They may not have the formal body but I'd be reasonably confident they have some sort of equivalent arrangement because it's necessary in a parliamentary democracy. The problem with abolishing the body is that you also abolish the mechanism under which current briefings are given. No doubt some other arrangement could be put in place but why reinvent the wheel?
They may not have the formal body but I'd be reasonably confident they have some sort of equivalent arrangement because it's necessary in a parliamentary democracy. The problem with abolishing the body is that you also abolish the mechanism under which current briefings are given. No doubt some other arrangement could be put in place but why reinvent the wheel?
There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.
He is no worse than the clowns who have supposedly passed it already
Yes he is turnipbrain. That is the point that you are incapable of addressing. Corbyn is a thick scummy Britain hating commie.
There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.
He is no worse than the clowns who have supposedly passed it already
Yes he is turnipbrain. That is the point that you are incapable of addressing. Corbyn is a thick scummy Britain hating commie.
They may not have the formal body but I'd be reasonably confident they have some sort of equivalent arrangement because it's necessary in a parliamentary democracy. The problem with abolishing the body is that you also abolish the mechanism under which current briefings are given. No doubt some other arrangement could be put in place but why reinvent the wheel?
I think that's nonsense, frankly.
The idea that to be a parliamentary democracy, senior politicians must join a quasi-masonic ”club within a club" would seem subversive to, and not supportive of, the notion of democracy.
Besides, it's just another piece of Gilbert & Sullivan obsolescence that no-one has got around to scrapping. A committee that never meets in full, and has a quorum of three.
He can change things if he wins, until then he needs to follow the rules. (Though isn't being pm not strictly speaking in the rules, that is there is no statutory position of PM, is that right?).
I think both Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister were first officially recognised by the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937, which also established the various salary scales for them. Therefore the first holders of each office, at least officially, would be Chamberlain and Attlee.
Gentlemen "understand the limits of what’s acceptable without needing to write it down."
By no means intending an aspersion on the messenger can I just say--- "how sad is that?"
I'm not sure your point is as self evident as you believe. So much so that I haven't a clue why you think so.
The world is a much better place when shared values and common decency are applied rather than a set of imperfect rules.
Yes - As I said previously in another context, the best defence for a woman from a cad a bounder and a rake is a gentleman.
Why the sexism? A can of mace would do just as well.
Possibly it would, Mrs. B.. However carry a can of mace or other noxious substance is illegal and therefore not a valid option open to a lady. Gentlemen prepared act to defend a lady are not illegal. There is, of course, nothing that says another lady may not do the job just as well.
There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.
This is hardly practical.
Most vetting officers wouldn't have cleared Harold Wilson and a raft of other cabinet ministers.
FPT - HoL reform - Demurring from the JackW proposals is a valid as an unwise Mrs JackW shoe purchase - utterly inexplicable !!
Most previous traitors have been of the Tory persuasion, it is all that fun at Eton that does it
This is ridiculous even by your standards. It can only be substantiated by analysis of convicted traitors and their political leanings. I'm sure that like most of your idiocies you have that data at your fingertips. I won't ask as I'm sure you'll be only too keen to enlighten everyone.
As one of the Newsnight panel of former Labour voters said last night when asked what the new Labour leader should do ';just get on your knees and start praying'
Is Cat Smith incapable of answering simple questions or just thick ?
There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.
This is hardly practical.
Most vetting officers wouldn't have cleared Harold Wilson and a raft of other cabinet ministers.
FPT - HoL reform - Demurring from the JackW proposals is a valid as an unwise Mrs JackW shoe purchase - utterly inexplicable !!
Most previous traitors have been of the Tory persuasion, it is all that fun at Eton that does it
This is ridiculous even by your standards. It can only be substantiated by analysis of convicted traitors and their political leanings. I'm sure that like most of your idiocies you have that data at your fingertips. I won't ask as I'm sure you'll be only too keen to enlighten everyone.
Well maybe the problem isn't so much Corbyn as the arcane system that centuries of never being invaded and not having revolutions has left us with? So a key part of the way the country is run is a body with no written constitution that nobody who isn't a participating gentleman knows the rules of? Is that any way to manage a country in the modern world? I wouldn't call an opponent of that way of doing things disloyal. In fact, it sounds like quite a patriotic position to me.
No, it is apparently disloyal to even countenance change to reform of rules written by gentlemen for gentlemen.
I guarantee you, though, that if someone in 1688 had decreed a codified constitution, British values would all be about following the rules to generate fair play, rather than the vague conventions common in immature democracies. It's just conservatism, accepting the way things are as good because it seems to suit our betters.
It's not disloyal to want to change the rules. They have changed over time already, when certain bits no longer work. The issue is not resisting any change to the rules because it suits 'our betters' but specifically that he has indicated he would opt out of a rule which provides a use, to no purpose. As has been suggested, if he wins the GE he could get rid of the pc as a mechanism or change the oath required so someone like him would have no moral qualms.
Presenting it as purely a resistance to any change is disingenuous, that is not what is being said. It's about what the rule is there for, why refuse to abide by it and does that have any consequences. If the answers are that the rule serves no purpose anymore or it never did, so is being refused reasonably, or it would have no negative consequence, change would happen quite reasonably.
There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.
This is hardly practical.
Most vetting officers wouldn't have cleared Harold Wilson and a raft of other cabinet ministers.
FPT - HoL reform - Demurring from the JackW proposals is a valid as an unwise Mrs JackW shoe purchase - utterly inexplicable !!
Most previous traitors have been of the Tory persuasion, it is all that fun at Eton that does it
This is ridiculous even by your standards. It can only be substantiated by analysis of convicted traitors and their political leanings. I'm sure that like most of your idiocies you have that data at your fingertips. I won't ask as I'm sure you'll be only too keen to enlighten everyone.
prove me wrong loser or trot on
Typically the person making the claim has to back it up...
Why does Kids Company Camila tell so many tall stories about her life? This troubling investigation reveals her own colourful account of her past doesn't quite add up
Camila Batmanghelidjh gave countless interviews driving interest in charity Loaded with stories on Kids Company's work on front line of urban Britain She once claimed she had been shot at and staff threatened with a knife But our investigation shows comments can't always be taken at face value
Why does Kids Company Camila tell so many tall stories about her life? This troubling investigation reveals her own colourful account of her past doesn't quite add up
Camila Batmanghelidjh gave countless interviews driving interest in charity Loaded with stories on Kids Company's work on front line of urban Britain She once claimed she had been shot at and staff threatened with a knife But our investigation shows comments can't always be taken at face value
She seems to be someone who is probably well intentioned, but grossly incompetent and a smooth talker willing to say anything to get more money and with little judgement.
There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.
This is hardly practical.
Most vetting officers wouldn't have cleared Harold Wilson and a raft of other cabinet ministers.
FPT - HoL reform - Demurring from the JackW proposals is a valid as an unwise Mrs JackW shoe purchase - utterly inexplicable !!
Most previous traitors have been of the Tory persuasion, it is all that fun at Eton that does it
This is ridiculous even by your standards. It can only be substantiated by analysis of convicted traitors and their political leanings. I'm sure that like most of your idiocies you have that data at your fingertips. I won't ask as I'm sure you'll be only too keen to enlighten everyone.
prove me wrong loser or trot on
So any ridiculous and plainly made-up statement you make is true unless someone bothers to prove otherwise. You are a sanctimonious prat (that may be a bit kind).
Gentlemen "understand the limits of what’s acceptable without needing to write it down."
By no means intending an aspersion on the messenger can I just say--- "how sad is that?"
I'm not sure your point is as self evident as you believe. So much so that I haven't a clue why you think so.
The world is a much better place when shared values and common decency are applied rather than a set of imperfect rules.
Yes - As I said previously in another context, the best defence for a woman from a cad a bounder and a rake is a gentleman.
Why the sexism? A can of mace would do just as well.
I'm not being sexist. I suppose I could prove it by being outstandingly rude to you. But I can't be arsed.
Option 1 response oooh help, I need the protection of a gentleman!!!! Flightpath01 is being a cad and a bounder!
Option 2 respons There was once on pb flightpath01 Who thought being rude was such fun But all it achieved Was to make people peeved And to think less of poor flightpath01
I've gone from thinking the same to feeling she's a narcissistic opportunist, who's used the vulnerable to create an entourage and lifestyle that gives her the adulation she craves.
The number and scale of the factual inaccuracies between her claims/reality are really rather worrying.
EDIT This is just one example "Another dramatic story. However, a cynic might wonder how a man might 'swim to freedom' from Iran to Turkey when there is no coastline, or sea, between the two nations."
Why does Kids Company Camila tell so many tall stories about her life? This troubling investigation reveals her own colourful account of her past doesn't quite add up
Camila Batmanghelidjh gave countless interviews driving interest in charity Loaded with stories on Kids Company's work on front line of urban Britain She once claimed she had been shot at and staff threatened with a knife But our investigation shows comments can't always be taken at face value
She seems to be someone who is probably well intentioned, but grossly incompetent and a smooth talker willing to say anything to get more money and with little judgement.
I think Corbyn has certainly provoked debate. This has to be a good thing.
I welcome it. Some of his ideas need not even be that bad, he has a lot of them and some are bound to be ok or even popular. Taken as a whole I find him concerning in many ways, and those on extreme wings of groups on left and right seem far less interested in debate than anyone else (hence whey they splinter), but it's been a refreshing diversion (as I hope it will remain merely a diversion).
