/46 for example.
Clearly there was never any intention of them using that.
True but there is nothing that says the Scots cannot be required to pay more tax if the Scots' government wishes them to do so. I am sure more than a few of us on this site can remember when the BASIC rate of income tax was 33% and higher rates were even more extortionate. Other than that they have to keep the proportions between the rates, there is nothing to stop the Scots paying as much tax as they want to vote for.
Exactly. They can change the income tax rates if they want - they can cut them if they want. Why is being able to do this such a problem for the Nats? ts preposterous to suggest its been framed so they cannot use it.
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is required, you need control of multiple taxes to be able to make a difference, it is just like a bludgeon , increase and you lose jobs, decrease and you slash public services , an absolute poisoned chalice. Hence why it was chosen.
I don't see why they'd be opposed to the SNP raising income tax. Wasn't the Chancellor goading them into using the powers in his recent Budget?
Under the 2012 settlement, they can only vary all the rates of income tax. So they'd have to add a penny to get 21/41/46 for example.
Clearly there was never any intention of them using that.
True but there is nothing that says the Scots cannot be required to pay more tax if the Scots' government wishes them to do so. I am sure more than a few of us on this site can remember when the BASIC rate of income tax was 33% and higher rates were even more extortionate. Other than that they have to keep the proportions between the rates, there is nothing to stop the Scots paying as much tax as they want to vote for.
Exactly. They can change the income tax rates if they want - they can cut them if they want. Why is being able to do this such a problem for the Nats? ts preposterous to suggest its been framed so they cannot use it.
Hands up if you can name a chancellor that has ever added or reduced all rates of tax by the same amount? Or even nearly the same amount?
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is
But if the SNP start using those powers, they will be held responsible for what happens and won't be able to blame everything on the evil Westminster cabal that is stopping Scotland from being the bestest place in the whole world.
The SNP need to divert attention from their own record - once they have to stand by their own actions, support will melt away.
Hence why they make a lot of noise and then don't even use existing powers (let alone planning on using the new ones)
i lways find it amusing how much Pinochet is brought up by the left. He was a military dictator for 27 years, and handed over power peacefully to a democratic country at the end of it. It is thought that about 3,500 people were directly killed or just disappeared under the regime. That number needs a bit of perspective. Here is a league table.
So if Hitler was Jupitor, and Stalin was Saturn, with Idi Amin being maybe mercury. On that scale Pinochet would rank as Charon the tiny little moon that orbits Mars.
So why the outrage over this one man? We all know the reason, it was because he was the wrong kind of military dictator. He believed in a free market liberalised economy.
Also he committed two other atrocious sins: 1, he overthrew some filthy commie, who was about to destroy Chile, and 2, he went on to turn Chile into the most prosperous, stable nation in South America.
and 3: supported us re: Falklands.
That might be the gravest sin of all.
You may be mis remembering the Labour and Tory positions before the taskforce landed.
This is the Hansard for the recall debate, which is noteworthy for how strong Foot was in support of the taskforce:
And it was arch Thatcherite Nicholas Ridley who proposed in 1980 handing over the Falklands to the Argies, on a leaseback deal supported by the cabinet.
Quite right, Doc, it was also Thatcher's first Defence Minister who proposed such drastic reductions in the Royal Navy that sent out the signal that we had no intention of defending the Islands, or much else outside Germany come to that. If Galtieri had waited six months we could not have been able to get them back, which would no doubt have pleased many in the cabinet and the civil service.
Awoke from siesta to find Kezia Dugdale has been elected as the new leader of Scottish Labour, telling supporters: "We are down, but we are not out."
Never heard so much as a whisper of this new leader. Who she?? Surely a stopgap until the parties can find a fish big enough and strong enough to swallow the Sturgeon, whole.
Och Eye..Robots are expensive..not yet developed for deep seam mining and the support system would still need to be in place..but no doubt it could be done..cheaper to import coal from Mars probably..
If there was coal on mars. I read a study 15 years ago that said that Britain had enough coal reserves to last till the 25th century.
The reserves will last a lot longer than that if we're not mining them.
The coal reserves are geologically and thus commercially inaccessible. There are now reports that it may be possible to liquefy the coal and pump it up. ltrs hope its true. Although again it would have to be appropriate for our own geological conditions.
Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)
The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
fund whatever they wanted.
There is no power Rob, all that happens is they say oh income tax is £x billion and then they whip the same amount off the budget. It is a con , there are no transfers of powers, only sleight of hand on some numerics..
POS , unless you have real power across a range of taxes it is just a sham.
Mh it can do so, surely people like Malcolm would be all over it. Not sure Cameron would touch it with a barge pole.
