I ran around in circles holding hands with Lord Adonis at a Bat Mitzvah a few months ago. I don't think this was a big factor in his resignation of the Labour whip.
I have just learnt that Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah are both correct.
So Bar and Bat are interchangeable?
That means I've done some shocking things inside Bats
"Bat" being daughter.... this could have a rather perverse meaning...
I ran around in circles holding hands with Lord Adonis at a Bat Mitzvah a few months ago. I don't think this was a big factor in his resignation of the Labour whip.
I have just learnt that Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah are both correct.
So Bar and Bat are interchangeable?
That means I've done some shocking things inside Bats
"Bat" being daughter.... this could have a rather perverse meaning...
I ran around in circles holding hands with Lord Adonis at a Bat Mitzvah a few months ago. I don't think this was a big factor in his resignation of the Labour whip.
I have just learnt that Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah are both correct.
So Bar and Bat are interchangeable?
That means I've done some shocking things inside Bats
Isn't Bat Mitzvah for girls?
That's what I thought. The sons of all my Jewish friends have their bar mitzvahs; bat mitzvahs seem to be a lot less usual. Shame, because they're always good parties and I aleays find the ceremony itself very moving. It's strange to see good friends transported into a very different heritage that you know is there but rarely experience. And the Holocaust is always there in the background. The act honours the memories of all those family members the Nazis murdered.
So today, Labour's more 'passionate' supporters are being knobs in Manchester whilst the Tories are being bipartisan.
I wonder what the voters will prefer?
The voters are Tory Scum. They don't count.
Only 24% of the voters are Tory scum!
Wrong.
37% of the voters are Tories. You may try to deflate that number by including non voters but 100% of non voters are not voters. So your claim is wrong.
Paul Kirkby New poll. 'Tories didn't use to understand ordinary working people but is improving. Labour used to, but doesn't now' http://t.co/v2hntaCiPu
Keep up the good work Jezbollah
The truly horrible number for the party of the working man is that only 18% - EIGHTEEN PER CENT!! - think that Labour used to and still does represent the ordinary working people.
To be fair the whole thing was a load of unscientific b*ollocks, really, which you would admit if you weren't blindly partisan. For a start, the options available clearly don't actually cover the full range of possibilities, such as 'Still represent working people, but less so than they used to" which I suspect would make up the bulk of the labour responses. But then that wouldn't be as attention grabbing for the agenda of whomever dreamt up this obviously ridiculous poll.
I ran around in circles holding hands with Lord Adonis at a Bat Mitzvah a few months ago. I don't think this was a big factor in his resignation of the Labour whip.
I have just learnt that Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah are both correct.
So Bar and Bat are interchangeable?
That means I've done some shocking things inside Bats
"Bat" being daughter.... this could have a rather perverse meaning...
@FraserNelson: @Peston Sounds more like Osborne has been recruited by Adonis - gvt now enacting this Labour 'Infrastructure Commission' chapter & verse
@OstendGudgeon: The list of Progress high-ups reads like a list of likely Labour quislings in the light of Corbyn's election.
Lord Adonis removes the doubt
@BobBergh: @Conorpope@RichardAngell Adonis probably gone because Corbyn has threatened to tax avoiders and non dom status tax dodgers. TIME TO PAY UP!
@derekrootboy: Lord Adonis is a useless Tory bastard. Why is there no supporter of Jeremy Corbyn on to expose Caroline Quinn's disgusting lies? #ToryBBC
@afneil: Just had some chap shout "scum, scum, scum, scum" in my face. I promised to send him the "kinder, gentler politics" memo in the morning.
Erm... It was Corbyn who said that, I'm not sure what that has to do with whoever decided to do this - surprisingly he doesn't have a paternalistic monopoly of behavioural policy over everyone (a majority of the population at last count) who dislikes Tories?
I was canvassing on a housing estate today and anecdotely perhaps a dozen Labour fans who didn't vote at GE claim they will now vote for Corbyn. But non-voters tend to stay that way, but it is their opinion rather than my guesses.