Why does Kids Company Camila tell so many tall stories about her life? This troubling investigation reveals her own colourful account of her past doesn't quite add up
Camila Batmanghelidjh gave countless interviews driving interest in charity Loaded with stories on Kids Company's work on front line of urban Britain She once claimed she had been shot at and staff threatened with a knife But our investigation shows comments can't always be taken at face value
She seems to be someone who is probably well intentioned, but grossly incompetent and a smooth talker willing to say anything to get more money and with little judgement.
There's a lot of trust in that conclusion. I'm sure this story has a long way to go and although she seems to have done some good, she and her supporters seem to have done good too.
Jesus Christ, I've been Corbyned out. I can't wait until something else happens in politics to talk about....
That's the problem I have with the american electoral cycle, I don't know how they handle it - they've been talking about 2016 at a low level for a year at least already, and there's still so long to go. This Labour one is not so bad, yet, but I hope they shorten for next time.
This is my favourite bit and I barked with laughter.
Asked about a range of apparent discrepancies in roughly a dozen published interviews, and articles that she has written over the years, Kids Company’s lawyers told the Mail last night that they rejected any suggestion that their client was dishonest.
“Ms Batmanghelidjh has been misquoted and the quotes attributed to her [in the pieces] are not accurate, nor did she make many of these claims. She has never misrepresented her past or qualifications to anyone.”
This high-profile woman, who has done so much to help children over the years, will nonetheless, now be helping the police, National Audit Office, the Commons Public Accounts Select Committee and the Charities Commission with their inquiries. Perhaps they will be able to iron out the many strange chapters in her own story.
"I’ve gone to gay weddings. I’ve been at gay weddings," said Trump. "I have been against [same-sex marriage] from the standpoint of the Bible, from the standpoint of my teachings as growing up and going to Sunday school and going to church, and I’ve been opposed to it, and we’ll just see how it all comes out. But, you know, if I was ever in that position I'd just have to explain it." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-gay-marriage_55df3412e4b029b3f1b1d228?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices
One of the interesting things about Trump is, for all his bluster, he's actually quite moderate in terms of policies by Republican standards. He's not really obsessed with the gays and abortion. He was against Iraq. He's opposed to the cuts to healthcare and welfare programmes that other Republicans suggest (though that seems to be mainly because his line is "I'm such a good businessman that I'll create so much wealth that we'll have enough money to keep paying for all the stuff we have now").
Even on immigration, put aside the off-colour comments about Mexicans being rapists, and his big policy of rigorous border controls is hardly that controversial.
The Privy Council is a red herring.Its meaning lies in a relationship between the leader of the Opposition and the Monarchy.Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Second can open back-channels at any time.She may invite him to the Palace.
I've gone from thinking the same to feeling she's a narcissistic opportunist, who's used the vulnerable to create an entourage and lifestyle that gives her the adulation she craves.
The number and scale of the factual inaccuracies between her claims/reality are really rather worrying.
EDIT This is just one example "Another dramatic story. However, a cynic might wonder how a man might 'swim to freedom' from Iran to Turkey when there is no coastline, or sea, between the two nations."
Why does Kids Company Camila tell so many tall stories about her life? This troubling investigation reveals her own colourful account of her past doesn't quite add up
Camila Batmanghelidjh gave countless interviews driving interest in charity Loaded with stories on Kids Company's work on front line of urban Britain She once claimed she had been shot at and staff threatened with a knife But our investigation shows comments can't always be taken at face value
She seems to be someone who is probably well intentioned, but grossly incompetent and a smooth talker willing to say anything to get more money and with little judgement.
What is more important is the number of our elders and betters who were made fools of by this Pied Piper. Remember their faces. Remember their names. And never trust their judgement again...
Jesus Christ, I've been Corbyned out. I can't wait until something else happens in politics to talk about....
That's the problem I have with the american electoral cycle, I don't know how they handle it - they've been talking about 2016 at a low level for a year at least already, and there's still so long to go. This Labour one is not so bad, yet, but I hope they shorten for next time.
I suppose it's the nature of their system - they don't tend to have leaders of the opposition who are the automatic candidate for POTUS but long, drawn out selection processes. Makes the Labour leadership time frame look fast by comparison.
There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.
This is hardly practical.
Most vetting officers wouldn't have cleared Harold Wilson and a raft of other cabinet ministers.
FPT - HoL reform - Demurring from the JackW proposals is a valid as an unwise Mrs JackW shoe purchase - utterly inexplicable !!
Most previous traitors have been of the Tory persuasion, it is all that fun at Eton that does it
This is ridiculous even by your standards. It can only be substantiated by analysis of convicted traitors and their political leanings. I'm sure that like most of your idiocies you have that data at your fingertips. I won't ask as I'm sure you'll be only too keen to enlighten everyone.
prove me wrong loser or trot on
Typically the person making the claim has to back it up...
Rob, you should know by now that I am not typical , if the cretin cannot answer why would I waste my valuable time on him. PS: If it had been someone sensible like yourself I would of course have taken the time to answer
"This high-profile woman, who has done so much to help children over the years, will nonetheless, now be helping the police, National Audit Office, the Commons Public Accounts Select Committee and the Charities Commission with their inquiries."
Arf - I hope they ask how she managed to get through £8 million in 3 months. + Receipts.
There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.
This is hardly practical.
Most vetting officers wouldn't have cleared Harold Wilson and a raft of other cabinet ministers.
FPT - HoL reform - Demurring from the JackW proposals is a valid as an unwise Mrs JackW shoe purchase - utterly inexplicable !!
Most previous traitors have been of the Tory persuasion, it is all that fun at Eton that does it
This is ridiculous even by your standards. It can only be substantiated by analysis of convicted traitors and their political leanings. I'm sure that like most of your idiocies you have that data at your fingertips. I won't ask as I'm sure you'll be only too keen to enlighten everyone.
prove me wrong loser or trot on
So any ridiculous and plainly made-up statement you make is true unless someone bothers to prove otherwise. You are a sanctimonious prat (that may be a bit kind).
Reggie, you should stick to pulling the girls pigtails and not get mixed up trying it on with big boys.
Does Corbyn object to the Oath as well as the institution? If so will he want to abolish oaths of allegiance to the crown generally? If so there are wider constitutional ramifications that he may not have thought through.
To whom, for example, will members of the armed forces and the police owe their allegiance? Nobody? They just become jobs like any other? If so on whose authority do they act when carrying out their duties involving violence towards citizens or otherwise? Parliament, the Constitution? The first is a flexible beast and may change from one month to the next, the latter is a collection of Acts of Parliament and conventions some of which date back centuries some of which can be changed on the whim of a PM.
Doing away with oaths of allegiance to the Crown, the Privy Council and even the monarchy itself is obviously not impossible but something will need to be put in their place. It would be a very serious change to the constitution and the manner in which we are governed and therefore need some serious thought. In this matter Corbyn once again seems to be showing the mindset of a rebellious sixth-former and not a mature politician fit for office.
Enough fun , I am off to dismantle the swimming pool and polish my gas guzzler.
God God, Mr. G.. Don't you have people who will do that sort of thing for you? Both, and especially the former, sound like jolly hard work. We have some Albanians or some such here in the village who do a spiffing job at car cleaning for very reasonable amounts of money. Perhaps Scotland need some more immigrants.
So Labour won clear victories in 2 of the lowest turnout elections of recent times, 2001 and 2005 and one by a landslide. The Tories won in 1992 on one of the highest turnouts of recent times and Labour lost the popular vote in Feb 1974 on the highest turnout of recent times showing that it is a myth that higher turnout really helps Labour
I believe there is something in that , and have long suspected that the high turnout in 1992 owed a great deal to reluctant Tories deciding in the final few days to hold their noses.The Sheffield Rally gave Major his majority - though the Tories were always going to be the largest party.
They may not have the formal body but I'd be reasonably confident they have some sort of equivalent arrangement because it's necessary in a parliamentary democracy. The problem with abolishing the body is that you also abolish the mechanism under which current briefings are given. No doubt some other arrangement could be put in place but why reinvent the wheel?
I think that's nonsense, frankly.
The idea that to be a parliamentary democracy, senior politicians must join a quasi-masonic ”club within a club" would seem subversive to, and not supportive of, the notion of democracy.
Besides, it's just another piece of Gilbert & Sullivan obsolescence that no-one has got around to scrapping. A committee that never meets in full, and has a quorum of three.
Roy Hattersley's article was hilarious.
Democracy is merely a means to an end and that end is good, responsible and reasonably representative government - and good government cannot always be carried out in the glare of publicity, or sometimes even full parliamentary accountability.
That's why it's essential that senior politicians - those who might be running the country - are capable of exercising self-restraint in exercising those powers that lie beyond; they have to be trusted not just by the public but by each other. Corbyn is risking destroying that trust. And that way lies the route to extra-democratic opposition.
The flummery that surrounds some parts of the constitution should not act as a veil to their utility.
And I've yet to read or hear anything from Hattersley that's hilarious.
I've gone from thinking the same to feeling she's a narcissistic opportunist, who's used the vulnerable to create an entourage and lifestyle that gives her the adulation she craves.
The number and scale of the factual inaccuracies between her claims/reality are really rather worrying.
EDIT This is just one example "Another dramatic story. However, a cynic might wonder how a man might 'swim to freedom' from Iran to Turkey when there is no coastline, or sea, between the two nations."
Why does Kids Company Camila tell so many tall stories about her life? This troubling investigation reveals her own colourful account of her past doesn't quite add up
Camila Batmanghelidjh gave countless interviews driving interest in charity Loaded with stories on Kids Company's work on front line of urban Britain She once claimed she had been shot at and staff threatened with a knife But our investigation shows comments can't always be taken at face value
She seems to be someone who is probably well intentioned, but grossly incompetent and a smooth talker willing to say anything to get more money and with little judgement.