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is required, you need control of multiple taxes to be able to make a difference, it is just like a bludgeon , increase and you lose jobs, decrease and you slash public services , an absolute poisoned chalice. Hence why it was chosen.
Under the proposals that are being worked on, wont the Scottish Parliament soon have authority over a whole range of taxes (and spending)?
No , it is limited to income tax so that it is absolutely useless.
Awoke from siesta to find Kezia Dugdale has been elected as the new leader of Scottish Labour, telling supporters: "We are down, but we are not out."
Never heard so much as a whisper of this new leader. Who she?? Surely a stopgap until the parties can find a fish big enough and strong enough to swallow the Sturgeon, whole.
Murphy's deputy and has been an MSP for couple of years. Totally useless and just another dud lined up for the slaughter next year. Resignation guaranteed after being mauled in 2016.
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is
But if the SNP start using those powers, they will be held responsible for what happens and won't be able to blame everything on the evil Westminster cabal that is stopping Scotland from being the bestest place in the whole world.
The SNP need to divert attention from their own record - once they have to stand by their own actions, support will melt away.
Hence why they make a lot of noise and then don't even use existing powers (let alone planning on using the new ones)
Another idiot turns up , they have no powers other than to spend the pocket money Westminster grants them, all powers are reserved.
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is required, you need control of multiple taxes to be able to make a difference, it is just like a bludgeon , increase and you lose jobs, decrease and you slash public services , an absolute poisoned chalice. Hence why it was chosen.
I don't see why they'd be opposed to the SNP raising income tax. Wasn't the Chancellor goading them into using the powers in his recent Budget?
Under the 2012 settlement, they can only vary all the rates of income tax. So they'd have to add a penny to get 21/41/46 for example.
Clearly there was never any intention of them using that.
True but there is nothing that says the Scots cannot be required to pay more tax if the Scots' government wishes them to do so. I am sure more than a few of us on this site can remember when the BASIC rate of income tax was 33% and higher rates were even more extortionate. Other than that they have to keep the proportions between the rates, there is nothing to stop the Scots paying as much tax as they want to vote for.
Pretty stupid when all other taxes go to Westminster, only idiots would think using the shotgun to the head income tax scam is possible.
Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)
The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
Another idiot who cannot obviously count , you absolute halfwit if they change the tax London cuts their budget.
fund whatever they wanted.
There is no power Rob, all that happens is they say oh income tax is £x billion and then they whip the same amount off the budget. It is a con , there are no transfers of powers, only sleight of hand on some numerics..
POS , unless you have real power across a range of taxes it is just a sham.
Mh it can do so, surely people like Malcolm would be all over it. Not sure Cameron would touch it with a barge pole.
There is no way they will allow SNP to get more money. Also being able to vary only income tax is pointless, it is just not what is required, you need control of multiple taxes to be able to make a difference, it is just like a bludgeon , increase and you lose jobs, decrease and you slash public services , an absolute poisoned chalice. Hence why it was chosen.
Under the proposals that are being worked on, wont the Scottish Parliament soon have authority over a whole range of taxes (and spending)?
Congrats to @Pauly on getting into Birmingham. I think my own experiences at uni made me more left, than right-wing though
Also, I really enjoyed reading @Flockers_pb's contributions, they are really insightful. I also think that @SouthamObserver makes an excellent point in regard to Tom Watson. Although I intensely dislike the man, he is not someone of the hard-left; as Brownite, he'll too oppose the idea of Labour becoming some far-left movement. Thus, Tom Watson's role as Deputy Leader is even more crucial when you account for David Herdson's point that Corbyn lacks organisational skills. More importantly, Watson doesn't lack these skills. Watson has even been involved in takeovers - he was very much involved in the 2005-06 Brownite plot to oust Tony Blair. Although I like Stella Creasy, it may turn out to be a blessing for Labour that someone involved in the political dark arts is elected deputy leader. He is no way an endearing, or charismatic figure - but he could well undermine Corbyn by assuming organisational control of the Labour party.
Comments
How about:
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Stalin - millions
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Ceaucescu - ?
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Castro - tens of thousands
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Tito - hundreds of thousands
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Mao - millions
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Pol Pot - millions
We headed to the HoL about 2330 after too much horrible plonk on the Terrace, had a tour of that Other Place, the Queen's Robing Room - some lessons on etiquette from a very helpful official chappy en route and ended up in the HoC checking out the Speaker's Chair - and he dared me to try out the Dispatch Box and make a speech.
We somehow made it out without getting caught and then it all goes a bit blank. I awoke with an evil hangover back at my hotel - on my own!
