The Privy Council Oath (unchanged since ~1250, except for gender)
"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God."
Presumably anybody taking the oath is also given a translation?
Is this not a translation? Presume the original would be in Latin or Norman-French?
It's a good translation though: clear and unambiguous
I suppose the point is that if Corbyn is elected, outside of making the cock-up to end all cock-ups or a personal scandal which destroys the leadership (and even that is probably recoverable), you can probably guarantee the third term, it's a free pass - a Labour party either led by Corbyn, or which has to spend years trying to make itself plausible again while dealing with the splits on the left any defenestration would cause won't win in 2020. Horrific to say this as a Labour member (for how much longer?) but what you're thinking about is the fourth term. Chances are, at some point in the next ten years the ordure will hit the fan and the Tories will become wildly unpopular, but if that happens before 2020, it's likely you'll still get in if the alternative is Corbyn, or get a stonking majority in 2020 and it could be virtually impossible for Labour to win in 2025.
Which is why the Corbyn surge is so dispiriting - it could literally stop any chance of a Labour government until 2030 yet his supporters don't seem to realise the seppuku they're committing.
I struggle to believe Labour could fall so low as to virtually assure losses for several elections to come. The floor of labour support is too high, the ceiling of Tory support to low, such that even if Corbyn hurt them badly, they'd be able to challenge again swiftly.
True. There is a core votes for both main parties which should keep them above 25% even in a disaster year. My guess would be Labour in 2020 on current form around 27%, winning perhaps 180 seats. We shall have to ask JackW to give a more informed projection.
The floor for both main parties is now considerably below 20%. The emergence of the Greens and UKIP as genuinely national parties, combined with the SNP in Scotland creates a threat to Labour in a way that hasn't existed post-war. For the Tories, again, UKIP is a much more potent threat than it was under Major, Hague and IDS. There simply is not the broad level of party identification that there was twenty, never mind fifty, years ago. The consumer society applies to politics too.
The tories still got 37% at a time when the mainly anti tory UKIP managed 12. So as UKIP move to being more socialist and also more 'WWC' in their approach to their anti black, muslim and gypsy policies then I do not see their white middle class vote holding up. The floor for the tories seems much wider than you might be suggesting. Its numpty tendency may have already skipped but it still managed 37. (The boundaries will we might think help the tories a bit more in 2020 as well. Fewer seat might exaggerate the effects of FPTP as well.)
I find it incredible in Greece that Syriza may shortly win a clear mandate to impose the measures needed to meet creditor demands after initally being elected with a mandate to do anything but that. Has any party done such a 180 and still been rewarded by the electorate?
Tsipras has double-crossed his party and the electorate. I wonder how much he is getting from the EU coffers for this betrayal?
Will he win a personal mandate? Only with the help of his chief opposition rivals, but Syriza as a party is as near to perishing as last weeks butter.
My Greek friends think that Syrizia will split (it is already a coalition of smaller parties) but that Tsipras will still have the largest party in the new parliament and will remain PM.
Cameron dropped the first S-Bomb the other day. Security and Corbyn will be the killer issue.
You can hold all sorts of cookie harmless ideas, and then when you're in the Big Boys League - the electorate won't vote for someone/Party that appears to on the Otherside.
One question that hasn't been much discussed - will Corbyn be able to get security clearance? (maybe actually irrelevant if briefings have to be done on Privy Council terms).
Cameron may actually have to brief others in the Labour Party on condition that they keep their leader out of the loop...!
If a party leader can't be cleared (or more realistically, is given only a low level of clearance), then that will affect the security clearance of the entire party. It would undermine the entire notion of what a parliamentary party is for members other than the leader to be told things on condition that theey're kept from the leader.
From what I've read of Corbyn, he would never get through the Developed Vetting process, if he was applying for a job that required one. It will be a difficult issue that I wouldn't want to deal with when he becomes LOTO. How can they brief him on sensitive issues in dealing with the middle east without there being a strong possibility he will leak?
AIUI, the briefing of the LOTO is a courtesy - and an attempt to secure prior agreement on the most sensitive aspects of foreign and defence policy - before it is discussed publicly.
There is actually no *need* for these briefings to take place.
Hence I suspect that they simply won't occur. And certainly the Americans would be very unwilling to allow us to share any of their sourced intelligence with Corbyn.
There is no "need", but a LOTO kept outside of the loop can cause a lot of trouble for the government.
One question that hasn't been much discussed - will Corbyn be able to get security clearance? (maybe actually irrelevant if briefings have to be done on Privy Council terms).
Cameron may actually have to brief others in the Labour Party on condition that they keep their leader out of the loop...!
If a party leader can't be cleared (or more realistically, is given only a low level of clearance), then that will affect the security clearance of the entire party. It would undermine the entire notion of what a parliamentary party is for members other than the leader to be told things on condition that theey're kept from the leader.
From what I've read of Corbyn, he would never get through the Developed Vetting process, if he was applying for a job that required one. It will be a difficult issue that I wouldn't want to deal with when he becomes LOTO. How can they brief him on sensitive issues in dealing with the middle east without there being a strong possibility he will leak?
AIUI, the briefing of the LOTO is a courtesy - and an attempt to secure prior agreement on the most sensitive aspects of foreign and defence policy - before it is discussed publicly.
There is actually no *need* for these briefings to take place.
Hence I suspect that they simply won't occur. And certainly the Americans would be very unwilling to allow us to share any of their sourced intelligence with Corbyn.
There is no "need", but a LOTO kept outside of the loop can cause a lot of trouble for the government.
Of course.
But I suspect Corbyn would act exactly the same whether he was briefed or not.
The Privy Council Oath (unchanged since ~1250, except for gender)
"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God."
Presumably anybody taking the oath is also given a translation?
Is this not a translation? Presume the original would be in Latin or Norman-French?
It's a good translation though: clear and unambiguous
Hard to see why someone cannot be willing to swear or affirm to that. Its pretty much the same as what you say in the witness box. Anyone who cannot see his/her way to being a part of that in our political life is clearly only interested in revolution. Caveat emptor.
Strikes me as Labour should have had something similar - substitute Keir Hardie for Queen and Country - for their £3entryists.
English fined TWICE as much as Scots over TV licences: Failure to pay £145.50 charge, which bankrolls the BBC, results in an average penalty of £170 south of the border
Dozens in England and Wales jailed each year after not paying licence fee But no one in Scotland has been jailed for failing to pay in past five years This has increased pressure to scrap criminal penalties over £145.50 fee Ministers are divided over the issue after a Government-sponsored report
I find it incredible in Greece that Syriza may shortly win a clear mandate to impose the measures needed to meet creditor demands after initally being elected with a mandate to do anything but that. Has any party done such a 180 and still been rewarded by the electorate?
Tsipras has double-crossed his party and the electorate. I wonder how much he is getting from the EU coffers for this betrayal?
Will he win a personal mandate? Only with the help of his chief opposition rivals, but Syriza as a party is as near to perishing as last weeks butter.
My Greek friends think that Syrizia will split (it is already a coalition of smaller parties) but that Tsipras will still have the largest party in the new parliament and will remain PM.
The Privy Council Oath (unchanged since ~1250, except for gender)
"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God."
Presumably anybody taking the oath is also given a translation?
Is this not a translation? Presume the original would be in Latin or Norman-French?
It's a good translation though: clear and unambiguous
Hard to see why someone cannot be willing to swear or affirm to that. Its pretty much the same as what you say in the witness box. Anyone who cannot see his/her way to being a part of that in our political life is clearly only interested in revolution. Caveat emptor.
Strikes me as Labour should have had something similar - substitute Keir Hardie for Queen and Country - for their £3entryists.
It's an attempt to defuse the security issue.
You won't invite me to join your club...I didn't want to join anyway
One question that hasn't been much discussed - will Corbyn be able to get security clearance? (maybe actually irrelevant if briefings have to be done on Privy Council terms).
Cameron may actually have to brief others in the Labour Party on condition that they keep their leader out of the loop...!
If a party leader can't be cleared (or more realistically, is given only a low level of clearance), then that will affect the security clearance of the entire party. It would undermine the entire notion of what a parliamentary party is for members other than the leader to be told things on condition that theey're kept from the leader.
From what I've read of Corbyn, he would never get through the Developed Vetting process, if he was applying for a job that required one. It will be a difficult issue that I wouldn't want to deal with when he becomes LOTO. How can they brief him on sensitive issues in dealing with the middle east without there being a strong possibility he will leak?
AIUI, the briefing of the LOTO is a courtesy - and an attempt to secure prior agreement on the most sensitive aspects of foreign and defence policy - before it is discussed publicly.
There is actually no *need* for these briefings to take place.
Hence I suspect that they simply won't occur. And certainly the Americans would be very unwilling to allow us to share any of their sourced intelligence with Corbyn.
There is no "need", but a LOTO kept outside of the loop can cause a lot of trouble for the government.
Moreover, it's never really arisen before (silly conspiracy theories about Wilson aside). Foot had his faults, and could be (was) portrayed as a bit of a 'useful idiot' to some of the rivals of the country, but nobody with an ounce of sense would ever, ever accuse either him or Kinnock of actively conspiring against it. Kinnock even found Arthur Scargill's actions too extreme for him (although that may have been because he had the misfortune to have to speak with Scargill on a regular basis).
Corbyn, on the other hand, was sharing a platform with the IRA at a time when they were deliberately waging a terrorist campaign on the mainland. Even leaving aside the question of Hamas and Hizbollah (anyone who thinks that they are merely national liberation movements, with respect, needs to learn more about them) that is surely going to put him beyond the pale as far as the Security Service is concerned, especially at a time when there is an ongoing if smaller terrorist threat in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Alex, better that than giving secrets to someone who is, frankly, not trusted to keep them.
Keeping Corbyn out of the loop is absolutely necessary, the damage it might cause would be nothing to that caused internally within the Labour Party..
You can see it now.. Corbyn asks why he hasn't been briefed on a subject and Cameron replies that the LOTO cannot be trusted to keep it secret and is a security risk.. Lorralorralaughs.
The Privy Council Oath (unchanged since ~1250, except for gender)
"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God."
Presumably anybody taking the oath is also given a translation?
Is this not a translation? Presume the original would be in Latin or Norman-French?