What is more important is the number of our elders and betters who were made fools of by this Pied Piper. Remember their faces. Remember their names. And never trust their judgement again... Miss Batman can be added to the ever growing list of people David Cameron bizarrely trusted.
The Christian Socialist Movement was where many of the Blairites and I think Brownites gathered in the 1990s.
I think there was a time when they had most of the Cabinet as members.
No idea how much of it was "to be near to Tony".
At some stage the CSM will have deliberately moved on, but given that Cat is a UNITE / McCluskey supported type, I can see why she would emphasize the difference as a matter of politics.
Thanks, Matt, I didn't know that. But that in itself gives even more of the lie to her disparagement of it. She was dismissing it as 'not important', when it was, at one time. Even if it still isn't, to forget just how important it was is to be wilfully blind to the actual antecedents of Labour, and what made it a genuinely mass movement in a way that pure Marxism, or even 'developed socialism', never could have done and almost certainly never will do.
It's all of a piece with Corbyn's iconoclasm for this thread - a lot of arrogant talk, with little thought for the practical realities of their disregard for what they regard as arcane features.
Checking, I'm not sure about the half of the Cabinet claim, so I withdraw that.
Certainly John Smith was keen, as was Blair, and I think Blunkett. Also Chris Bryant and Stephen Timms. Not sure about Brown.
So Labour won clear victories in 2 of the lowest turnout elections of recent times, 2001 and 2005 and one by a landslide. The Tories won in 1992 on one of the highest turnouts of recent times and Labour lost the popular vote in Feb 1974 on the highest turnout of recent times showing that it is a myth that higher turnout really helps Labour
I believe there is something in that , and have long suspected that the high turnout in 1992 owed a great deal to reluctant Tories deciding in the final few days to hold their noses.The Sheffield Rally gave Major his majority - though the Tories were always going to be the largest party.
You might be right, Mr. 124, though I am not sure that the Conservatives were always going to be the largest party in Parliament after the 1992 election. It certainly didn't seem that way to me at the time.
If the Sheffield Rally was the key factor in getting a significant number of voters to turn out and put their cross against their Conservative candidate, then I suggest it was because they took at look at Kinnock's behaviour and thought, "Him as PM, no bloody thanks". Maybe we saw a similar effect this year when as the election drew near similar voters looked at Miliband seriously for the first time and thought the same.
That said, I am fairly sure the most masterful piece of campaigning I have seen in my lifetime was the poster that had Miliband in the Pocket of Salmond. It was very effective not least because it built on Salmond's boast that he would be writing Miliband's budget. Either way, I think a lot of right of centre inclined English voters were sufficiently moved by the prospect of the SNP in a position of power at Westminster as to vote Conservative. I also think that this cost UKIP a lot of votes and, probably, several seats.
It appears that SLAB are delaying their Regional List voting until Feb 2016. This comes on the back of SLAB's NEC deciding that only members and affiliates, who were registered on 13 June 2015 would be eligible to vote. I think they'll need to reconsider this in light of the delay in voting.
Kezia and Alex are guaranteed 1st place in their Regional Lists. As SLAB are likely to lose all of their 13 constituency seats, this will leave them with around 25 List MSPs. I think delaying this process until Feb is a mistake as the battle for List positions is going to be intense.
Does Corbyn object to the Oath as well as the institution? If so will he want to abolish oaths of allegiance to the crown generally? If so there are wider constitutional ramifications that he may not have thought through.
To whom, for example, will members of the armed forces and the police owe their allegiance? Nobody? They just become jobs like any other? If so on whose authority do they act when carrying out their duties involving violence towards citizens or otherwise? Parliament, the Constitution? The first is a flexible beast and may change from one month to the next, the latter is a collection of Acts of Parliament and conventions some of which date back centuries some of which can be changed on the whim of a PM.
Doing away with oaths of allegiance to the Crown, the Privy Council and even the monarchy itself is obviously not impossible but something will need to be put in their place. It would be a very serious change to the constitution and the manner in which we are governed and therefore need some serious thought. In this matter Corbyn once again seems to be showing the mindset of a rebellious sixth-former and not a mature politician fit for office.
A republican doesn't merely want to abolish oaths to the crown but to abolish the crown itself. Corbyn may well have a serious alternative he wants to put in its place that is fitting for the 21st century world we live in, there are plenty of alternatives available across the globe.
However where I as a Conservative republican would vehemently disagree with Corbyn is that he is putting the cart before the horse. We live in a democratic constitutional monarchy, we are not going to have a French Revolution and see Her Majesty's head on a guillotine. If we want to abolish the monarchy then we should do that democratically and that would almost certainly mean we'd need to have a referendum nowadays. Then we can abolish the monarchy.
However until that has happened then our constitution needs to be respected and that includes saying the oaths and joining the Privy Council. Only from within can you enact change democratically.
There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.
This is hardly practical.
Most vetting officers wouldn't have cleared Harold Wilson and a raft of other cabinet ministers.
FPT - HoL reform - Demurring from the JackW proposals is a valid as an unwise Mrs JackW shoe purchase - utterly inexplicable !!
Most previous traitors have been of the Tory persuasion, it is all that fun at Eton that does it
This is ridiculous even by your standards. It can only be substantiated by analysis of convicted traitors and their political leanings. I'm sure that like most of your idiocies you have that data at your fingertips. I won't ask as I'm sure you'll be only too keen to enlighten everyone.
prove me wrong loser or trot on
Typically the person making the claim has to back it up...
Rob, you should know by now that I am not typical , if the cretin cannot answer why would I waste my valuable time on him. PS: If it had been someone sensible like yourself I would of course have taken the time to answer
Typically the person making the claim has to back it up. Do you not understand what this means?
There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.
This is hardly practical.
Most vetting officers wouldn't have cleared Harold Wilson and a raft of other cabinet ministers.
FPT - HoL reform - Demurring from the JackW proposals is a valid as an unwise Mrs JackW shoe purchase - utterly inexplicable !!
Most previous traitors have been of the Tory persuasion, it is all that fun at Eton that does it
This is ridiculous even by your standards. It can only be substantiated by analysis of convicted traitors and their political leanings. I'm sure that like most of your idiocies you have that data at your fingertips. I won't ask as I'm sure you'll be only too keen to enlighten everyone.
prove me wrong loser or trot on
So any ridiculous and plainly made-up statement you make is true unless someone bothers to prove otherwise. You are a sanctimonious prat (that may be a bit kind).
Reggie, you should stick to pulling the girls pigtails and not get mixed up trying it on with big boys.
I think the average person hearing the phrase Privy Council would think it was something to do with toilets. As far as I can tell the main story here is that Corbyn is attracting thousands to rallies all across the country with little MSM coverage. Suffice to say the establishment does not take kindly to having its tummy tickled by populist politicians and parties.
I think the average person hearing the phrase Privy Council would think it was something to do with toilets. As far as I can tell the main story here is that Corbyn is attracting thousands to rallies all across the country with little MSM coverage. Suffice to say the establishment does not take kindly to having its tummy tickled by populist politicians and parties.
No one thinks the person in the street is going to be particularly concerned about his attitude regarding the Privy Council, there is merely speculation about the implications of such a stance that he may not have considered and whether, as Philip Thompson says, he is putting the cart before the horse. His successfully holding rallies is neither here nor there on this issue, though of course well done him for energising supporters (though whether that will indeed worry the establishment or not is I think unproven, given one can hold successful rallies and not win elections).
A republican doesn't merely want to abolish oaths to the crown but to abolish the crown itself. Corbyn may well have a serious alternative he wants to put in its place that is fitting for the 21st century world we live in, there are plenty of alternatives available across the globe.
However where I as a Conservative republican would vehemently disagree with Corbyn is that he is putting the cart before the horse. We live in a democratic constitutional monarchy, we are not going to have a French Revolution and see Her Majesty's head on a guillotine. If we want to abolish the monarchy then we should do that democratically and that would almost certainly mean we'd need to have a referendum nowadays. Then we can abolish the monarchy.
However until that has happened then our constitution needs to be respected and that includes saying the oaths and joining the Privy Council. Only from within can you enact change democratically.
Agreed on all points, Mr. Thompson, except one.
You say that, inter alia, you want a system that is fit for the 21st century and there are plenty of alternatives to a constitutional monarchy out there. Indeed there are but I haven't noticed any that produce a result that is noticeably superior that we seem to muddle through to get, but a good many that provide worse governance.
I suspect that when you say a system fit for the 21st century you actually mean that you want a system in which accidents of birth have no bearing on the exercise of political power and/or wealth (actually wealth and power are really the same thing). Well, all I can say to that is when you find an industrialised country with such a system you come and let us know.
Of course, wrapped up in your idea is that democracy, and especially with the universal franchise, is of itself good. There I am afraid we must part company. This is not the space to discuss political theory at that level, but should you want to do so you can find me at my user name at gmail dot com.
So Labour won clear victories in 2 of the lowest turnout elections of recent times, 2001 and 2005 and one by a landslide. The Tories won in 1992 on one of the highest turnouts of recent times and Labour lost the popular vote in Feb 1974 on the highest turnout of recent times showing that it is a myth that higher turnout really helps Labour
I believe there is something in that , and have long suspected that the high turnout in 1992 owed a great deal to reluctant Tories deciding in the final few days to hold their noses.The Sheffield Rally gave Major his majority - though the Tories were always going to be the largest party.