Corbyn sweeps housing estate, Labour landslide in 2020 assured!
@OstendGudgeon: The list of Progress high-ups reads like a list of likely Labour quislings in the light of Corbyn's election.
Lord Adonis removes the doubt
@BobBergh: @Conorpope@RichardAngell Adonis probably gone because Corbyn has threatened to tax avoiders and non dom status tax dodgers. TIME TO PAY UP!
@derekrootboy: Lord Adonis is a useless Tory bastard. Why is there no supporter of Jeremy Corbyn on to expose Caroline Quinn's disgusting lies? #ToryBBC
This is all going swimmingly... Dare one say it.... A spittlefest.
@afneil: Just had some chap shout "scum, scum, scum, scum" in my face. I promised to send him the "kinder, gentler politics" memo in the morning.
Erm... It was Corbyn who said that, I'm not sure what that has to do with whoever decided to do this - surprisingly he doesn't have a paternalistic monopoly of behavioural policy over everyone (a majority of the population at last count) who dislikes Tories?
They support Corbyn, almost certainly. It would be nice if they followed his example on such things. If a UKIP member or supporter says something stupid or offensive, do you think people do not condemn Farage and the party generally? So it is not as though Corbyn is being singled out here.
Paul Kirkby New poll. 'Tories didn't use to understand ordinary working people but is improving. Labour used to, but doesn't now' http://t.co/v2hntaCiPu
Keep up the good work Jezbollah
The truly horrible number for the party of the working man is that only 18% - EIGHTEEN PER CENT!! - think that Labour used to and still does represent the ordinary working people.
Yes, there's a death certificate lurking there, unseen. Reminds me of the poet John Keats coughing blood, then calmly saying:
"I know the color of that blood; it is arterial blood. I cannot be deceived in that color. That drop of blood is my death warrant. I must die."
He died of TB a few years later.
If Labour cease to be the party of the working man and woman, as perceived by the working man and woman, then how much longer can they exist as a mass movement?
The Tories are safe as the party of the selfish/careless posh, and the striving middle classes and upper working classes. Labour are not safe.
They also have the public sector and most ethnic minorities
So today, Labour's more 'passionate' supporters are being knobs in Manchester whilst the Tories are being bipartisan.
I wonder what the voters will prefer?
The voters are Tory Scum. They don't count.
Only 24% of the voters are Tory scum!
Wrong.
37% of the voters are Tories. You may try to deflate that number by including non voters but 100% of non voters are not voters. So your claim is wrong.
ok, by your definition, 37% of voters are Tory scum.
D'Hondt, closed lists, no national threshold (varies from about 2% (Lisbon) to 23% depending on constituency), apparentment allowed, two 2-seat "constituencies" for ex-pats (Europe and Rest of World)...
Just listening, it's amusing to hear Professor Anthony King suggest there have only been three genuinely transformative Prime Ministers since the beginning of the 20th Century. Seems a little depressing for our PMs, although I suppose being a mere competent administrator or consolidator of others' transformations would be no bad thing too.
How many transformative novelists have there been, in all history? Three or four? The first (identity disputed), then Tolstoy, Joyce, Proust.... ?
Most novelists work within the form and the genre, and yet plenty of them, like Austen, Dickens, Nabokov, still achieve greatness.
Transformation, like revolution, is overrated.
What about Tolkien (fantasy) and Asimov (Sci fi)?
As a fan of fantasy I appreciate many outside the Sci Fi and Fantasy genre don't respect it as much (whereas I'd prefer it to be considered two genres) but both revolutionised their field. It's hard to imagine a fantasy epic that doesn't have Tolkienesque themes and I'd argue Asimov transformed the Sci Fi genre.
Lord Adonis' switch is a bit like Lord Freud's. They both appear to be more interested doing things than party politics. That said, I see from Adonis' wiki page that he chaired Labour's internal Progress group which is a semantic loss for the Party.
@afneil: Just had some chap shout "scum, scum, scum, scum" in my face. I promised to send him the "kinder, gentler politics" memo in the morning.