It's a good translation though: clear and unambiguous
Hard to see why someone cannot be willing to swear or affirm to that. Its pretty much the same as what you say in the witness box. Anyone who cannot see his/her way to being a part of that in our political life is clearly only interested in revolution. Caveat emptor.
Strikes me as Labour should have had something similar - substitute Keir Hardie for Queen and Country - for their £3entryists.
Perhaps if they were a great admirer of Richard Dawkins? They could argue that this would make the oath meaningless. A Buddhist might have the same problem (although it is hard to see how a Jew, Muslim or even Hindu could have a serious problem with it).
For the first group, they would presumably be invited to affirm (as in courts or on being sworn in to Parliament). In extreme cases, perhaps a new version could be substituted, starting, 'You do swear by the all-knowing Dawk...'
Marvellous, the amount of money that can be made out of politics. Obviously Sedgefield was out of his league.
"Tony Blair's fondness for hobnobbing on the private yachts of business tycoons is well known.
But after years of relying on the hospitality of others, the moneybags former PM (whose wealth is estimated at over £100 million) has finally joined the ranks of the global super rich.
For Blair has been holidaying with wife Cherie in the exclusive Aeolian islands, off the coast of Sicily, in his very own glistening super yacht, which he chartered at a cost of £22,000 a week." (D Mail)
You have to feel sorry for his Special Branch protection officers. But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax? Yes yes we know Tony is greasy etc etc etc - do not waste my time with all that. And he gives a lot of speeches. He owns a house or two (mortgaged?). But please somebody explain how Mr T.Blair himself personally, not any charities, is worth 'over' £100m ??
All absolute monarchs have had practical limits to their power King John and Henry VI come to mind and Charles I pushed his luck as well. And all monarchs to some degree relied on advisers who lasted as long as they were useful. Controlling the kings council was always important - politics of one kind or another has always been with us. Monarchs and advisers that were better at politics were more successful.
In the middle ages, the power of the church was also a significant block to the absolute power of the monarch - look at the shambles John caused when he tried to go against it. I read one biography of Henry VIII which argued he was 'the apogee of personal monarchy in England' because he shattered the power of the church, seized all its wealth and nobody was able to cite precedents and financial considerations to stop him as a result. That argument seemed pretty convincing to me. Not that Henry was exactly an advert for an absolute monarchy, but still.
I have the theory that the development of constitutionalism in Western Europe was a large part due to the unusual religious situation of Catholicism. The Pope was a powerful source of authority beyond the King's control that nobles could appeal to when unhappy with their lord. That meant nobles could get religious backing for protections against the King without having to fully replace him.
Mr. JEO, that the Pope could act as a brake on a monarch's wishes or as a spur to others to support a monarch I wouldn't argue with. However, given the corruption of the Church in medieval times and the tendency for foreign monarchs to invade Rome, kidnap and hold popes elsewhere, set up alternatives popes (at one stage in there were three, each supported by a different coalition of monarchs), and so on, I think the case for the pope as a moderating influence could be overstated.
Additionally, pope or no pope, Western Europe, outside England was not known for constitutional monarchies (the Frogs still didn't seem to have grasped the idea of constitutionalism in the back half of the 18th century). Restrictions on the power of the monarch in England, which happened long before anywhere else in medieval Europe, came about really through the power of money, not the pope.
You have to feel sorry for his Special Branch protection officers. But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax?
Does he still pay tax in the UK? It wouldn't surprise me to learn he's a non-dom.
Also, he may or may not have been worth a modest sum in 2007, but don't forget his wife had a pretty substantial income and had built up a property portfolio on the strength of it.
Mr. JEO, that the Pope could act as a brake on a monarch's wishes or as a spur to others to support a monarch I wouldn't argue with. However, given the corruption of the Church in medieval times and the tendency for foreign monarchs to invade Rome, kidnap and hold popes elsewhere, set up alternatives popes (at one stage in there were three, each supported by a different coalition of monarchs), and so on, I think the case for the pope as a moderating influence could be overstated.
Additionally, pope or no pope, Western Europe, outside England was not known for constitutional monarchies (the Frogs still didn't seem to have grasped the idea of constitutionalism in the back half of the 18th century). Restrictions on the power of the monarch in England, which happened long before anywhere else in medieval Europe, came about really through the power of money, not the pope.
Don't forget though, Mr Llama, that the political development of France regressed pretty severely in the seventeenth century, culminating in the disastrous absolutism of the last Louis (plural). In the later Middle Ages, France had a parliament, and a system for appealing against the King. As did Scotland, for example, or Hungary.
We could modify JEO's theory a bit - to say that in the Middle Ages, the pope could act as a brake, but later on, after the religious troubles of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the popes became less able and less willing to crack the whip. It's also worth noting the papacy itself went through a very bad patch, with several extremely corrupt and incompetent popes in charge who lacked the energy of their late medieval predecessors. The ultimate expression of this was the corruption and cruelty of the Papal States by the nineteenth century.
Like I say, I don't know enough to confirm or deny his theory, but it seems tenable based on what I do know.
The Privy Council Oath (unchanged since ~1250, except for gender)
"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto etc."
Presumably anybody taking the oath is also given a translation?
Is this not a translation? Presume the original would be in Latin or Norman-French?
It's a good translation though: clear and unambiguous
Hard to see why someone cannot be willing to swear or affirm to that. Its pretty much the same as what you say in the witness box. Anyone who cannot see his/her way to being a part of that in our political life is clearly only interested in revolution. Caveat emptor.
Strikes me as Labour should have had something similar - substitute Keir Hardie for Queen and Country - for their £3entryists.
Perhaps if they were a great admirer of Richard Dawkins? They could argue that this would make the oath meaningless. A Buddhist might have the same problem (although it is hard to see how a Jew, Muslim or even Hindu could have a serious problem with it).
For the first group, they would presumably be invited to affirm (as in courts or on being sworn in to Parliament). In extreme cases, perhaps a new version could be substituted, starting, 'You do swear by the all-knowing Dawk...'
Its the concept of taking part that Corbyn hates. Corbyn hates our entire democracy.
I he alternative is Corbyn, or get a stonking majority in 2020 and it could be virtually impossible for Labour to win in 2025.
Which is why the Corbyn surge is so dispiriting - it could literally stop any chance of a Labour government until 2030 yet his supporters don't seem to realise the seppuku they're committing.
I struggle to believe Labour could fall so low as to virtually assure losses for several elections to come. The floor of labour support is too high, the ceiling of Tory support to low, such that even if Corbyn hurt them badly, they'd be able to challenge again swiftly.
True. There is a core votes for both main parties which should keep them above 25% even in a disaster year. My guess would be Labour in 2020 on current form around 27%, winning perhaps 180 seats. We shall have to ask JackW to give a more informed projection.
The floor for both main parties is now considerably below 20%. The emergence of the Greens and UKIP as genuinely national parties, combined with the SNP in Scotland creates a threat to Labour in a way that hasn't existed post-war. For the Tories, again, UKIP is a much more potent threat than it was under Major, Hague and IDS. There simply is not the broad level of party identification that there was twenty, never mind fifty, years ago. The consumer society applies to politics too.
The tories still got 37% at a time when the mainly anti tory UKIP managed 12. So as UKIP move to being more socialist and also more 'WWC' in their approach to their anti black, muslim and gypsy policies then I do not see their white middle class vote holding up. The floor for the tories seems much wider than you might be suggesting. Its numpty tendency may have already skipped but it still managed 37. (The boundaries will we might think help the tories a bit more in 2020 as well. Fewer seat might exaggerate the effects of FPTP as well.)
How does this 'cc' get away with this nonsense without a ban?
Which UKIP policies are based on colour, religion or ethnicity?
Re discussion of Developed Vetting. I had an interesting, brief, conversation with someone who knows his onions about this stuff, in re Ashley Madison. (His conclusion: since your DV man will ask about your porn viewing habits, membership of Ashley Madison or a similarly "dodgy" website would certainly have to be disclosed. But he didn't think it would be likely to cause a problem, despite my concern it represented a blackmail risk.)
Also paging fans of the statistical programming language R, or (as the rather disturbing thread a few nights ago showed to be surprisingly popular round these parts) BDSM.
Marvellous, the amount of money that can be made out of politics. Obviously Sedgefield was out of his league.
"Tony Blair's fondness for hobnobbing on the private yachts of business tycoons is well known.
But after years of relying on the hospitality of others, the moneybags former PM (whose wealth is estimated at over £100 million) has finally joined the ranks of the global super rich.
For Blair has been holidaying with wife Cherie in the exclusive Aeolian islands, off the coast of Sicily, in his very own glistening super yacht, which he chartered at a cost of £22,000 a week." (D Mail)
You have to feel sorry for his Special Branch protection officers. But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax? Yes yes we know Tony is greasy etc etc etc - do not waste my time with all that. And he gives a lot of speeches. He owns a house or two (mortgaged?). But please somebody explain how Mr T.Blair himself personally, not any charities, is worth 'over' £100m ??
Blair's Special Branch bodyguards have a pleasant enough posting. They follow the seasonal migrations of the rich from one salubrious location to another. There are worse jobs.
The floor for both main parties is now considerably below 20%. The emergence of the Greens and UKIP as genuinely national parties, combined with the SNP in Scotland creates a threat to Labour in a way that hasn't existed post-war. For the Tories, again, UKIP is a much more potent threat than it was under Major, Hague and IDS. There simply is not the broad level of party identification that there was twenty, never mind fifty, years ago. The consumer society applies to politics too.
Not sure. I agree that the floor is very low in a PR election, but elections under FPTP are obviously different. When people talk about FPTP being a two party system, they tend to focus on the national level. FPTP is fundamentally about individual constituencies, what happens at national level (the presumed increased chance of coalition/minority Government) is merely a consequence of the variation of parties in contention at a local level. And what is important at local level is to be (clearly) one of the two main parties in contention in any individual seat (it is why the number of second places racked up by UKIP in 2015 is perceived as important).
It is also I think, incidentally, the big problem for any prospective LibDem recovery. In many of their former "heartlands" they have lost their status as either incumbent, or undisputed challenger. A status which in many cases seemed to owe more to history going back over a century, rather than any obvious match between LibDem policies and the electorate. In many of these areas (especially where they have little remaining local Govt base) they may never recover, because there is no reason for them to, no natural correlation with the electorate once the history is taken away. And to try and challenge that will be seen centrally as a waste of scarce resources.