You might be right, Mr. 124, though I am not sure that the Conservatives were always going to be the largest party in Parliament after the 1992 election. It certainly didn't seem that way to me at the time.
If the Sheffield Rally was the key factor in getting a significant number of voters to turn out and put their cross against their Conservative candidate, then I suggest it was because they took at look at Kinnock's behaviour and thought, "Him as PM, no bloody thanks". Maybe we saw a similar effect this year when as the election drew near similar voters looked at Miliband seriously for the first time and thought the same.
That said, I am fairly sure the most masterful piece of campaigning I have seen in my lifetime was the poster that had Miliband in the Pocket of Salmond. It was very effective not least because it built on Salmond's boast that he would be writing Miliband's budget. Either way, I think a lot of right of centre inclined English voters were sufficiently moved by the prospect of the SNP in a position of power at Westminster as to vote Conservative. I also think that this cost UKIP a lot of votes and, probably, several seats.
Re-1992 I agree it didn't seem obvious at the time that the Tories would end up as the largest party, but subsequent analysis and identification of polling errors made it pretty clear that the Tories were ahead throughout the campaign - though the margin widened in the final few days. This also poses the question as to whether a late swing would have occurred at all had the polls been more accurate in both 1992 and 2015?Had there been a general perception that the Tories had a lead of 4 or 5% there might well have been less panic amongst wobbly voters who might then have abstained rather than switch to the Tories.If so, the poor polling may well have denied us a Hung Parliament in both years!
So Labour won clear victories in 2 of the lowest turnout elections of recent times, 2001 and 2005 and one by a landslide. The Tories won in 1992 on one of the highest turnouts of recent times and Labour lost the popular vote in Feb 1974 on the highest turnout of recent times showing that it is a myth that higher turnout really helps Labour
I believe there is something in that , and have long suspected that the high turnout in 1992 owed a great deal to reluctant Tories deciding in the final few days to hold their noses.The Sheffield Rally gave Major his majority - though the Tories were always going to be the largest party.
Kinnock was actually ahead in more polls in 1992 than Miliband was in 2015 and there was even more of a late swing than 2015
Does Corbyn object to the Oath as well as the institution? If so will he want to abolish oaths of allegiance to the crown generally? If so there are wider constitutional ramifications that he may not have thought through.
To whom, for example, will members of the armed forces and the police owe their allegiance? Nobody? They just become jobs like any other? If so on whose authority do they act when carrying out their duties involving violence towards citizens or otherwise? Parliament, the Constitution? The first is a flexible beast and may change from one month to the next, the latter is a collection of Acts of Parliament and conventions some of which date back centuries some of which can be changed on the whim of a PM.
Doing away with oaths of allegiance to the Crown, the Privy Council and even the monarchy itself is obviously not impossible but something will need to be put in their place. It would be a very serious change to the constitution and the manner in which we are governed and therefore need some serious thought. In this matter Corbyn once again seems to be showing the mindset of a rebellious sixth-former and not a mature politician fit for office.
Re-1992 I agree it didn't seem obvious at the time that the Tories would end up as the largest party, but subsequent analysis and identification of polling errors made it pretty clear that the Tories were ahead throughout the campaign - though the margin widened in the final few days. This also poses the question as to whether a late swing would have occurred at all had the polls been more accurate in both 1992 and 2015?Had there been a general perception that the Tories had a lead of 4 or 5% there might well have been less panic amongst wobbly voters who might then have abstained rather than switch to the Tories.If so, the poor polling may well have denied us a Hung Parliament in both years!
You touch on a point that might be very sensitive to some on this site. To what extent do polls reflect voters views and to what extent to they form them? Furthermore to what extent or the polls "honest"?
My personal view given what we saw this year, especially the two mutually incompatible trends, is that the polling companies are not "honest" but produce polls that are adjusted to what the companies think they ought to say. I also think that, especially close to the election day, polls stop reflecting and start creating voters' views. There is, as we know, a polling industry review going on at the moment but even so I think there is a good case for statutory regulation of polls including banning their publication within a few weeks of a general election.
It appears that SLAB are delaying their Regional List voting until Feb 2016. This comes on the back of SLAB's NEC deciding that only members and affiliates, who were registered on 13 June 2015 would be eligible to vote. I think they'll need to reconsider this in light of the delay in voting.
Kezia and Alex are guaranteed 1st place in their Regional Lists. As SLAB are likely to lose all of their 13 constituency seats, this will leave them with around 25 List MSPs. I think delaying this process until Feb is a mistake as the battle for List positions is going to be intense.
I would not count on that after all SLAB held one constituency seat even in 2015. A Corbyn leadership would boost Labour in Scotland and if the SNP do not put indyref2 in their manifesto as seems likely that will depress turn out among their supporters and some may vote for minor parties or even Corbyn Labour if they do include indyref2 that will see unionists voting tactically
I suspect Corbyn's problem is not with the role of Privy Councillor but the wording of the oath itself (just like Sinn Fein).
If you were a republican would you really want to swear the following oath?
"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"
You would be a hypocrite if you did.
If he becomes PM with a majority, there is a simple solution. Amend the The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 so that the oath is to promise loyalty to Parliament rather than the Queen.
This is unfinished business.
As Matthew Parris said in his article today the whole thing is completely infantile - generally intelligent people acting out what amounts to a pointless children's play - for no other reason than that is what has always been done so custom dictates it should continue.
If the farce was ended people would very quickly look back wondering how on earth it went on for so long.
Without a codified constitution we rely upon precedent. Just changing things without thinking about them led to Blair dissolving the post of Lord Chancellor (until he realised he couldn't) and completely buggering up devolution.
Change for the sake of change is ridiculous. Unless it's proven, or at least highly probable, a change is an improvement things ought to be left the same, unmolested by the grasping fingers of modernising kaleidoscope meddlers.
Does Corbyn object to the Oath as well as the institution? If so will he want to abolish oaths of allegiance to the crown generally? If so there are wider constitutional ramifications that he may not have thought through.
To whom, for example, will members of the armed forces and the police owe their allegiance? Nobody? They just become jobs like any other? If so on whose authority do they act when carrying out their duties involving violence towards citizens or otherwise? Parliament, the Constitution? The first is a flexible beast and may change from one month to the next, the latter is a collection of Acts of Parliament and conventions some of which date back centuries some of which can be changed on the whim of a PM.
Doing away with oaths of allegiance to the Crown, the Privy Council and even the monarchy itself is obviously not impossible but something will need to be put in their place. It would be a very serious change to the constitution and the manner in which we are governed and therefore need some serious thought. In this matter Corbyn once again seems to be showing the mindset of a rebellious sixth-former and not a mature politician fit for office.
Plenty of non-monarchies in Europe have armies.
Really? Gosh, I never knew that. Thank you so much for taking the time to tell me, I would have been completely lost and barking up the wrong tree for ever if you had not informed of a fact that I was never previously aware of. I am very grateful for your kind and erudite contribution to my education. Obviously your one liner that completely ignores the questions I was asking is a massive contribution.
Re-1992 I agree it didn't seem obvious at the time that the Tories would end up as the largest party, but subsequent analysis and identification of polling errors made it pretty clear that the Tories were ahead throughout the campaign - though the margin widened in the final few days. This also poses the question as to whether a late swing would have occurred at all had the polls been more accurate in both 1992 and 2015?Had there been a general perception that the Tories had a lead of 4 or 5% there might well have been less panic amongst wobbly voters who might then have abstained rather than switch to the Tories.If so, the poor polling may well have denied us a Hung Parliament in both years!
You touch on a point that might be very sensitive to some on this site. To what extent do polls reflect voters views and to what extent to they form them? Furthermore to what extent or the polls "honest"?
My personal view given what we saw this year, especially the two mutually incompatible trends, is that the polling companies are not "honest" but produce polls that are adjusted to what the companies think they ought to say. I also think that, especially close to the election day, polls stop reflecting and start creating voters' views. There is, as we know, a polling industry review going on at the moment but even so I think there is a good case for statutory regulation of polls including banning their publication within a few weeks of a general election.
That would be like banning the sale of Turkey in the run up to Christmas polls are not forecasts but estimates of public opinion at one time and an important source of information if not infallible
'Not infallible' is a kind way to describe the polling in the run-up to the 2015 General Election.
I said in 2010, and again in 2015, that a flood of polling shapes rather than reflects public opinion, as it influences the news rather than merely measuring the public mood.
Does Corbyn object to the Oath as well as the institution? If so will he want to abolish oaths of allegiance to the crown generally? If so there are wider constitutional ramifications that he may not have thought through.
To whom, for example, will members of the armed forces and the police owe their allegiance? Nobody? They just become jobs like any other? If so on whose authority do they act when carrying out their duties involving violence towards citizens or otherwise? Parliament, the Constitution? The first is a flexible beast and may change from one month to the next, the latter is a collection of Acts of Parliament and conventions some of which date back centuries some of which can be changed on the whim of a PM.
Doing away with oaths of allegiance to the Crown, the Privy Council and even the monarchy itself is obviously not impossible but something will need to be put in their place. It would be a very serious change to the constitution and the manner in which we are governed and therefore need some serious thought. In this matter Corbyn once again seems to be showing the mindset of a rebellious sixth-former and not a mature politician fit for office.
Plenty of non-monarchies in Europe have armies.
Really? Gosh, I never knew that. Thank you so much for taking the time to tell me, I would have been completely lost and barking up the wrong tree for ever if you had not informed of a fact that I was never previously aware of. I am very grateful for your kind and erudite contribution to my education. Obviously your one liner that completely ignores the questions I was asking is a massive contribution.