Portcullis House is a soul sapping place and so cramped for a new building. I saw a very fat MP get stuck in the pod entrance too.
Agree Portcullis House seems to have been a lost opportunity on the inside.
Interestingly enough,the waste from plasterboard production and use, then finds its way into cement manufacture to retard the curing rate.
Thatcher was a fierce supported of brutal communist dictator Pol Pot and brutal anti-communist dictator Pinochet at the same time, as long as they were anti-soviet.
Looking forward to meeting you in person...
Here is a league table.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
So if Hitler was Jupitor, and Stalin was Saturn, with Idi Amin being maybe mercury. On that scale Pinochet would rank as Charon the tiny little moon that orbits Mars.
So why the outrage over this one man? We all know the reason, it was because he was the wrong kind of military dictator. He believed in a free market liberalised economy.
There is, believe it or not, a major supply of manganese nodules lying on the sea bed between the Falklands and Australia which, the last I heard admittedly a few years ago, are being investigated for sub sea robotic mining/harvesting.
Scientists are thinking about robotic mining in the asteroid belt.
The government more often than not will tend to mess around if not checked.
Also Flightpath should look at this documentary on why America lost in Vietnam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB3ebFr4kl8
People in South Vietnam had the impression they were occupied by the americans and they didn't like the clash of culture and corruption that american troops brought there, the american army was so corrupt they even sold tanks to the communists in the black market.
From start to finish the south vietnamese saw the communists as national liberators.
I read a study 15 years ago that said that Britain had enough coal reserves to last till the 25th century.
It is no longer needed, there are cheaper and cleaner ways to produce energy with today's technology.
Though coal is still needed in the metals and chemicals industry.
Undoubtedly there are people who will back our Armed Forces unconditionally even when confronted with the clearest evidence of their having committed SS type atrocities. Perhaps you are such a person. I can only say that such people not only show themselves to be utterly hypocritical when they condemn similar acts by other countries, they reveal themselves to be morally and spiritually destitute.
They've done just that in their two games so far.
(p.s. I WAS ROBBED of Silva's points in the fantasy football!!)
number of days since a Tory majority government was elected: 100.....
POS , unless you have real power across a range of taxes it is just a sham.
I'm already looking at the big match for Spurs though and that's in 3 games time when we have our 6-pointer with Sunderland. Lose that and it's cheerio Poch.
Well it would be normally but this season has clearly been written off anyway and its all about the stadium really. Fans & Sky money just to be milked until then.....
Here's an explanation:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140109143644/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/technote-scot-taxrate.pdf
Malcolm is right to say that Scottish varying powers were and are rather limited... are any changes coming in post-referendum?
Nevertheless I'm not sure whether the Westminster government would cut Edinburgh's budget accordingly. Although it can do so, surely people like Malcolm would be all over it. Not sure Cameron would touch it with a barge pole.
Hence why it was chosen.
Will the referendum-related powers affect anything?
Clearly there was never any intention of them using that.
That might be the gravest sin of all.
This is the Hansard for the recall debate, which is noteworthy for how strong Foot was in support of the taskforce:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1982/apr/14/falkland-islands#S6CV0021P0_19820414_HOC_12
And it was arch Thatcherite Nicholas Ridley who proposed in 1980 handing over the Falklands to the Argies, on a leaseback deal supported by the cabinet.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
The SNP need to divert attention from their own record - once they have to stand by their own actions, support will melt away.
Hence why they make a lot of noise and then don't even use existing powers (let alone planning on using the new ones)
Never heard so much as a whisper of this new leader. Who she??
Surely a stopgap until the parties can find a fish big enough and strong enough to swallow the Sturgeon, whole.
Caviar, anyone?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33942238
There are now reports that it may be possible to liquefy the coal and pump it up. ltrs hope its true. Although again it would have to be appropriate for our own geological conditions.
Also, I really enjoyed reading @Flockers_pb's contributions, they are really insightful. I also think that @SouthamObserver makes an excellent point in regard to Tom Watson. Although I intensely dislike the man, he is not someone of the hard-left; as Brownite, he'll too oppose the idea of Labour becoming some far-left movement. Thus, Tom Watson's role as Deputy Leader is even more crucial when you account for David Herdson's point that Corbyn lacks organisational skills. More importantly, Watson doesn't lack these skills. Watson has even been involved in takeovers - he was very much involved in the 2005-06 Brownite plot to oust Tony Blair. Although I like Stella Creasy, it may turn out to be a blessing for Labour that someone involved in the political dark arts is elected deputy leader. He is no way an endearing, or charismatic figure - but he could well undermine Corbyn by assuming organisational control of the Labour party.