I am not convinced. There are often large numbers of voters outside traditional areas. To illustrate: in 1970 the Liberals stood in 332 seats and had 2.1 million votes, in 1974 (Feb) they stood in 517 and had 6 million votes. A big part of the gain was through having sympathetic voters in the extra 200 odd seats who previously had no one to vote for. As it was FPTP the party only went from 6-14 seats.
Also worth noting that apart from Carmichael all the LD MPs are in seats that just a few elections ago were safe seats for other parties. Seats change over time.
Also there is less tribal loyalty to parties than previously, and while a FPTP breakthrough is difficult, it is possible as demonstrated in Scotland. We are not at the stage of Greece or Israel where parties seem to split and reform as new parties on an almost weekly basis, but it does look increasingly as if the hegemony of the big two parties is on the wane, if not yet history.
I wouldn't assume the Labour Party is going to cease to be a check on the Tories in the near future. Of course it could happen - politics is full of surprises. But this article seems to have more than a whiff of wishful thinking to it. Look at it from a bigger picture. Corbyn might well hand the media easier anti-Labour headlines. But Labour has had to cope with them since it was founded. The events surrounding the leadership election may be chaotic, but would it really have been so much better if it had been as dull an as unengaging as the Lib Dem one? And remember that despite their apparent electoral success at the moment, the Tories are losing members and are heavily funded by big business. This wasn't too much of a problem when Labour was also losing members. If the leadership election re-invigorates Labour's grass roots who is to know what will happen next?
Corbyn is disloyal and has spent 40 years sharing platforms with declared enemies of the UK and the US. It would be the height of irresponsibility to share any sensitive information with him. I suspect the Privy Council granstanding is him putting a spin on that fact.
With every day that passes the stupidity of Corbyn's non-hard left backers becomes starker. I am just so glad I did not waste time and money joining Labour in May.
Marvellous, the amount of money that can be made out of politics. Obviously Sedgefield was out of his league.
"Tony Blair's fondness for hobnobbing on the private yachts of business tycoons is well known.
But after years of relying on the hospitality of others, the moneybags former PM (whose wealth is estimated at over £100 million) has finally joined the ranks of the global super rich.
For Blair has been holidaying with wife Cherie in the exclusive Aeolian islands, off the coast of Sicily, in his very own glistening super yacht, which he chartered at a cost of £22,000 a week." (D Mail)
You have to feel sorry for his Special Branch protection officers. But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax? Yes yes we know Tony is greasy etc etc etc - do not waste my time with all that. And he gives a lot of speeches. He owns a house or two (mortgaged?). But please somebody explain how Mr T.Blair himself personally, not any charities, is worth 'over' £100m ??
Blair's Special Branch bodyguards have a pleasant enough posting. They follow the seasonal migrations of the rich from one salubrious location to another. There are worse jobs.
Hamas is a national liberation movement that believes in the liberation of Dar-al-Islam from oppressive colonial occupation by what it perceives as a foreign infidel entity.
Neither you nor I may agree with Hamas, but that doesn't make it immoral, or anti-British.
The UK (probably only England and Wales in the medium-term) needs to get used to being an unimportant medium-sized state on the fringes of Europe, recognise that its imperial pretensions are history and stop posturing on the world stage; it doesn't need and cannot afford a Trident replacement.
The latest active intervention (in Libya) and indirect support of the Syrian rebels via the criminal Saudi regime has created 2 failed states on the fringes of Europe and exacerbated the current refugee crisis.
Corbyn has an enlightened view about Britain's place in the world.
If the US supported Hamas Corbyn would be sharing platforms with Likud and calling Netanayhu comrade. His only view is that the west is wicked. You may consider that enlightened, the vast majority of voters won't.
" The SNP have maxed out their gains but UKIP has the potential to take more." If the local by elections can be taken as a guide it would appear that support for UKIP is in decline. Of the 5 seats they have defended they have lost 4 - three of them to the Conservatives.
Mr. JEO, that the Pope could act as a brake on a monarch's wishes or as a spur to others to support a monarch I wouldn't argue with. However, given the corruption of the Church in medieval times and the tendency for foreign monarchs to invade Rome, kidnap and hold popes elsewhere, set up alternatives popes (at one stage in there were three, each supported by a different coalition of monarchs), and so on, I think the case for the pope as a moderating influence could be overstated.
Additionally, pope or no pope, Western Europe, outside England was not known for constitutional monarchies (the Frogs still didn't seem to have grasped the idea of constitutionalism in the back half of the 18th century). Restrictions on the power of the monarch in England, which happened long before anywhere else in medieval Europe, came about really through the power of money, not the pope.
Don't forget though, Mr Llama, that the political development of France regressed pretty severely in the seventeenth century, culminating in the disastrous absolutism of the last Louis (plural). In the later Middle Ages, France had a parliament, and a system for appealing against the King. As did Scotland, for example, or Hungary.
We could modify JEO's theory a bit - to say that in the Middle Ages, the pope could act as a brake, but later on, after the religious troubles of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the popes became less able and less willing to crack the whip. It's also worth noting the papacy itself went through a very bad patch, with several extremely corrupt and incompetent popes in charge who lacked the energy of their late medieval predecessors. The ultimate expression of this was the corruption and cruelty of the Papal States by the nineteenth century.
Like I say, I don't know enough to confirm or deny his theory, but it seems tenable based on what I do know.
The Protestant reformation changed the Popes ability to constrain kings, and not just in England. Protestantism and the wars of the reformation, and also those against the Ottomans meant that the Popes needed the Catholic kings more, and therefore the Popes became much stronger supporters of absolutist kings.
Sounds like you're saying, "yes, but they were not real votes."
I happily admit that most governments think they have far more of a mandate from the electorate than they actually do, but that is the same for all governments, including the previous 4 Labour governments.
However, the legal measure is seats won based on votes, not 'real votes'.
I'm not remotely saying they're not real votes. A vote is a vote is a vote.
My point is that, for someone who was so grudging that they waited until the last minute to decide they were going Tory, it's not going to take much for them to decide in future they don't want to vote for them. They're not someone who can be relied on to definitely vote Tory for the next one or two elections as some people seem to be bizarrely suggesting when they project more wins for the Tories as in the bag.
The Tory majority in the seven most marginal seats (Gower, Derby N, Croydon C, Vale of Clywd, Bury N, Morley and O, Plymouth Sutton) totalled 1793 ranging from Gower at 27 to Plymouth Sutton at 523.
Of the 20 most marginal seats Tory & Labour have 9 each:
Marvellous, the amount of money that can be made out of politics. Obviously Sedgefield was out of his league.
"Tony Blair's fondness for hobnobbing on the private yachts of business tycoons is well known.
But after years of relying on the hospitality of others, the moneybags former PM (whose wealth is estimated at over £100 million) has finally joined the ranks of the global super rich.
For Blair has been holidaying with wife Cherie in the exclusive Aeolian islands, off the coast of Sicily, in his very own glistening super yacht, which he chartered at a cost of £22,000 a week." (D Mail)
You have to feel sorry for his Special Branch protection officers. But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax? Yes yes we know Tony is greasy etc etc etc - do not waste my time with all that. And he gives a lot of speeches. He owns a house or two (mortgaged?). But please somebody explain how Mr T.Blair himself personally, not any charities, is worth 'over' £100m ??
Blair's Special Branch bodyguards have a pleasant enough posting. They follow the seasonal migrations of the rich from one salubrious location to another. There are worse jobs.
Hamas is a national liberation movement that believes in the liberation of Dar-al-Islam from oppressive colonial occupation by what it perceives as a foreign infidel entity.
Neither you nor I may agree with Hamas, but that doesn't make it immoral, or anti-British.
The UK (probably only England and Wales in the medium-term) needs to get used to being an unimportant medium-sized state on the fringes of Europe, recognise that its imperial pretensions are history and stop posturing on the world stage; it doesn't need and cannot afford a Trident replacement.
The latest active intervention (in Libya) and indirect support of the Syrian rebels via the criminal Saudi regime has created 2 failed states on the fringes of Europe and exacerbated the current refugee crisis.
Corbyn has an enlightened view about Britain's place in the world.
If the US supported Hamas Corbyn would be sharing platforms with Likud and calling Netanayhu comrade. His only view is that the west is wicked. You may consider that enlightened, the vast majority of voters won't.
Enjoying the new company in your party SO? The fresh blood invigorating for you?
Genuinely feel sorry for you. As you've said before, other parties will look after you well enough, but can't be pleasant to have that sinking feeling of it not being your party anymore.
...In response, his campaign has released a statement: ‘Jeremy Corbyn believes the violent ideology of Isis is a vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped’. But both of these stories add to the notion that Corbyn has a lot of baggage waiting to be unearthed and the Tories are ready and waiting to make the most of it. His statement on Iraq also explains why Corbyn is doing well in this leadership contest but would be a disaster for the party: his positions are a comfort blanket for Labour’s left but raise eyebrows in the rest of the country.
People seem to be discussing the cricket much less than they did a couple of weeks ago. Why might this be?
It has however vindicated my comment that it is a brave captain who wins the toss and bowls
More seriously, Moeen Ali must be getting fed up with rescue acts at no. 8. Surely the time has come for him to bat at 5 and Bairstow either to take the gloves and drop to 7 or just be dropped.
What's most maddening of all is that every batsman apart from Root and Butler had a decent amount of time to get in - they all got to double figures - but not one could get beyond 22. Something is wrong there.
EDIT - @DavidL, surely not, England have at least won the series, whereas the Labour party can't even win their own leadership election.
Hamas is a national liberation movement that believes in the liberation of Dar-al-Islam from oppressive colonial occupation by what it perceives as a foreign infidel entity.
Neither you nor I may agree with Hamas, but that doesn't make it immoral, or anti-British.
The UK (probably only England and Wales in the medium-term) needs to get used to being an unimportant medium-sized state on the fringes of Europe, recognise that its imperial pretensions are history and stop posturing on the world stage; it doesn't need and cannot afford a Trident replacement.