Ah, I am mildly teasing, I don't mean to annoy you, you make good points on here including on this topic and about the polling industry. Let me elaborate. The institutions which are defended as necessary above, actually aren't. I mean the privy council and the personal oath of loyalty to one individual therein. It appears that every other developed country can generate an apparatus to brief opposition figures without requiring them to join a proto-cabinet of personal advisers; a vestigial appendix of the British constitution; that's not to say that every country does use an alternative, only that the alternative functionality evidently exists. So I think you are exaggerating that it would necessarily be a very serious change. The British monarchy is one of the most nominally unreformed in terms of its powers, precisely because the holders chose to refrain from using those powers before the others were constitutionally forced to. So more nominally moderate models exist all over Europe to accommodate politicians with legitimate divergent beliefs about the extent of their personal loyalty and services owed to the queen.
A republican doesn't merely want to abolish oaths to the crown but to abolish the crown itself. Corbyn may well have a serious alternative he wants to put in its place that is fitting for the 21st century world we live in, there are plenty of alternatives available across the globe.
However where I as a Conservative republican would vehemently disagree with Corbyn is that he is putting the cart before the horse. We live in a democratic constitutional monarchy, we are not going to have a French Revolution and see Her Majesty's head on a guillotine. If we want to abolish the monarchy then we should do that democratically and that would almost certainly mean we'd need to have a referendum nowadays. Then we can abolish the monarchy.
However until that has happened then our constitution needs to be respected and that includes saying the oaths and joining the Privy Council. Only from within can you enact change democratically.
Agreed on all points, Mr. Thompson, except one.
You say that, inter alia, you want a system that is fit for the 21st century and there are plenty of alternatives to a constitutional monarchy out there. Indeed there are but I haven't noticed any that produce a result that is noticeably superior that we seem to muddle through to get, but a good many that provide worse governance.
I suspect that when you say a system fit for the 21st century you actually mean that you want a system in which accidents of birth have no bearing on the exercise of political power and/or wealth (actually wealth and power are really the same thing). Well, all I can say to that is when you find an industrialised country with such a system you come and let us know.
Of course, wrapped up in your idea is that democracy, and especially with the universal franchise, is of itself good. There I am afraid we must part company. This is not the space to discuss political theory at that level, but should you want to do so you can find me at my user name at gmail dot com.
Accidents of birth will always have some bearing on things, that much is unavoidable short of going through some sort of horrific institutionalised Australian Stolen Generation upbringing (and even then).
I believe in a meritocracy where people can work to get to what they've got, even if some are born with more advantages than others it should at least be possible to reach any position. It is an absurd position where a boy named George is "born to be King", they're no reason our children should not have the possibility of being head of state one day even if its unlikely.
EDIT: Though as it stands at the moment the country is more likely to vote for open immigration than republicanism.
Re-1992 I agree it didn't seem obvious at the time that the Tories would end up as the largest party, but subsequent analysis and identification of polling errors made it pretty clear that the Tories were ahead throughout the campaign - though the margin widened in the final few days. This also poses the question as to whether a late swing would have occurred at all had the polls been more accurate in both 1992 and 2015?Had there been a general perception that the Tories had a lead of 4 or 5% there might well have been less panic amongst wobbly voters who might then have abstained rather than switch to the Tories.If so, the poor polling may well have denied us a Hung Parliament in both years!
You touch on a point that might be very sensitive to some on this site. To what extent do polls reflect voters views and to what extent to they form them? Furthermore to what extent or the polls "honest"?
My personal view given what we saw this year, especially the two mutually incompatible trends, is that the polling companies are not "honest" but produce polls that are adjusted to what the companies think they ought to say. I also think that, especially close to the election day, polls stop reflecting and start creating voters' views. There is, as we know, a polling industry review going on at the moment but even so I think there is a good case for statutory regulation of polls including banning their publication within a few weeks of a general election.
That would be like banning the sale of Turkey in the run up to Christmas polls are not forecasts but estimates of public opinion at one time and an important source of information if not infallible
Mr. Hyfud, so you say but other countries do not allow polls to be published close to elections. If polls were just a reflection, however imperfect, of public opinion then perhaps there would not be a problem. However, I think the evidence is that they are neither "honest" nor just a reflection.
Enough fun , I am off to dismantle the swimming pool and polish my gas guzzler.
God God, Mr. G.. Don't you have people who will do that sort of thing for you? Both, and especially the former, sound like jolly hard work. We have some Albanians or some such here in the village who do a spiffing job at car cleaning for very reasonable amounts of money. Perhaps Scotland need some more immigrants.
Without a codified constitution we rely upon precedent. Just changing things without thinking about them led to Blair dissolving the post of Lord Chancellor (until he realised he couldn't) and completely buggering up devolution.
Change for the sake of change is ridiculous. Unless it's proven, or at least highly probable, a change is an improvement things ought to be left the same, unmolested by the grasping fingers of modernising kaleidoscope meddlers.
I think the average person hearing the phrase Privy Council would think it was something to do with toilets. As far as I can tell the main story here is that Corbyn is attracting thousands to rallies all across the country with little MSM coverage. Suffice to say the establishment does not take kindly to having its tummy tickled by populist politicians and parties.
I hate to be rude to Comrade Corbynite, but that reads like one of the 'there is a new movement in politics as a new generation rises to destroy the status quo and I am their representative in the media' messianic declarations that Laurie puts out every few months.
'Not infallible' is a kind way to describe the polling in the run-up to the 2015 General Election.
I said in 2010, and again in 2015, that a flood of polling shapes rather than reflects public opinion, as it influences the news rather than merely measuring the public mood.
In indyref there was a clear move to Yes before falling back to No again. The polls are not perfect buy they have called the winner right in every election since 1992 but 2015 and even then they had it tied with Cameron ahead as preferred PM
So Labour won clear victories in 2 of the lowest turnout elections of recent times, 2001 and 2005 and one by a landslide. The Tories won in 1992 on one of the highest turnouts of recent times and Labour lost the popular vote in Feb 1974 on the highest turnout of recent times showing that it is a myth that higher turnout really helps Labour
I believe there is something in that , and have long suspected that the high turnout in 1992 owed a great deal to reluctant Tories deciding in the final few days to hold their noses.The Sheffield Rally gave Major his majority - though the Tories were always going to be the largest party.
Kinnock was actually ahead in more polls in 1992 than Miliband was in 2015 and there was even more of a late swing than 2015
Indeed so - and the Tory lead was 7.6% in 1992 compared with 6.6% in 2015. Had Kinnock been able to restrict the Tory margin to 6.6% - and pre-Sheffield I suspect he would have done - it is likely that Major would have been denied a majority.
It appears that SLAB are delaying their Regional List voting until Feb 2016. This comes on the back of SLAB's NEC deciding that only members and affiliates, who were registered on 13 June 2015 would be eligible to vote. I think they'll need to reconsider this in light of the delay in voting.
Kezia and Alex are guaranteed 1st place in their Regional Lists. As SLAB are likely to lose all of their 13 constituency seats, this will leave them with around 25 List MSPs. I think delaying this process until Feb is a mistake as the battle for List positions is going to be intense.
I would not count on that after all SLAB held one constituency seat even in 2015. A Corbyn leadership would boost Labour in Scotland and if the SNP do not put indyref2 in their manifesto as seems likely that will depress turn out among their supporters and some may vote for minor parties or even Corbyn Labour if they do include indyref2 that will see unionists voting tactically
The battle for Regional List placings is going to be intense, SLAB would be best to get it out of the way ASAP as the in-fighting would have a chance of settling down by May 2016. By leaving the Regional List voting to Feb 2016, there's a real risk that SLAB will be going into the run up to Holyrood in the midst of a civil war.
When projecting how many of their 13 constituency seats SLAB might hold, you have to bear in mind that in Holyrood 2011, SNP got 45% v SLAB's 32%. With current polls indicating around 60% for the SNP and 20% SLAB, It would be very difficult for them to hold onto any of the 13 seats.
In terms of the SNP, I expect they'll have in their manifesto a commitment to hold a referendum before going for independence (keeps the folks concerned about UDI on side). They'll avoid a commitment to a specific date and will likely have a material event trigger.
Mr. HYUFD, in the most recent election they were completely wrong. In the last six (1992, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015) they've been completely wrong twice, or a third of the time.
Not only that, 1997 and 2001 were bloody obvious. You could also argue they got 2010 wrong (some polling had the Lib Dems top).
At best, it's patchier than a pirate's reflection.
Re-1992 I agree it didn't seem obvious at the time that the Tories would end up as the largest party, but subsequent analysis and identification of polling errors made it pretty clear that the Tories were ahead throughout the campaign - though the margin widened in the final few days. This also poses the question as to whether a late swing would have occurred at all had the polls been more accurate in both 1992 and 2015?Had there been a general perception that the Tories had a lead of 4 or 5% there might well have been less panic amongst wobbly voters who might then have abstained rather than switch to the Tories.If so, the poor polling may well have denied us a Hung Parliament in both years!
You touch on a point that might be very sensitive to some on this site. To what extent do polls reflect voters views and to what extent to they form them? Furthermore to what extent or the polls "honest"?
My personal view given what we saw this year, especially the two mutually incompatible trends, is that the polling companies are not "honest" but produce polls that are adjusted to what the companies think they ought to say. I also think that, especially close to the election day, polls stop reflecting and start creating voters' views. There is, as we know, a polling industry review going on at the moment but even so I think there is a good case for statutory regulation of polls including banning their publication within a few weeks of a general election.