The latest active intervention (in Libya) and indirect support of the Syrian rebels via the criminal Saudi regime has created 2 failed states on the fringes of Europe and exacerbated the current refugee crisis.
Corbyn has an enlightened view about Britain's place in the world.
If the US supported Hamas Corbyn would be sharing platforms with Likud and calling Netanayhu comrade. His only view is that the west is wicked. You may consider that enlightened, the vast majority of voters won't.
Enjoying the new company in your party SO? The fresh blood invigorating for you?
Genuinely feel sorry for you. As you've said before, other parties will look after you well enough, but can't be pleasant to have that sinking feeling of it not being your party anymore.
Supporting the Labour Party in its current state because of the values it represented a generation or two ago is as insane as buying Paul McCartneys latest rubbish because you liked The Beatles... And you look as stupid trying to justify it
People seem to be discussing the cricket much less than they did a couple of weeks ago. Why might this be?
It has however vindicated my comment that it is a brave captain who wins the toss and bowls
More seriously, Moeen Ali must be getting fed up with rescue acts at no. 8. Surely the time has come for him to bat at 5 and Bairstow either to take the gloves and drop to 7 or just be dropped.
What's most maddening of all is that every batsman apart from Root and Butler had a decent amount of time to get in - they all got to double figures - but not one could get beyond 22. Something is wrong there.
EDIT - @DavidL, surely not, England have at least won the series, whereas the Labour party can't even win their own leadership election.
I like the idea of him opening in the UAE and a proper spinner coming in at 8. Buttler has had a thin series but he is a class act. Bairstow is struggling, I would accept, and I would like to see Alex Hales in the team.
People seem to be discussing the cricket much less than they did a couple of weeks ago. Why might this be?
Because it is seriously depressing. Being a cricket fan at the moment is almost as bad as being a Labour supporter.
Except England have already won the Ashes this match would be the equivalent of Labour losing a by election after winning the general election which obviously they failed to do
One question that hasn't been much discussed - will Corbyn be able to get security clearance? (maybe actually irrelevant if briefings have to be done on Privy Council terms).
Cameron may actually have to brief others in the Labour Party on condition that they keep their leader out of the loop...!
If a party leader can't be cleared (or more realistically, is given only a low level of clearance), then that will affect the security clearance of the entire party. It would undermine the entire notion of what a parliamentary party is for members other than the leader to be told things on condition that theey're kept from the leader.
From what I've read of Corbyn, he would never get through the Developed Vetting process, if he was applying for a job that required one. It will be a difficult issue that I wouldn't want to deal with when he becomes LOTO. How can they brief him on sensitive issues in dealing with the middle east without there being a strong possibility he will leak?
AIUI, the briefing of the LOTO is a courtesy - and an attempt to secure prior agreement on the most sensitive aspects of foreign and defence policy - before it is discussed publicly.
There is actually no *need* for these briefings to take place.
Hence I suspect that they simply won't occur. And certainly the Americans would be very unwilling to allow us to share any of their sourced intelligence with Corbyn.
There is no "need", but a LOTO kept outside of the loop can cause a lot of trouble for the government.
Of course. But I suspect Corbyn would act exactly the same whether he was briefed or not. So why take the risk?
Close. Corbyn does not want to be briefed so he can behave in the same way.
Hamas is a national liberation movement that believes in the liberation of Dar-al-Islam from oppressive colonial occupation by what it perceives as a foreign infidel entity.
Neither you nor I may agree with Hamas, but that doesn't make it immoral, or anti-British.
The UK (probably only England and Wales in the medium-term) needs to get used to being an unimportant medium-sized state on the fringes of Europe, recognise that its imperial pretensions are history and stop posturing on the world stage; it doesn't need and cannot afford a Trident replacement.
The latest active intervention (in Libya) and indirect support of the Syrian rebels via the criminal Saudi regime has created 2 failed states on the fringes of Europe and exacerbated the current refugee crisis.
Corbyn has an enlightened view about Britain's place in the world.
If the US supported Hamas Corbyn would be sharing platforms with Likud and calling Netanayhu comrade. His only view is that the west is wicked. You may consider that enlightened, the vast majority of voters won't.
Enjoying the new company in your party SO? The fresh blood invigorating for you?
Genuinely feel sorry for you. As you've said before, other parties will look after you well enough, but can't be pleasant to have that sinking feeling of it not being your party anymore.
Supporting the Labour Party in its current state because of the values it represented a generation or two ago is as insane as buying Paul McCartneys latest rubbish because you liked The Beatles... And you look as stupid trying to justify it
I find it incredible in Greece that Syriza may shortly win a clear mandate to impose the measures needed to meet creditor demands after initally being elected with a mandate to do anything but that. Has any party done such a 180 and still been rewarded by the electorate?
Tsipras has double-crossed his party and the electorate. I wonder how much he is getting from the EU coffers for this betrayal?
Will he win a personal mandate? Only with the help of his chief opposition rivals, but Syriza as a party is as near to perishing as last weeks butter.
My Greek friends think that Syrizia will split (it is already a coalition of smaller parties) but that Tsipras will still have the largest party in the new parliament and will remain PM.
It already has split with 25 hard left Syriza MPs defecting to form a new party, Popular Unity, last week. It does at least give Tsipras the chance to lead a more centrist government following the elections
>But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax?
Wasn't it 40% tax for the duration of the Labour Government, until March 2010?
People seem to be discussing the cricket much less than they did a couple of weeks ago. Why might this be?
It has however vindicated my comment that it is a brave captain who wins the toss and bowls
More seriously, Moeen Ali must be getting fed up with rescue acts at no. 8. Surely the time has come for him to bat at 5 and Bairstow either to take the gloves and drop to 7 or just be dropped.
What's most maddening of all is that every batsman apart from Root and Butler had a decent amount of time to get in - they all got to double figures - but not one could get beyond 22. Something is wrong there.
EDIT - @DavidL, surely not, England have at least won the series, whereas the Labour party can't even win their own leadership election.
I like the idea of him opening in the UAE and a proper spinner coming in at 8. Buttler has had a thin series but he is a class act. Bairstow is struggling, I would accept and I would like to see Alex Hales in the team.
I don't know that struggling is the right word for Bairstow - he did OK in the last Test. However, he doesn't convince me as a specialist batsman. He's got a very odd technique, and he's got that same intense look Ramprakash used to have - the look of somebody who's rather nervous and trying too hard. I think he might be another Chris Read type figure. Buttler is class, agreed, but needs time thrashing a few county attacks around to get his touch back, which is why I thought a break might do him good with Bairstow replacing him.
Ali is excellent as a batsman, but I'm not quite sure he's an opener in Tests. Like you I'd prefer Hales. I also think Taylor or maybe Vince should be the reserve batsman or perhaps brought into the team.
One last thought - Cook. Yes, he's been better as a captain in this series, but I think it's affecting his concentration when he bats, and that is affecting the middle order. I'd replace him as captain (Root would presumably be the establishment choice, although I actually think Ali would be a better bet - he's very astute and much more experienced as a captain). Don't suppose it will happen though.
And as I write that, England are all out. Will they follow on, or will Clarke try to get his average up to 50?
EDIT - nope, ruthless to the end, he has enforced the follow on. I suppose it is the last match so he needn't worry about tired bowlers for the next one if England do show fight.
People seem to be discussing the cricket much less than they did a couple of weeks ago. Why might this be?
It has however vindicated my comment that it is a brave captain who wins the toss and bowls
More seriously, Moeen Ali must be getting fed up with rescue acts at no. 8. Surely the time has come for him to bat at 5 and Bairstow either to take the gloves and drop to 7 or just be dropped.
What's most maddening of all is that every batsman apart from Root and Butler had a decent amount of time to get in - they all got to double figures - but not one could get beyond 22. Something is wrong there.
EDIT - @DavidL, surely not, England have at least won the series, whereas the Labour party can't even win their own leadership election.
I like the idea of him opening in the UAE and a proper spinner coming in at 8. Buttler has had a thin series but he is a class act. Bairstow is struggling, I would accept, and I would like to see Alex Hales in the team.
Root faced about 60 balls didn't he? That's time enough in my book
I find it incredible in Greece that Syriza may shortly win a clear mandate to impose the measures needed to meet creditor demands after initally being elected with a mandate to do anything but that. Has any party done such a 180 and still been rewarded by the electorate?
Tsipras has double-crossed his party and the electorate. I wonder how much he is getting from the EU coffers for this betrayal?
Will he win a personal mandate? Only with the help of his chief opposition rivals, but Syriza as a party is as near to perishing as last weeks butter.
My Greek friends think that Syrizia will split (it is already a coalition of smaller parties) but that Tsipras will still have the largest party in the new parliament and will remain PM.
It already has split with 25 hard left Syriza MPs defecting to form a new party, Popular Unity, last week. It does at least give Tsipras the chance to lead a more centrist government following the elections
I think Centrist only in Greek terms. Despite all the travails both Tsipras and the Euro seem to retain their popularity with the Greek people.
You have to feel sorry for his Special Branch protection officers. But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax?
Does he still pay tax in the UK? It wouldn't surprise me to learn he's a non-dom.
Also, he may or may not have been worth a modest sum in 2007, but don't forget his wife had a pretty substantial income and had built up a property portfolio on the strength of it.
Agree with all that - but I'm just saying that we do not need extra reasons for disliking Blair without inventing ones. I mean I'm all in favour of hyperbole and post modern irony (the yacht tells it all)... but a pretty plain statement of 'over' £100m surely needs some evidence. Otherwise we are all drinking from the same trough as the nutjob peacenik crypto marxists
Kids Company 'inflated list of clients by 15,500': Failed charity claimed to be helping 16,000 high risk people but the real number may be lower than 500
Kids Company 'hugely exaggerated number of young people it helped' Investigation revealed claims of 15,500 clients were more like 500 or less Allegations come as Charity Commission launched probe into organisation Reports have emerged taxpayers will lose £1.2million following its collapse
You have to feel sorry for his Special Branch protection officers. But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax?
Does he still pay tax in the UK? It wouldn't surprise me to learn he's a non-dom.
Also, he may or may not have been worth a modest sum in 2007, but don't forget his wife had a pretty substantial income and had built up a property portfolio on the strength of it.