That would be like banning the sale of Turkey in the run up to Christmas polls are not forecasts but estimates of public opinion at one time and an important source of information if not infallible
Mr. Hyfud, so you say but other countries do not allow polls to be published close to elections. If polls were just a reflection, however imperfect, of public opinion then perhaps there would not be a problem. However, I think the evidence is that they are neither "honest" nor just a reflection.
Most countries, The U.S., Australia, France, Germany etc do have polls up until polling day. Polls do not always capture late swings that is the issue but then we have exit polls which generally do
The Christian Socialist Movement was where many of the Blairites and I think Brownites gathered in the 1990s.
I think there was a time when they had most of the Cabinet as members.
No idea how much of it was "to be near to Tony".
At some stage the CSM will have deliberately moved on, but given that Cat is a UNITE / McCluskey supported type, I can see why she would emphasize the difference as a matter of politics.
Thanks, Matt, I didn't know that. But that in itself gives even more of the lie to her disparagement of it. She was dismissing it as 'not important', when it was, at one time. Even if it still isn't, to forget just how important it was is to be wilfully blind to the actual antecedents of Labour, and what made it a genuinely mass movement in a way that pure Marxism, or even 'developed socialism', never could have done and almost certainly never will do.
It's all of a piece with Corbyn's iconoclasm for this thread - a lot of arrogant talk, with little thought for the practical realities of their disregard for what they regard as arcane features.
Checking, I'm not sure about the half of the Cabinet claim, so I withdraw that.
Certainly John Smith was keen, as was Blair, and I think Blunkett. Also Chris Bryant and Stephen Timms. Not sure about Brown.
Does Corbyn object to the Oath as well as the institution? If so will he want to abolish oaths of allegiance to the crown generally? If so there are wider constitutional ramifications that he may not have thought through.
To whom, for example, will members of the armed forces and the police owe their allegiance? Nobody? They just become jobs like any other? If so on whose authority do they act when carrying out their duties involving violence towards citizens or otherwise? Parliament, the Constitution? The first is a flexible beast and may change from one month to the next, the latter is a collection of Acts of Parliament and conventions some of which date back centuries some of which can be changed on the whim of a PM.
Doing away with oaths of allegiance to the Crown, the Privy Council and even the monarchy itself is obviously not impossible but something will need to be put in their place. It would be a very serious change to the constitution and the manner in which we are governed and therefore need some serious thought. In this matter Corbyn once again seems to be showing the mindset of a rebellious sixth-former and not a mature politician fit for office.
Plenty of non-monarchies in Europe have armies.
Really? Gosh, I never knew that. Thank you so much for taking the time to tell me, I would have been completely lost and barking up the wrong tree for ever if you had not informed of a fact that I was never previously aware of. I am very grateful for your kind and erudite contribution to my education. Obviously your one liner that completely ignores the questions I was asking is a massive contribution.
The institutions which are defended as necessary above, actually aren't.
True, but until Prime Minister Corbyn changes the rules, he has to work within the system we have, not the one he wishes we had. If he proves the convention unworkable through his stubborness, well, I'm sure something else can be arranged, but there's no need for him to do that, as the oath is not that different from one he already swears, so what's the problem? It's an issue he can resolve after he wins, he doesn't need to do anything now.
Apologies to those with whom I am in conversation, but I am summoned by one who cannot be denied. Thanks for taking the time to debate with me, I am grateful.
A republican doesn't merely want to abolish oaths to the crown but to abolish the crown itself. Corbyn may well have a serious alternative he wants to put in its place that is fitting for the 21st century world we live in, there are plenty of
However until that has happened then our constitution needs to be respected and that includes saying the oaths and joining the Privy Council. Only from within can you enact change democratically.
Agreed on all points, Mr. Thompson, except one.
You say that, inter alia, you want a system that is fit for the 21st century and there are plenty of alternatives to a constitutional monarchy out there. Indeed there are but I haven't noticed any that produce a result that is noticeably superior that we seem to muddle through to get, but a good many that provide worse governance.
I suspect that when you say a system fit for the 21st century you actually mean that you want a system in which accidents of birth have no bearing on the exercise of political power and/or wealth (actually wealth and power are really the same thing). Well, all I can say to that is when you find an industrialised country with such a system you come and let us know.
Of course, wrapped up in your idea is that democracy, and especially with the universal franchise, is of itself good. There I am afraid we must part company. This is not the space to discuss political theory at that level, but should you want to do so you can find me at my user name at gmail dot com.
Accidents of birth will always have some bearing on things, that much is unavoidable short of going through some sort of horrific institutionalised Australian Stolen Generation upbringing (and even then).
I believe in a meritocracy where people can work to get to what they've got, even if some are born with more advantages than others it should at least be possible to reach any position. It is an absurd position where a boy named George is "born to be King", they're no reason our children should not have the possibility of being head of state one day even if its unlikely.
EDIT: Though as it stands at the moment the country is more likely to vote for open immigration than republicanism.
The monarchy is one of the most famous images of the UK and remains popular there is no mood for an elected or appointed president
We have an ineffectual Opposition; An immature bunch from "Oop-Nurth"; And that is what is called 'Opposition' at "WasteMonster"*.
Most commenting on here is 'social-dating': Whilst I say this I do not know the [AHSLEY-MADDISON] why.
We have nothing interesting to talk about. So, perchance, can I offer an idea: Who will replace Gauliter Premier Merkel at the next Federal Premier?
As the Francks were originally from Aachen ["Devil's Cauldron"] would that French thing - Hollande - have a chance of replacing that well-served battle-wagon? Or does Germany have new choices (and hope) for the future...?
One thing is for sure: England has gone. The remainder is bennies...!
@HurstLlama I've been watching a docu about the cemetery of New Churchyard [C4 - London's Lost Graveyard] One section mentions 17th century black Africans/Blackmoores resident in London. Is this something you've come across? St Botolph's/Holy Trinity get a special mention for its African congregations.
Mr. HYUFD, in the most recent election they were completely wrong. In the last six (1992, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015) they've been completely wrong twice, or a third of the time.
Not only that, 1997 and 2001 were bloody obvious. You could also argue they got 2010 wrong (some polling had the Lib Dems top).
At best, it's patchier than a pirate's reflection.
Slightly more final 2015 polls had Cameron ahead than Miliband. In all the elections you mention the polls correctly predicted the largest party except 1992, though Gallup did have the Tories slightly ahead. Not one final 2010 poll had the LDs top you are talking post the first debate
... Though as it stands at the moment the country is more likely to vote for open immigration than republicanism.
The monarchy is one of the most famous images of the UK and remains popular there is no mood for an elected or appointed president
The UK has a lot of very famous images and would continue to do so with or without the monarchy.
I agree that there is no mood currently for a republic which is why I said the country would not vote for it. I think the vast, vast majority of republicans in this country all think that isn't going to change during Her Majesty's time. The time to debate this will be in the future not now. I'm not expecting the UK to be a republic in my lifetime but that doesn't mean I can't hope for it - but it should be achieved from within the system democratically not by acting like idiots Corbyn style.
So Labour won clear victories in 2 of the lowest turnout elections of recent times, 2001 and 2005 and one by a landslide. The Tories won in 1992 on one of the highest turnouts of recent times and Labour lost the popular vote in Feb 1974 on the highest turnout of recent times showing that it is a myth that higher turnout really helps Labour
I believe there is something in that , and have long suspected that the high turnout in 1992 owed a great deal to reluctant Tories deciding in the final few days to hold their noses.The Sheffield Rally gave Major his majority - though the Tories were always going to be the largest party.
Kinnock was actually ahead in more polls in 1992 than Miliband was in 2015 and there was even more of a late swing than 2015
Indeed so - and the Tory lead was 7.6% in 1992 compared with 6.6% in 2015. Had Kinnock been able to restrict the Tory margin to 6.6% - and pre-Sheffield I suspect he would have done - it is likely that Major would have been denied a majority.
For what it's worth most psephologists are very clear that the Sheffield rally had zero impact on the 1992 GE result. Kellner described it as a myth without basis recently in a BBC Parliament channel discussion on why Labour lost last May.
It appears that SLAB are delaying their Regional List voting until Feb 2016. This comes on the back of SLAB's NEC deciding that only members and affiliates, who were registered on 13 June 2015 would be eligible to vote. I think they'll need to reconsider this in light of the delay in voting.
Kezia and Alex are guaranteed 1st place in their Regional Lists. As SLAB are likely to lose all of their 13 constituency seats, this will leave them with around 25 List MSPs. I think delaying this process until Feb is a mistake as the battle for List positions is going to be intense.
I would not count on that after all SLAB held one constituency seat even in 2015. A Corbyn leadership would boost Labour in Scotland and if the SNP do not put indyref2 in their manifesto as seems likely that will depress turn out among their supporters and some may vote for minor parties or even Corbyn Labour if they do include indyref2 that will see unionists voting tactically
The battle for Regional List placings is going to be intense, SLAB would be best to get it out of the way ASAP as the in-fighting would have a chance of settling down by May 2016. By leaving the Regional List voting to Feb 2016, there's a real risk that SLAB will be going into the run up to Holyrood in the midst of a civil war.
When projecting how many of their 13 constituency seats SLAB might hold, you have to bear in mind that in Holyrood 2011, SNP got 45% v SLAB's 32%. With current polls indicating around 60% for the SNP and 20% SLAB, It would be very difficult for them to hold onto any of the 13 seats.
In terms of the SNP, I expect they'll have in their manifesto a commitment to hold a referendum before going for independence (keeps the folks concerned about UDI on side). They'll avoid a commitment to a specific date and will likely have a material event trigger.
You are talking about an election tomorrow and ignoring the impact of the SNP refusing to commit to indyref2 or the reverse or a Corbyn leadership. SNP diehards want a clear commitment to indyref2 not just an option post Brexit and it is unlikely they will get it
Mr. HYUFD, Cameron a tiny bit ahead is nowhere near a reflection of the actual result.
The 2015 prediction was neck and neck for the two main parties.
The 2010 reference was indeed at the peak of Cleggasm, but even so (from memory) the Lib Dems under-performed on the night, compared to the polls.
It was neck and neck but Cameron ahead on preferred PM (as indeed Netanyahu was in Israel and Major was in 1992). If the polls are tied then look at the preferred PM rating as on that score at least the polls are nearly always right
The LDs slightly underperformed on the night but they had been falling from peak Cleggasm for a number of weeks prior to polling day
... Though as it stands at the moment the country is more likely to vote for open immigration than republicanism.
The monarchy is one of the most famous images of the UK and remains popular there is no mood for an elected or appointed president
The UK has a lot of very famous images and would continue to do so with or without the monarchy.
I agree that there is no mood currently for a republic which is why I said the country would not vote for it. I think the vast, vast majority of republicans in this country all think that isn't going to change during Her Majesty's time. The time to debate this will be in the future not now. I'm not expecting the UK to be a republic in my lifetime but that doesn't mean I can't hope for it - but it should be achieved from within the system democratically not by acting like idiots Corbyn style.
I could live with a president on a logical basis but on an emotional basis I prefer a monarchy, it binds us together far more than a President Blair or Cameron or some other appointee could ever do and the Jubilees and coronations, weddings and funerals associated with it are part of our culture. Once the Queen passes there may be a slight rise in republicanism when Charles takes over but I expect the monarchy still to have a majority behind it and once Wills takes over the monarchy will be boosted again
Does Corbyn object to the Oath as well as the institution? If so will he want to abolish oaths of allegiance to the crown generally? If so there are wider constitutional ramifications that he may not have thought through.
To whom, for example, will members of the armed forces and the police owe their allegiance? Nobody? They just become jobs like any other? If so on whose authority do they act when carrying out their duties involving violence towards citizens or otherwise? Parliament, the Constitution? The first is a flexible beast and may change from one month to the next, the latter is a collection of Acts of Parliament and conventions some of which date back centuries some of which can be changed on the whim of a PM.
Doing away with oaths of allegiance to the Crown, the Privy Council and even the monarchy itself is obviously not impossible but something will need to be put in their place. It would be a very serious change to the constitution and the manner in which we are governed and therefore need some serious thought. In this matter Corbyn once again seems to be showing the mindset of a rebellious sixth-former and not a mature politician fit for office.
Plenty of non-monarchies in Europe have armies.
Really? Gosh, I never knew that. Thank you so much for taking the time to tell me, I would have been completely lost and barking up the wrong tree for ever if you had not informed of a fact that I was never previously aware of. I am very grateful for your kind and erudite contribution to my education. Obviously your one liner that completely ignores the questions I was asking is a massive contribution.
That's industrial strength sarcasm. I think you might need to supply a material safety data sheet with that.
... Though as it stands at the moment the country is more likely to vote for open immigration than republicanism.
The monarchy is one of the most famous images of the UK and remains popular there is no mood for an elected or appointed president
The UK has a lot of very famous images and would continue to do so with or without the monarchy.
I agree that there is no mood currently for a republic which is why I said the country would not vote for it. I think the vast, vast majority of republicans in this country all think that isn't going to change during Her Majesty's time. The time to debate this will be in the future not now. I'm not expecting the UK to be a republic in my lifetime but that doesn't mean I can't hope for it - but it should be achieved from within the system democratically not by acting like idiots Corbyn style.
I could live with a president on a logical basis but on an emotional basis I prefer a monarchy, it binds us together far more than a President Blair or Cameron or some other appointee could ever do and the Jubilees and coronations, weddings and funerals associated with it are part of our culture. Once the Queen passes there may be a slight rise in republicanism when Charles takes over but I expect the monarchy still to have a majority behind it and once Wills takes over the monarchy will be boosted again
?? The public are going to go ga ga when 70yr old plus Charles ascends to the throne? Who do you are anybody think they are kidding? And for what point? Just because thicko lefty Corbyn says something we are all supposed to get an attack of the vapours?
... Though as it stands at the moment the country is more likely to vote for open immigration than republicanism.
The monarchy is one of the most famous images of the UK and remains popular there is no mood for an elected or appointed president
The UK has a lot of very famous images and would continue to do so with or without the monarchy.
I agree that there is no mood currently for a republic which is why I said the country would not vote for it. I think the vast, vast majority of republicans in this country all think that isn't going to change during Her Majesty's time. The time to debate this will be in the future not now. I'm not expecting the UK to be a republic in my lifetime but that doesn't mean I can't hope for it - but it should be achieved from within the system democratically not by acting like idiots Corbyn style.
I could live with a president on a logical basis but on an emotional basis I prefer a monarchy, it binds us together far more than a President Blair or Cameron or some other appointee could ever do and the Jubilees and coronations, weddings and funerals associated with it are part of our culture. Once the Queen passes there may be a slight rise in republicanism when Charles takes over but I expect the monarchy still to have a majority behind it and once Wills takes over the monarchy will be boosted again
?? The public are going to go ga ga when 70yr old plus Charles ascends to the throne? Who do you are anybody think they are kidding? And for what point? Just because thicko lefty Corbyn says something we are all supposed to get an attack of the vapours?
I did not say there would be a majority for a Republic but the polling is quite clear that Charles is less popular than either his mother or his son, unfair or not the legacy of his affair during his marriage to Diana remains
... Though as it stands at the moment the country is more likely to vote for open immigration than republicanism.
The monarchy is one of the most famous images of the UK and remains popular there is no mood for an elected or appointed president
The UK has a lot of very famous images and would continue to do so with or without the monarchy.
I agree that there is no mood currently for a republic which is why I said the country would not vote for it. I think the vast, vast majority of republicans in this country all think that isn't going to change during Her Majesty's time. The time to debate this will be in the future not now. I'm not expecting the UK to be a republic in my lifetime but that doesn't mean I can't hope for it - but it should be achieved from within the system democratically not by acting like idiots Corbyn style.
For a republic the people who need not to act like idiots are Republic.
As a pragmatic Royalist I'm quite happy that they are a charabanc of clowns.
Pretty dumb of ISIS to run its own online business then isn't it? I mean a terrorist organisation running an internet propaganda campaign - I mean how dumb is that.
I think the average person hearing the phrase Privy Council would think it was something to do with toilets. As far as I can tell the main story here is that Corbyn is attracting thousands to rallies all across the country with little MSM coverage. Suffice to say the establishment does not take kindly to having its tummy tickled by populist politicians and parties.
The average person is not as thick as you. I'm delighted to see Corbyn attracting the people he is and I look forward to him marching ahead of them as they storm the next G7 meeting waving their red flags. To be fair to the irredeemably crass policies and personality of Comrade Corbyn, I am sick as a pig that it looks like Burnham is not going to win. Heartbroken.
Enough fun , I am off to dismantle the swimming pool and polish my gas guzzler.
God God, Mr. G.. Don't you have people who will do that sort of thing for you? Both, and especially the former, sound like jolly hard work. We have some Albanians or some such here in the village who do a spiffing job at car cleaning for very reasonable amounts of money. Perhaps Scotland need some more immigrants.
Hurst, we have loads of them but I prefer to look after it myself and do it properly, I sit about all week at work so good to do something. Pool and trampoline dismantled , lawn is knackered.
Enough fun , I am off to dismantle the swimming pool and polish my gas guzzler.
God God, Mr. G.. Don't you have people who will do that sort of thing for you? Both, and especially the former, sound like jolly hard work. We have some Albanians or some such here in the village who do a spiffing job at car cleaning for very reasonable amounts of money. Perhaps Scotland need some more immigrants.
There really should be some positive vetting of Privy Councillors, especially if they are to be given privileged access to sensitive information. I really don't see how this muppet could pass such a procedure.
This is hardly practical.
Most vetting officers wouldn't have cleared Harold Wilson and a raft of other cabinet ministers.
FPT - HoL reform - Demurring from the JackW proposals is a valid as an unwise Mrs JackW shoe purchase - utterly inexplicable !!
Most previous traitors have been of the Tory persuasion, it is all that fun at Eton that does it
This is ridiculous even by your standards. It can only be substantiated by analysis of convicted traitors and their political leanings. I'm sure that like most of your idiocies you have that data at your fingertips. I won't ask as I'm sure you'll be only too keen to enlighten everyone.
prove me wrong loser or trot on
So any ridiculous and plainly made-up statement you make is true unless someone bothers to prove otherwise. You are a sanctimonious prat (that may be a bit kind).
Reggie, you should stick to pulling the girls pigtails and not get mixed up trying it on with big boys.
... Though as it stands at the moment the country is more likely to vote for open immigration than republicanism.
The monarchy is one of the most famous images of the UK and remains popular there is no mood for an elected or appointed president
The UK has a lot of very famous images and would continue to do so with or without the monarchy.
I agree that there is no mood currently for a republic which is why I said the country would not vote for it. I think the vast, vast majority of republicans in this country all think that isn't going to change during Her Majesty's time. The time to debate this will be in the future not now. I'm not expecting the UK to be a republic in my lifetime but that doesn't mean I can't hope for it - but it should be achieved from within the system democratically not by acting like idiots Corbyn style.