Agree with all that - but I'm just saying that we do not need extra reasons for disliking Blair without inventing ones. I mean I'm all in favour of hyperbole and post modern irony (the yacht tells it all)... but a pretty plain statement of 'over' £100m surely needs some evidence. Otherwise we are all drinking from the same trough as the nutjob peacenik crypto marxists
Fair point. Of course, Henry Hodge's prudent inheritance tax arrangements memorably caused some confusion the other way over the precise wealth of his widow. Meanwhile, we have Owen Jones who memorably thought that everyone with a million pounds in assets was taxed at 50% of the total of that every year and wrongly named several members of the cabinet having a hugely reduced tax bill on that basis.
As a society, we do seem to be getting into a tremendous muddle over wealth, status and how they all link and what they all mean. Like you, I'm not sure it's a good thing.
"I just looked at Spencer and said, 'Let's go!'," said Mr Skarlatos from his hotel in Arras, northern France. - "Spencer got to the guy first, grabbed the guy by the neck and I grabbed the handgun, got the handgun away from the guy and threw it.
"Then I grabbed the AK (assault rifle), which was at his feet, and started muzzle thumping him in the head with it."
Kids Company 'inflated list of clients by 15,500': Failed charity claimed to be helping 16,000 high risk people but the real number may be lower than 500
Kids Company 'hugely exaggerated number of young people it helped' Investigation revealed claims of 15,500 clients were more like 500 or less Allegations come as Charity Commission launched probe into organisation Reports have emerged taxpayers will lose £1.2million following its collapse
Kids Company 'inflated list of clients by 15,500': Failed charity claimed to be helping 16,000 high risk people but the real number may be lower than 500
Kids Company 'hugely exaggerated number of young people it helped' Investigation revealed claims of 15,500 clients were more like 500 or less Allegations come as Charity Commission launched probe into organisation Reports have emerged taxpayers will lose £1.2million following its collapse
Maybe someone should investigate the charity commission. There are a lot of charities out there.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The Public Accounts Committee might have a prima facie case to ask a few questions of ministers here, but I can't see how the Charity Commission's regulatory framework, which has clearly failed disastrously, comes under their remit.
Which government department are they actually attached to - the Home Office, the Treasury, or CMS? (EDIT - I mean the CC, not the PAC!)
I find it incredible in Greece that Syriza may shortly win a clear mandate to impose the measures needed to meet creditor demands after initally being elected with a mandate to do anything but that. Has any party done such a 180 and still been rewarded by the electorate?
Tsipras has double-crossed his party and the electorate. I wonder how much he is getting from the EU coffers for this betrayal?
Will he win a personal mandate? Only with the help of his chief opposition rivals, but Syriza as a party is as near to perishing as last weeks butter.
My Greek friends think that Syrizia will split (it is already a coalition of smaller parties) but that Tsipras will still have the largest party in the new parliament and will remain PM.
It already has split with 25 hard left Syriza MPs defecting to form a new party, Popular Unity, last week. It does at least give Tsipras the chance to lead a more centrist government following the elections
I think Centrist only in Greek terms. Despite all the travails both Tsipras and the Euro seem to retain their popularity with the Greek people.
Indeed but having lost his hard left he will have to do a deal with New Democracy or Pasok or one of the centrist groups to get a majority
"I just looked at Spencer and said, 'Let's go!'," said Mr Skarlatos from his hotel in Arras, northern France. - "Spencer got to the guy first, grabbed the guy by the neck and I grabbed the handgun, got the handgun away from the guy and threw it.
"Then I grabbed the AK (assault rifle), which was at his feet, and started muzzle thumping him in the head with it."
>But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax?
Wasn't it 40% tax for the duration of the Labour Government, until March 2010?
At least until Gordon was ejected.
Apart from Berlusconi and perhaps Bill Clinton Blair must now be the richest former world leader alive and to think that Harold Wilson spent his retirement in the Scilly Isles!
"I just looked at Spencer and said, 'Let's go!'," said Mr Skarlatos from his hotel in Arras, northern France. - "Spencer got to the guy first, grabbed the guy by the neck and I grabbed the handgun, got the handgun away from the guy and threw it.
"Then I grabbed the AK (assault rifle), which was at his feet, and started muzzle thumping him in the head with it."
Good fortune and a few blokes with balls prevented a certain massacre there. Good on 'em.
If ever distinctions of the Legion d'honneur were deserved, they are surely deserved in this case - particularly the man who rushed the gunman first, was pretty badly wounded and still gave first add to another passenger who was even more badly wounded. Serious respect to all of them, but especially that one.
This test match is a good thing for England. Their unexpected Ashes win saw an immediate return to an unjustified triumphalism that last time led to an humiliating defeat in Australia. Now they should realise that changes are needed. In political terms, they have a slender majority and can only win if the opposition do really stupid things.
"I just looked at Spencer and said, 'Let's go!'," said Mr Skarlatos from his hotel in Arras, northern France. - "Spencer got to the guy first, grabbed the guy by the neck and I grabbed the handgun, got the handgun away from the guy and threw it.
"Then I grabbed the AK (assault rifle), which was at his feet, and started muzzle thumping him in the head with it."
Good fortune and a few blokes with balls prevented a certain massacre there. Good on 'em.
If ever distinctions of the Legion d'honneur were deserved, they are surely deserved in this case - particularly the man who rushed the gunman first, was pretty badly wounded and still gave first add to another passenger who was even more badly wounded. Serious respect to all of them, but especially that one.
Quite agree gentlemen - A major tragedy was averted yesterday by these brave chaps.
>But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax?
Wasn't it 40% tax for the duration of the Labour Government, until March 2010?
At least until Gordon was ejected.
Apart from Berlusconi and perhaps Bill Clinton Blair must now be the richest former world leader alive and to think that Harold Wilson spent his retirement in the Scilly Isles!
You are miles and miles off. Plenty of super-rich businessmen have become leaders in parts of the world that aren't particularly rich... or become mysteriously or unexpectedly rich (or their kids have, and family fortunes count too) during their time in office.
Thaksin Shinawatra is a billionaire, for example, easily surpassing the Blairs.
Even the son of Viktor Yanukovych allegedly had a net worth of $300 million plus. The top man himself more than ten billion dollars, though how much of that is now frozen or confiscated I don't know.
Actually this is quite a depressing list. And if you counted current leaders, there'd be plenty from the oilier states. For former leaders, Nigeria's Goodluck Jonathan is allegedly in the $100 million club. Ibrahim Babangida is probably a multibillionaire.
"I just looked at Spencer and said, 'Let's go!'," said Mr Skarlatos from his hotel in Arras, northern France. - "Spencer got to the guy first, grabbed the guy by the neck and I grabbed the handgun, got the handgun away from the guy and threw it.
"Then I grabbed the AK (assault rifle), which was at his feet, and started muzzle thumping him in the head with it."
Actually this is quite a depressing list. And if you counted current leaders, there'd be plenty from the oilier states. For former leaders, Nigeria's Goodluck Jonathan is allegedly in the $100 million club. Ibrahim Babangida is probably a multibillionaire.
Even the son of Viktor Yanukovych allegedly had a net worth of $300 million plus. The top man himself more than ten billion dollars, though how much of that is now frozen or confiscated I don't know.
On the subject of PMs sons who became very wealthy, we cannot miss out that charismatic highly successful businessman: Mark Thatcher.
It's is not just Blair and Heath who wound up rich.
This sort of thing is why the Corbyns of the world gather support. The relationship between political power and money stinks.
>But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax?
Wasn't it 40% tax for the duration of the Labour Government, until March 2010?
At least until Gordon was ejected.
Apart from Berlusconi and perhaps Bill Clinton Blair must now be the richest former world leader alive and to think that Harold Wilson spent his retirement in the Scilly Isles!
Did he? I thought I'd seen a reference to Wilson (and his wife/widow) living in "genteel poverty" in Westminster.
This test match is a good thing for England. Their unexpected Ashes win saw an immediate return to an unjustified triumphalism that last time led to an humiliating defeat in Australia. Now they should realise that changes are needed. In political terms, they have a slender majority and can only win if the opposition do really stupid things.
The Ashes Series was the Election, which the Tories/England won. This match is Ilford North, which the Tories/England lost/will(?) lose
Lyth goes cheaply again. Will he play for England again?
I've always admired Lyth. But he's had more chances than Compton and done rather less with them. Either recall Compton or give Hales a try. Since recalling Compton would mean admitting he should not have been dropped in the first place, and the England hierarchy are even more averse to admitting errors than the great Jezziah, it will logically be Hales.
Lebanon had two consecutive billionaire Prime Ministers, which is astonishing and depressing at the same time! Saad Hariri, son of the assassinated Rafic Hariri, inherited much of his construction tycoon father's wealth. He's now worth about $1 billion. His successor, Najib Mikati, made his fortune (with his brother) in telecoms, net worth about $3 billion.
Even the son of Viktor Yanukovych allegedly had a net worth of $300 million plus. The top man himself more than ten billion dollars, though how much of that is now frozen or confiscated I don't know.
On the subject of PMs sons who became very wealthy, we cannot miss out that charismatic highly successful businessman: Mark Thatcher.
It's is not just Blair and Heath who wound up rich.
This sort of thing is why the Corbyns of the world gather support. The relationship between political power and money stinks.
I was going to make that point but you snuck in before me. Blair's kid making a fortune as a Latin American football agent also comes to mind. Though his mum may have been more help than his dad.
Incidentally it's not so much the money that irks me about Mark Thatcher, but getting an inheritable title from his dad, which isn't really his fault. But the creation stunk. (More so than Macmillan becoming Earl of Stockton, since that at least went to the ex-PM himself first. Couldn't Maggie have got something, rather than her husband? It's silly to complain something like the peerage - inherently ancient and quaint and unfair - is a bit sexist, but I'm sure they could have found a way to accommodate her properly.)
Sounds like you're saying, "yes, but they were not real votes."
I happily admit that most governments think they have far more of a mandate from the electorate than they actually do, but that is the same for all governments, including the previous 4 Labour governments.
However, the legal measure is seats won based on votes, not 'real votes'.
I'm not remotely saying they're not real votes. A vote is a vote is a vote.