For a republic the people who need not to act like idiots are Republic. As a pragmatic Royalist I'm quite happy that they are a charabanc of clowns. They suffer from the Richard Murphy problem. I can see Charles III being quite good.
He will be George VII I believe. I also believe the French President lives in a Palace and is surrounded by flunkies.
Comments
The idea that to be a parliamentary democracy, senior politicians must join a quasi-masonic ”club within a club" would seem subversive to, and not supportive of, the notion of democracy.
Besides, it's just another piece of Gilbert & Sullivan obsolescence that no-one has got around to scrapping. A committee that never meets in full, and has a quorum of three.
Roy Hattersley's article was hilarious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministers_of_the_Crown_Act_1937
Presenting it as purely a resistance to any change is disingenuous, that is not what is being said. It's about what the rule is there for, why refuse to abide by it and does that have any consequences. If the answers are that the rule serves no purpose anymore or it never did, so is being refused reasonably, or it would have no negative consequence, change would happen quite reasonably.
oooh help, I need the protection of a gentleman!!!! Flightpath01 is being a cad and a bounder!
Option 2 respons
There was once on pb flightpath01
Who thought being rude was such fun
But all it achieved
Was to make people peeved
And to think less of poor flightpath01
The number and scale of the factual inaccuracies between her claims/reality are really rather worrying.
EDIT This is just one example "Another dramatic story. However, a cynic might wonder how a man might 'swim to freedom' from Iran to Turkey when there is no coastline, or sea, between the two nations."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3214710/Why-does-Kids-Company-Camila-tell-tall-stories-life-troubling-investigation-reveals-colourful-acount-past-doesn-t-quite-add-up.html#ixzz3kCincANT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook She seems to be someone who is probably well intentioned, but grossly incompetent and a smooth talker willing to say anything to get more money and with little judgement.
There's a lot of trust in that conclusion. I'm sure this story has a long way to go and although she seems to have done some good, she and her supporters seem to have done good too.
Even on immigration, put aside the off-colour comments about Mexicans being rapists, and his big policy of rigorous border controls is hardly that controversial.
What is more important is the number of our elders and betters who were made fools of by this Pied Piper. Remember their faces. Remember their names. And never trust their judgement again...
PS: If it had been someone sensible like yourself I would of course have taken the time to answer
Arf - I hope they ask how she managed to get through £8 million in 3 months. + Receipts.
To whom, for example, will members of the armed forces and the police owe their allegiance? Nobody? They just become jobs like any other? If so on whose authority do they act when carrying out their duties involving violence towards citizens or otherwise? Parliament, the Constitution? The first is a flexible beast and may change from one month to the next, the latter is a collection of Acts of Parliament and conventions some of which date back centuries some of which can be changed on the whim of a PM.
Doing away with oaths of allegiance to the Crown, the Privy Council and even the monarchy itself is obviously not impossible but something will need to be put in their place. It would be a very serious change to the constitution and the manner in which we are governed and therefore need some serious thought. In this matter Corbyn once again seems to be showing the mindset of a rebellious sixth-former and not a mature politician fit for office.
That's why it's essential that senior politicians - those who might be running the country - are capable of exercising self-restraint in exercising those powers that lie beyond; they have to be trusted not just by the public but by each other. Corbyn is risking destroying that trust. And that way lies the route to extra-democratic opposition.
The flummery that surrounds some parts of the constitution should not act as a veil to their utility.
And I've yet to read or hear anything from Hattersley that's hilarious.
Miss Batman can be added to the ever growing list of people David Cameron bizarrely trusted.
If the Sheffield Rally was the key factor in getting a significant number of voters to turn out and put their cross against their Conservative candidate, then I suggest it was because they took at look at Kinnock's behaviour and thought, "Him as PM, no bloody thanks". Maybe we saw a similar effect this year when as the election drew near similar voters looked at Miliband seriously for the first time and thought the same.
That said, I am fairly sure the most masterful piece of campaigning I have seen in my lifetime was the poster that had Miliband in the Pocket of Salmond. It was very effective not least because it built on Salmond's boast that he would be writing Miliband's budget. Either way, I think a lot of right of centre inclined English voters were sufficiently moved by the prospect of the SNP in a position of power at Westminster as to vote Conservative. I also think that this cost UKIP a lot of votes and, probably, several seats.
Kezia and Alex are guaranteed 1st place in their Regional Lists. As SLAB are likely to lose all of their 13 constituency seats, this will leave them with around 25 List MSPs. I think delaying this process until Feb is a mistake as the battle for List positions is going to be intense.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/637599023470387200
However where I as a Conservative republican would vehemently disagree with Corbyn is that he is putting the cart before the horse. We live in a democratic constitutional monarchy, we are not going to have a French Revolution and see Her Majesty's head on a guillotine. If we want to abolish the monarchy then we should do that democratically and that would almost certainly mean we'd need to have a referendum nowadays. Then we can abolish the monarchy.
However until that has happened then our constitution needs to be respected and that includes saying the oaths and joining the Privy Council. Only from within can you enact change democratically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yvccrd0qtc
Commodores versus The Cure actually would appeared to be under-themed by Faith-No-More. People must keep up!
https://twitter.com/Corbyn4Leader/status/637280896484278272
You say that, inter alia, you want a system that is fit for the 21st century and there are plenty of alternatives to a constitutional monarchy out there. Indeed there are but I haven't noticed any that produce a result that is noticeably superior that we seem to muddle through to get, but a good many that provide worse governance.
I suspect that when you say a system fit for the 21st century you actually mean that you want a system in which accidents of birth have no bearing on the exercise of political power and/or wealth (actually wealth and power are really the same thing). Well, all I can say to that is when you find an industrialised country with such a system you come and let us know.
Of course, wrapped up in your idea is that democracy, and especially with the universal franchise, is of itself good. There I am afraid we must part company. This is not the space to discuss political theory at that level, but should you want to do so you can find me at my user name at gmail dot com.
Mr. Llama, good points on the oath.
My personal view given what we saw this year, especially the two mutually incompatible trends, is that the polling companies are not "honest" but produce polls that are adjusted to what the companies think they ought to say. I also think that, especially close to the election day, polls stop reflecting and start creating voters' views. There is, as we know, a polling industry review going on at the moment but even so I think there is a good case for statutory regulation of polls including banning their publication within a few weeks of a general election.
If the farce was ended people would very quickly look back wondering how on earth it went on for so long.
Without a codified constitution we rely upon precedent. Just changing things without thinking about them led to Blair dissolving the post of Lord Chancellor (until he realised he couldn't) and completely buggering up devolution.
Change for the sake of change is ridiculous. Unless it's proven, or at least highly probable, a change is an improvement things ought to be left the same, unmolested by the grasping fingers of modernising kaleidoscope meddlers.
'Not infallible' is a kind way to describe the polling in the run-up to the 2015 General Election.
I said in 2010, and again in 2015, that a flood of polling shapes rather than reflects public opinion, as it influences the news rather than merely measuring the public mood.
I believe in a meritocracy where people can work to get to what they've got, even if some are born with more advantages than others it should at least be possible to reach any position. It is an absurd position where a boy named George is "born to be King", they're no reason our children should not have the possibility of being head of state one day even if its unlikely.
EDIT: Though as it stands at the moment the country is more likely to vote for open immigration than republicanism.
When projecting how many of their 13 constituency seats SLAB might hold, you have to bear in mind that in Holyrood 2011, SNP got 45% v SLAB's 32%. With current polls indicating around 60% for the SNP and 20% SLAB, It would be very difficult for them to hold onto any of the 13 seats.
In terms of the SNP, I expect they'll have in their manifesto a commitment to hold a referendum before going for independence (keeps the folks concerned about UDI on side). They'll avoid a commitment to a specific date and will likely have a material event trigger.
Not only that, 1997 and 2001 were bloody obvious. You could also argue they got 2010 wrong (some polling had the Lib Dems top).
At best, it's patchier than a pirate's reflection.
Play nicely, all.
We have nothing interesting to talk about. So, perchance, can I offer an idea: Who will replace
GauliterPremier Merkel at the next Federal Premier?As the Francks were originally from Aachen ["Devil's Cauldron"] would that French thing - Hollande - have a chance of replacing that well-served battle-wagon? Or does Germany have new choices (and hope) for the future...?
One thing is for sure: England has gone. The remainder is bennies...!
* Clown-speak. © :jockanese-tropue-of-clowns:
I agree that there is no mood currently for a republic which is why I said the country would not vote for it. I think the vast, vast majority of republicans in this country all think that isn't going to change during Her Majesty's time. The time to debate this will be in the future not now. I'm not expecting the UK to be a republic in my lifetime but that doesn't mean I can't hope for it - but it should be achieved from within the system democratically not by acting like idiots Corbyn style.
The 2015 prediction was neck and neck for the two main parties.
The 2010 reference was indeed at the peak of Cleggasm, but even so (from memory) the Lib Dems under-performed on the night, compared to the polls.
https://twitter.com/UKagainstISIL
Two hat-trick balls against Hampshire in the 20/20 today who are struggling on 94-8 after 17. Very depressing for my team.
The LDs slightly underperformed on the night but they had been falling from peak Cleggasm for a number of weeks prior to polling day
The public are going to go ga ga when 70yr old plus Charles ascends to the throne?
Who do you are anybody think they are kidding?
And for what point?
Just because thicko lefty Corbyn says something we are all supposed to get an attack of the vapours?
As a pragmatic Royalist I'm quite happy that they are a charabanc of clowns.
They suffer from the Richard Murphy problem.
I can see Charles III being quite good.
I also believe the French President lives in a Palace and is surrounded by flunkies.