My point is that, for someone who was so grudging that they waited until the last minute to decide they were going Tory, it's not going to take much for them to decide in future they don't want to vote for them. They're not someone who can be relied on to definitely vote Tory for the next one or two elections as some people seem to be bizarrely suggesting when they project more wins for the Tories as in the bag.
The Tory majority in the seven most marginal seats (Gower, Derby N, Croydon C, Vale of Clywd, Bury N, Morley and O, Plymouth Sutton) totalled 1793 ranging from Gower at 27 to Plymouth Sutton at 523.
If 900 people had voted the other way in these 7 seats the Torys would not have had a majority.
These 900 most marginal people who could easily have voted the other way (out of the total of about 300,000 who voted in these 7 constituencies) are, by definition of most marginal, the most wibbly-wobbly uncertain voters. The Tory majority and so called mandate depends on these 900 people. The "mandate" is as marginal and ephemeral as that.
Six of those seats would be Labour now had there been no Green candidate on the ballot paper. The same would be true of Brighton - Kemptown.
>But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax?
Wasn't it 40% tax for the duration of the Labour Government, until March 2010?
At least until Gordon was ejected.
Apart from Berlusconi and perhaps Bill Clinton Blair must now be the richest former world leader alive and to think that Harold Wilson spent his retirement in the Scilly Isles!
Did he? I thought I'd seen a reference to Wilson (and his wife/widow) living in "genteel poverty" in Westminster.
Mr. JEO, that the Pope could act as a brake on a monarch's wishes or as a spur to others to support a monarch I wouldn't argue with. However, given the corruption of the Church in medieval times and the tendency for foreign monarchs to invade Rome, kidnap and hold popes elsewhere, set up alternatives popes (at one stage in there were three, each supported by a different coalition of monarchs), and so on, I think the case for the pope as a moderating influence could be overstated.
Additionally, pope or no pope, Western Europe, outside England was not known for constitutional monarchies (the Frogs still didn't seem to have grasped the idea of constitutionalism in the back half of the 18th century). Restrictions on the power of the monarch in England, which happened long before anywhere else in medieval Europe, came about really through the power of money, not the pope.
Don't forget though, Mr Llama, that the political development of France regressed pretty severely in the seventeenth century, culminating in the disastrous absolutism of the last Louis (plural). In the later Middle Ages, France had a parliament, and a system for appealing against the King. As did Scotland, for example, or Hungary.
We could modify JEO's theory a bit - to say that in the Middle Ages, the pope could act as a brake, but later on, after the religious troubles of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the popes became less able and less willing to crack the whip. It's also worth noting the papacy itself went through a very bad patch, with several extremely corrupt and incompetent popes in charge who lacked the energy of their late medieval predecessors. The ultimate expression of this was the corruption and cruelty of the Papal States by the nineteenth century.
Like I say, I don't know enough to confirm or deny his theory, but it seems tenable based on what I do know.
Of course, many of the anti-monarchy movements in the early modern period were driven by philosophies developed in reaction to the concept of Divine Right of Kings, which had to be developed to defend monarchs' prerogative against the Church.
Sounds like you're saying, "yes, but they were not real votes."
I happily admit that most governments think they have far more of a mandate from the electorate than they actually do, but that is the same for all governments, including the previous 4 Labour governments.
However, the legal measure is seats won based on votes, not 'real votes'.
I'm not remotely saying they're not real votes. A vote is a vote is a vote.
My point is that, for someone who was so grudging that they waited until the last minute to decide they were going Tory, it's not going to take much for them to decide in future they don't want to vote for them. They're not someone who can be relied on to definitely vote Tory for the next one or two elections as some people seem to be bizarrely suggesting when they project more wins for the Tories as in the bag.
The Tory majority in the seven most marginal seats (Gower, Derby N, Croydon C, Vale of Clywd, Bury N, Morley and O, Plymouth Sutton) totalled 1793 ranging from Gower at 27 to Plymouth Sutton at 523.
If 900 people had voted the other way in these 7 seats the Torys would not have had a majority.
These 900 most marginal people who could easily have voted the other way (out of the total of about 300,000 who voted in these 7 constituencies) are, by definition of most marginal, the most wibbly-wobbly uncertain voters. The Tory majority and so called mandate depends on these 900 people. The "mandate" is as marginal and ephemeral as that.
Six of those seats would be Labour now had there been no Green candidate on the ballot paper. The same would be true of Brighton - Kemptown.
You ought to hedge this post a bit - it makes certain assumptions about the behaviour of Green voters that, while convenient from a Labour point of view, may not hold true.
"[Bernie Sanders' brother] Larry Sanders ran as a Green Party candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon in the 2015 British general election and came in fifth."
Even the son of Viktor Yanukovych allegedly had a net worth of $300 million plus. The top man himself more than ten billion dollars, though how much of that is now frozen or confiscated I don't know.
On the subject of PMs sons who became very wealthy, we cannot miss out that charismatic highly successful businessman: Mark Thatcher.
It's is not just Blair and Heath who wound up rich.
This sort of thing is why the Corbyns of the world gather support. The relationship between political power and money stinks.
I was going to make that point but you snuck in before me. Blair's kid making a fortune as a Latin American football agent also comes to mind. Though his mum may have been more help than his dad.
Incidentally it's not so much the money that irks me about Mark Thatcher, but getting an inheritable title from his dad, which isn't really his fault. But the creation stunk. (More so than Macmillan becoming Earl of Stockton, since that at least went to the ex-PM himself first. Couldn't Maggie have got something, rather than her husband? It's silly to complain something like the peerage - inherently ancient and quaint and unfair - is a bit sexist, but I'm sure they could have found a way to accommodate her properly.)
She was offered an Earldom (Countess) but turned it down
Sounds like you're saying, "yes, but they were not real votes."
I happily admit that most governments think they have far more of a mandate from the electorate than they actually do, but that is the same for all governments, including the previous 4 Labour governments.
However, the legal measure is seats won based on votes, not 'real votes'.
I'm not remotely saying they're not real votes. A vote is a vote is a vote.
My point is that, for someone who was so grudging that they waited until the last minute to decide they were going Tory, it's not going to take much for them to decide in future they don't want to vote for them. They're not someone who can be relied on to definitely vote Tory for the next one or two elections as some people seem to be bizarrely suggesting when they project more wins for the Tories as in the bag.
The Tory majority in the seven most marginal seats (Gower, Derby N, Croydon C, Vale of Clywd, Bury N, Morley and O, Plymouth Sutton) totalled 1793 ranging from Gower at 27 to Plymouth Sutton at 523.
If 900 people had voted the other way in these 7 seats the Torys would not have had a majority.
These 900 most marginal people who could easily have voted the other way (out of the total of about 300,000 who voted in these 7 constituencies) are, by definition of most marginal, the most wibbly-wobbly uncertain voters. The Tory majority and so called mandate depends on these 900 people. The "mandate" is as marginal and ephemeral as that.
Six of those seats would be Labour now had there been no Green candidate on the ballot paper. The same would be true of Brighton - Kemptown.
The Tories, in 2005, claimed they had lost 30 seats because of the UKIP vote. But they probably hadn't - because those voters would in all likelihood not have voted had UKIP not stood (or spoiled their ballot paper, which amounts to the same thing).
I think it's a bit doubtful to say 'if X hadn't stood, Y would have won.' After all, were Green voters really attracted by the Green message, or put off by the Labour one? Difficult to say, without asking, but I'm guessing if they liked the sound of Bennett (garden sheds and all) enough to vote for her, they wouldn't have been willing to vote for Miliband.
Even the son of Viktor Yanukovych allegedly had a net worth of $300 million plus. The top man himself more than ten billion dollars, though how much of that is now frozen or confiscated I don't know.
On the subject of PMs sons who became very wealthy, we cannot miss out that charismatic highly successful businessman: Mark Thatcher.
It's is not just Blair and Heath who wound up rich.
This sort of thing is why the Corbyns of the world gather support. The relationship between political power and money stinks.
I was going to make that point but you snuck in before me. Blair's kid making a fortune as a Latin American football agent also comes to mind. Though his mum may have been more help than his dad.
Incidentally it's not so much the money that irks me about Mark Thatcher, but getting an inheritable title from his dad, which isn't really his fault. But the creation stunk. (More so than Macmillan becoming Earl of Stockton, since that at least went to the ex-PM himself first. Couldn't Maggie have got something, rather than her husband? It's silly to complain something like the peerage - inherently ancient and quaint and unfair - is a bit sexist, but I'm sure they could have found a way to accommodate her properly.)
She was offered an Earldom (Countess) but turned it down
>But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax?
Wasn't it 40% tax for the duration of the Labour Government, until March 2010?
At least until Gordon was ejected.
Apart from Berlusconi and perhaps Bill Clinton Blair must now be the richest former world leader alive and to think that Harold Wilson spent his retirement in the Scilly Isles!
WE are confusing rich people who made it to power (and perhaps used their wealth to get there), those who used corruption to asset strip their countries, and those who used their profile/links to enrich themselves.
Eg would be the current Thai lot and Mr Bloomberg in NYC, Mugabe and the Indonesian last generation and Mr Marcos, and Thatcher / Major / Blair etc.
Thatcher and Major both made significant amounts from speechifying.
Puzzled by this EPG. You do know that Baldwin became Prime Minister in 1923, before Labour had even held power? He also won a huge election victory in 1924. Any major impact he had on Britain - that is to say, things that happened because of him that would not have happened without him - was in the next five years, up to 1929. After 1931 (which I think is what you are referring to) even though he was co-head of the national government as Lord President of the Council and leader of the party that provided 80% of its MPs, he enacted very little that was new - one of the key criticisms of his government was that it was literally drifting. Many of the most significant economic improvements were enacted by Snowden (a former Labour chancellor, mostly active before the NG was formed) and Chamberlain (who like Brown was pretty much answerable to himself at the Exchequer).
In 1935-37, just about his only significant achievement was handling the abdication crisis effectively. Most of the legacy of the 1920s was gone by 1945 anyway - the Labour government merely read the last rites over it. Ironically, it has been suggested his greatest and most lasting legacy was the Labour party itself - had he not allowed it to take power twice in the 1920s, it is unlikely it would have been so readily accepted in Churchill's government in the 1940s, and thence into power on its own in 1945.
Of course, Baldwin was lucky to be there in the first place, in the sense that he was the only member of the House of Commons in 1923 who could lead a majority government, despite his inexperience and relatively undistinguished record. But I'm not quite clear what point you are trying to make about his luck vs. being underrated.
The key similarity between Cameron and Baldwin, I would suggest, is that they both tend to give more energetic colleagues their heads when formulating policy - Gove, Osborne, May for Cameron, Neville Chamberlain, Churchill and Joynson-Hicks (1920s) for Baldwin. The risk is that it leads to confusion and incoherence at the heart of government because nobody is co-ordinating things properly. That damaged Baldwin's administrations and the risk of being radical in this term is that it could damage Cameron's as well unless he or Osborne keeps a fairly tight rein.
Actually I think you understood exactly what I meant - i.e. the mainly-Conservative governments in the thirties not the twenties. And the implicit point was that winning lots of seats after Labour is tarnished by a depression didn't give the Conservative leader much historical cred the last time it happened because even a massive victory like 1931 led to policies that were overturned often under the Churchill (never mind Attlee) ministry.
Sounds like you're saying, "yes, but they were not real votes."
I happily admit that most governments think they have far more of a mandate from the electorate than they actually do, but that is the same for all governments, including the previous 4 Labour governments.
However, the legal measure is seats won based on votes, not 'real votes'.
I'm not remotely saying they're not real votes. A vote is a vote is a vote.
My point is that, for someone who was so grudging that they waited until the last minute to decide they were going Tory, it's not going to take much for them to decide in future they don't want to vote for them. They're not someone who can be relied on to definitely vote Tory for the next one or two elections as some people seem to be bizarrely suggesting when they project more wins for the Tories as in the bag.
The Tory majority in the seven most marginal seats (Gower, Derby N, Croydon C, Vale of Clywd, Bury N, Morley and O, Plymouth Sutton) totalled 1793 ranging from Gower at 27 to Plymouth Sutton at 523.
Of the 20 most marginal seats Tory & Labour have 9 each:
But do carry on - rationalising why Labour didn't really 'lose' is much appreciated.
No - Labour lost heavily - because of the SNP, not the Tories. The Tories won very marginally because of their thrashing of the LibDems - not of Labour.
The point I was making is that the Tory "mandate" is very tenuous. They can't claim to have the support of most of the country. Neither, of course, can Labour.
>But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax?
Wasn't it 40% tax for the duration of the Labour Government, until March 2010?
At least until Gordon was ejected.
Apart from Berlusconi and perhaps Bill Clinton Blair must now be the richest former world leader alive and to think that Harold Wilson spent his retirement in the Scilly Isles!
WE are confusing rich people who made it to power (and perhaps used their wealth to get there), those who used corruption to asset strip their countries, and those who used their profile/links to enrich themselves.
Eg would be the current Thai lot and Mr Bloomberg in NYC, Mugabe and the Indonesian last generation and Mr Marcos, and Thatcher / Major / Blair etc.
Thatcher and Major both made significant amounts from speechifying.
I am not convinced that the three processes are as distinct as you suggest. Ex politicians trade on their influence and connections. Billionaires running for office are just trying to cut out the middleman.
One question that hasn't been much discussed - will Corbyn be able to get security clearance? (maybe actually irrelevant if briefings have to be done on Privy Council terms).
Cameron may actually have to brief others in the Labour Party on condition that they keep their leader out of the loop...!
If a party leader can't be cleared (or more realistically, is given only a low level of clearance), then that will affect the security clearance of the entire party. It would undermine the entire notion of what a parliamentary party is for members other than the leader to be told things on condition that theey're kept from the leader.
From what I've read of Corbyn, he would never get through the Developed Vetting process, if he was applying for a job that required one. It will be a difficult issue that I wouldn't want to deal with when he becomes LOTO. How can they brief him on sensitive issues in dealing with the middle east without there being a strong possibility he will leak?
AIUI, the briefing of the LOTO is a courtesy - and an attempt to secure prior agreement on the most sensitive aspects of foreign and defence policy - before it is discussed publicly.
There is actually no *need* for these briefings to take place.
Hence I suspect that they simply won't occur. And certainly the Americans would be very unwilling to allow us to share any of their sourced intelligence with Corbyn.
There is no "need", but a LOTO kept outside of the loop can cause a lot of trouble for the government.
Moreover, it's never really arisen before (silly conspiracy theories about Wilson aside). Foot had his faults, and could be (was) portrayed as a bit of a 'useful idiot' to some of the rivals of the country, but nobody with an ounce of sense would ever, ever accuse either him or Kinnock of actively conspiring against it. Kinnock even found Arthur Scargill's actions too extreme for him (although that may have been because he had the misfortune to have to speak with Scargill on a regular basis).
Corbyn, on the other hand, was sharing a platform with the IRA at a time when they were deliberately waging a terrorist campaign on the mainland. Even leaving aside the question of Hamas and Hizbollah (anyone who thinks that they are merely national liberation movements, with respect, needs to learn more about them) that is surely going to put him beyond the pale as far as the Security Service is concerned, especially at a time when there is an ongoing if smaller terrorist threat in Northern Ireland.
I wouldn't be very concerned; the former IRA men are now taking Her Majesty's shilling as her Government in Northern Ireland.
... We could modify JEO's theory a bit - to say that in the Middle Ages, the pope could act as a brake, but later on, after the religious troubles of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the popes became less able and less willing to crack the whip. It's also worth noting the papacy itself went through a very bad patch, with several extremely corrupt and incompetent popes in charge who lacked the energy of their late medieval predecessors. The ultimate expression of this was the corruption and cruelty of the Papal States by the nineteenth century.
...
Apologies, Doctor, for the delay in replying had to go to the shops.
I certainly wouldn't argue that with the idea that form around the sixteenth century the abilities of the pope in meddle in countries' affairs were much curtailed. Doctor Sox, makes much the same point in his post on the subject this morning. Where I am less sure is at what point the popes actually were able to act as a modifying influence on monarchs and act as a driver to constitutionalism as proposed by Mr. JEO and where we started.
We tend to think of the popes in the renaissance as being corrupt (as well as the patrons of the highest expression of the visual arts), possibly because of the antics of Alexander VI. Yet the level or corruption in the curia that led to Alexander's election did not happen overnight. The papacy had been corrupt and for sale for donkey's years and rather than acting as a moderating influence was actually a cause of strife between European monarchs as they tried to manoeuvre their man onto the Throne of Peter.
The row between Philip IV of France and Pope Boniface VIII led, after the sudden and unexpected death of the latter's successor in 1305 after just a few months (rumours that he accidentally brutally stabbed himself in the stomach whilst shaving are scurrilous) to the enthronement of the first of the Avignon Pope's and the French nominee. That led to the great schism of 1378 and a pope in Rome was not re-established until 1417. Thus for the entire 14th century the office of the pope can be seen to have had no moral authority with the monarchs of Europe and was in fact more of their plaything than a moderating influence.
Going back we can see the same sort of effect from the early 13th century with Louis XIth stitching up the Templars with the aid of Gregory (IX?), to their mutual profit. And then we are back to the time of the Crusades.
Yes there were rows between monarchs and popes, Becket and Henry II being the one that immediately springs to mind. But these tended to arguments about who has the power in the kingdom (e.g over the appointment of bishops and hence control of lots and lots of money)rather than the pope being an influence for moderation of the kings' powers.
I am therefore not sure that the argument that the papacy was a force for the development of constitutionalism actually stands up.
Sounds like you're saying, "yes, but they were not real votes."
I happily admit that most governments think they have far more of a mandate from the electorate than they actually do, but that is the same for all governments, including the previous 4 Labour governments.
However, the legal measure is seats won based on votes, not 'real votes'.
I'm not remotely saying they're not real votes. A vote is a vote is a vote.
My point is that, for someone who was so grudging that they waited until the last minute to decide they were going Tory, it's not going to take much for them to decide in future they don't want to vote for them. They're not someone who can be relied on to definitely vote Tory for the next one or two elections as some people seem to be bizarrely suggesting when they project more wins for the Tories as in the bag.
The Tory majority in the seven most marginal seats (Gower, Derby N, Croydon C, Vale of Clywd, Bury N, Morley and O, Plymouth Sutton) totalled 1793 ranging from Gower at 27 to Plymouth Sutton at 523.
Of the 20 most marginal seats Tory & Labour have 9 each:
But do carry on - rationalising why Labour didn't really 'lose' is much appreciated.
No - Labour lost heavily - because of the SNP, not the Tories. The Tories won very marginally because of their thrashing of the LibDems - not of Labour.
The point I was making is that the Tory "mandate" is very tenuous. They can't claim to have the support of most of the country. Neither, of course, can Labour.
Comments
(The boundaries will we might think help the tories a bit more in 2020 as well. Fewer seat might exaggerate the effects of FPTP as well.)
You can hold all sorts of cookie harmless ideas, and then when you're in the Big Boys League - the electorate won't vote for someone/Party that appears to on the Otherside.
The "you would support me if you only knew what i knew" argument was strongly abused by Blair in the run up to the Iraq war.
But I suspect Corbyn would act exactly the same whether he was briefed or not.
So why take the risk?
Strikes me as Labour should have had something similar - substitute Keir Hardie for Queen and Country - for their £3entryists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34014083
You won't invite me to join your club...I didn't want to join anyway
Corbyn, on the other hand, was sharing a platform with the IRA at a time when they were deliberately waging a terrorist campaign on the mainland. Even leaving aside the question of Hamas and Hizbollah (anyone who thinks that they are merely national liberation movements, with respect, needs to learn more about them) that is surely going to put him beyond the pale as far as the Security Service is concerned, especially at a time when there is an ongoing if smaller terrorist threat in Northern Ireland.
You can see it now.. Corbyn asks why he hasn't been briefed on a subject and Cameron replies that the LOTO cannot be trusted to keep it secret and is a security risk.. Lorralorralaughs.
For the first group, they would presumably be invited to affirm (as in courts or on being sworn in to Parliament). In extreme cases, perhaps a new version could be substituted, starting, 'You do swear by the all-knowing Dawk...'
But I would question Blair being worth £100 million. We must assume he was only worth a modest sum in 2007. So in less than 10 years he has acquired a worth of £100m? That's more than £10m a year. Well more. After 50% tax?
Yes yes we know Tony is greasy etc etc etc - do not waste my time with all that. And he gives a lot of speeches. He owns a house or two (mortgaged?). But please somebody explain how Mr T.Blair himself personally, not any charities, is worth 'over' £100m ??
Additionally, pope or no pope, Western Europe, outside England was not known for constitutional monarchies (the Frogs still didn't seem to have grasped the idea of constitutionalism in the back half of the 18th century). Restrictions on the power of the monarch in England, which happened long before anywhere else in medieval Europe, came about really through the power of money, not the pope.
Also, he may or may not have been worth a modest sum in 2007, but don't forget his wife had a pretty substantial income and had built up a property portfolio on the strength of it.
We could modify JEO's theory a bit - to say that in the Middle Ages, the pope could act as a brake, but later on, after the religious troubles of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the popes became less able and less willing to crack the whip. It's also worth noting the papacy itself went through a very bad patch, with several extremely corrupt and incompetent popes in charge who lacked the energy of their late medieval predecessors. The ultimate expression of this was the corruption and cruelty of the Papal States by the nineteenth century.
Like I say, I don't know enough to confirm or deny his theory, but it seems tenable based on what I do know.
Which UKIP policies are based on colour, religion or ethnicity?
Also paging fans of the statistical programming language R, or (as the rather disturbing thread a few nights ago showed to be surprisingly popular round these parts) BDSM.
http://www.timworstall.com/2015/08/20/erm-why-4
Also worth noting that apart from Carmichael all the LD MPs are in seats that just a few elections ago were safe seats for other parties. Seats change over time.
Also there is less tribal loyalty to parties than previously, and while a FPTP breakthrough is difficult, it is possible as demonstrated in Scotland. We are not at the stage of Greece or Israel where parties seem to split and reform as new parties on an almost weekly basis, but it does look increasingly as if the hegemony of the big two parties is on the wane, if not yet history.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/635024341923704832
With every day that passes the stupidity of Corbyn's non-hard left backers becomes starker. I am just so glad I did not waste time and money joining Labour in May.
If the local by elections can be taken as a guide it would appear that support for UKIP is in decline. Of the 5 seats they have defended they have lost 4 - three of them to the Conservatives.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/mps-maj.htm
But do carry on - rationalising why Labour didn't really 'lose' is much appreciated.
But is the manky hair and worn out visage worth it?
Done.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/belgium-pre-qualifying.html
No tip, due to tight odds.
Genuinely feel sorry for you. As you've said before, other parties will look after you well enough, but can't be pleasant to have that sinking feeling of it not being your party anymore.
36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
More seriously, Moeen Ali must be getting fed up with rescue acts at no. 8. Surely the time has come for him to bat at 5 and Bairstow either to take the gloves and drop to 7 or just be dropped.
What's most maddening of all is that every batsman apart from Root and Butler had a decent amount of time to get in - they all got to double figures - but not one could get beyond 22. Something is wrong there.
EDIT - @DavidL, surely not, England have at least won the series, whereas the Labour party can't even win their own leadership election.
Corbyn does not want to be briefed so he can behave in the same way.
Wasn't it 40% tax for the duration of the Labour Government, until March 2010?
At least until Gordon was ejected.
Ali is excellent as a batsman, but I'm not quite sure he's an opener in Tests. Like you I'd prefer Hales. I also think Taylor or maybe Vince should be the reserve batsman or perhaps brought into the team.
One last thought - Cook. Yes, he's been better as a captain in this series, but I think it's affecting his concentration when he bats, and that is affecting the middle order. I'd replace him as captain (Root would presumably be the establishment choice, although I actually think Ali would be a better bet - he's very astute and much more experienced as a captain). Don't suppose it will happen though.
And as I write that, England are all out. Will they follow on, or will Clarke try to get his average up to 50?
EDIT - nope, ruthless to the end, he has enforced the follow on. I suppose it is the last match so he needn't worry about tired bowlers for the next one if England do show fight.
I mean I'm all in favour of hyperbole and post modern irony (the yacht tells it all)... but a pretty plain statement of 'over' £100m surely needs some evidence. Otherwise we are all drinking from the same trough as the nutjob peacenik crypto marxists
As a society, we do seem to be getting into a tremendous muddle over wealth, status and how they all link and what they all mean. Like you, I'm not sure it's a good thing.
"I just looked at Spencer and said, 'Let's go!'," said Mr Skarlatos from his hotel in Arras, northern France. - "Spencer got to the guy first, grabbed the guy by the neck and I grabbed the handgun, got the handgun away from the guy and threw it.
"Then I grabbed the AK (assault rifle), which was at his feet, and started muzzle thumping him in the head with it."
http://news.sky.com/story/1539905/us-soldier-how-we-stopped-train-gunman
#Heroes.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The Public Accounts Committee might have a prima facie case to ask a few questions of ministers here, but I can't see how the Charity Commission's regulatory framework, which has clearly failed disastrously, comes under their remit.
Which government department are they actually attached to - the Home Office, the Treasury, or CMS? (EDIT - I mean the CC, not the PAC!)
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/634999038270676992
You are miles and miles off. Plenty of super-rich businessmen have become leaders in parts of the world that aren't particularly rich... or become mysteriously or unexpectedly rich (or their kids have, and family fortunes count too) during their time in office.
Thaksin Shinawatra is a billionaire, for example, easily surpassing the Blairs.
Even the son of Viktor Yanukovych allegedly had a net worth of $300 million plus. The top man himself more than ten billion dollars, though how much of that is now frozen or confiscated I don't know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/business/global/family-of-wen-jiabao-holds-a-hidden-fortune-in-china.html?_r=0
Actually this is quite a depressing list. And if you counted current leaders, there'd be plenty from the oilier states. For former leaders, Nigeria's Goodluck Jonathan is allegedly in the $100 million club. Ibrahim Babangida is probably a multibillionaire.
http://saharareporters.com/2006/08/26/trail-babangida’s-billions
malcolmg: Chelsea are symptomatic of the effects of English capitalism. I say this as a Tory.
Apocalypse: Chelsea were better when they played Greenwood at centre half, Frank Blunstone on the wing and Peter Brabrook up front. I'm 22 you know.
Morris Dancer: Qualification for Belgian GP starts at 10am.
It's is not just Blair and Heath who wound up rich.
This sort of thing is why the Corbyns of the world gather support. The relationship between political power and money stinks.
http://www.forbes.com/profile/bidzina-ivanishvili/
Lebanon had two consecutive billionaire Prime Ministers, which is astonishing and depressing at the same time! Saad Hariri, son of the assassinated Rafic Hariri, inherited much of his construction tycoon father's wealth. He's now worth about $1 billion. His successor, Najib Mikati, made his fortune (with his brother) in telecoms, net worth about $3 billion.
http://www.forbes.com/profile/saad-hariri/
http://www.forbes.com/profile/najib-mikati/
http://www.theguardian.com/football/shortcuts/2013/nov/11/nicky-blair-football-agent-tony-cherie
Incidentally it's not so much the money that irks me about Mark Thatcher, but getting an inheritable title from his dad, which isn't really his fault. But the creation stunk. (More so than Macmillan becoming Earl of Stockton, since that at least went to the ex-PM himself first. Couldn't Maggie have got something, rather than her husband? It's silly to complain something like the peerage - inherently ancient and quaint and unfair - is a bit sexist, but I'm sure they could have found a way to accommodate her properly.)
Mary Wilson is now 99; and according to the article lives on a modest widows pension.
I once bumped into Harold Wilson walking with Mary in a Westminster street in the eighties, he looked frail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_West_and_Abingdon_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
edit: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19911003&id=GboxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AOYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1322,700842&hl=en
edit2: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-08/news/mn-4_1_countess
I think it's a bit doubtful to say 'if X hadn't stood, Y would have won.' After all, were Green voters really attracted by the Green message, or put off by the Labour one? Difficult to say, without asking, but I'm guessing if they liked the sound of Bennett (garden sheds and all) enough to vote for her, they wouldn't have been willing to vote for Miliband.
Eg would be the current Thai lot and Mr Bloomberg in NYC, Mugabe and the Indonesian last generation and Mr Marcos, and Thatcher / Major / Blair etc.
Thatcher and Major both made significant amounts from speechifying.
The Tories won very marginally because of their thrashing of the LibDems - not of Labour.
The point I was making is that the Tory "mandate" is very tenuous. They can't claim to have the support of most of the country. Neither, of course, can Labour.
Hales Cook in South Africa. Make sure Finn is in the team
I certainly wouldn't argue that with the idea that form around the sixteenth century the abilities of the pope in meddle in countries' affairs were much curtailed. Doctor Sox, makes much the same point in his post on the subject this morning. Where I am less sure is at what point the popes actually were able to act as a modifying influence on monarchs and act as a driver to constitutionalism as proposed by Mr. JEO and where we started.
We tend to think of the popes in the renaissance as being corrupt (as well as the patrons of the highest expression of the visual arts), possibly because of the antics of Alexander VI. Yet the level or corruption in the curia that led to Alexander's election did not happen overnight. The papacy had been corrupt and for sale for donkey's years and rather than acting as a moderating influence was actually a cause of strife between European monarchs as they tried to manoeuvre their man onto the Throne of Peter.
The row between Philip IV of France and Pope Boniface VIII led, after the sudden and unexpected death of the latter's successor in 1305 after just a few months (rumours that he accidentally brutally stabbed himself in the stomach whilst shaving are scurrilous) to the enthronement of the first of the Avignon Pope's and the French nominee. That led to the great schism of 1378 and a pope in Rome was not re-established until 1417. Thus for the entire 14th century the office of the pope can be seen to have had no moral authority with the monarchs of Europe and was in fact more of their plaything than a moderating influence.
Going back we can see the same sort of effect from the early 13th century with Louis XIth stitching up the Templars with the aid of Gregory (IX?), to their mutual profit. And then we are back to the time of the Crusades.
Yes there were rows between monarchs and popes, Becket and Henry II being the one that immediately springs to mind. But these tended to arguments about who has the power in the kingdom (e.g over the appointment of bishops and hence control of lots and lots of money)rather than the pope being an influence for moderation of the kings' powers.
I am therefore not sure that the argument that the papacy was a force for the development of constitutionalism actually stands up.