Erm... It was Corbyn who said that, I'm not sure what that has to do with whoever decided to do this - surprisingly he doesn't have a paternalistic monopoly of behavioural policy over everyone (a majority of the population at last count) who dislikes Tories?
They support Corbyn, almost certainly. It would be nice if they followed his example on such things. If a UKIP member or supporter says something stupid or offensive, do you think people do not condemn Farage and the party generally? So it is not as though Corbyn is being singled out here.
It would be a bit odd if farage were being condemned for the behaviour of someone who just looked like they might support UKIP.
So today, Labour's more 'passionate' supporters are being knobs in Manchester whilst the Tories are being bipartisan.
I wonder what the voters will prefer?
The voters are Tory Scum. They don't count.
Only 24% of the voters are Tory scum!
Wrong.
37% of the voters are Tories. You may try to deflate that number by including non voters but 100% of non voters are not voters. So your claim is wrong.
ok, by your definition, 37% of voters are Tory scum.
Paul Kirkby New poll. 'Tories didn't use to understand ordinary working people but is improving. Labour used to, but doesn't now' http://t.co/v2hntaCiPu
Keep up the good work Jezbollah
The truly horrible number for the party of the working man is that only 18% - EIGHTEEN PER CENT!! - think that Labour used to and still does represent the ordinary working people.
Yes, there's a death certificate lurking there, unseen. Reminds me of the poet John Keats coughing blood, then calmly saying:
"I know the color of that blood; it is arterial blood. I cannot be deceived in that color. That drop of blood is my death warrant. I must die."
He died of TB a few years later.
"We knew not 'twas consumption, so gently did it steal, 'till suddenly the crimson tide, our darling's doom revealed."
Engraved on my ancestors' tombstone, Abney Park Cemetery, London...
So today, Labour's more 'passionate' supporters are being knobs in Manchester whilst the Tories are being bipartisan.
I wonder what the voters will prefer?
The voters are Tory Scum. They don't count.
Only 24% of the voters are Tory scum!
Wrong.
37% of the voters are Tories. You may try to deflate that number by including non voters but 100% of non voters are not voters. So your claim is wrong.
ok, by your definition, 37% of voters are Tory scum.
By the definition of voters. I didn't define voters to mean people who vote it's the meaning of the word.
I ran around in circles holding hands with Lord Adonis at a Bat Mitzvah a few months ago. I don't think this was a big factor in his resignation of the Labour whip.
I have just learnt that Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah are both correct.
So Bar and Bat are interchangeable?
That means I've done some shocking things inside Bats
Isn't Bat Mitzvah for girls?
That's what I thought. The sons of all my Jewish friends have their bar mitzvahs; bat mitzvahs seem to be a lot less usual. Shame, because they're always good parties and I aleays find the ceremony itself very moving. It's strange to see good friends transported into a very different heritage that you know is there but rarely experience. And the Holocaust is always there in the background. The act honours the memories of all those family members the Nazis murdered.
I've read and seen many articles, books, documentaries about the holocaust, I even know people who lost family members. But it wasn't until I visited Dachau and Auschwitz 30 years ago that I realized the true horror and immensity of it. It is literally almost unimaginable.
The first concentration camp was built in Dachau which had been an artists colony. Auschwitz is just the ultimate death factory. As well as the original camp and Birkenau, there were some thirty satellite camps housing slave labor at the various factories around.
@afneil: Just had some chap shout "scum, scum, scum, scum" in my face. I promised to send him the "kinder, gentler politics" memo in the morning.
Erm... It was Corbyn who said that, I'm not sure what that has to do with whoever decided to do this - surprisingly he doesn't have a paternalistic monopoly of behavioural policy over everyone (a majority of the population at last count) who dislikes Tories?
They support Corbyn, almost certainly. It would be nice if they followed his example on such things. If a UKIP member or supporter says something stupid or offensive, do you think people do not condemn Farage and the party generally? So it is not as though Corbyn is being singled out here.
It would be a bit odd if farage were being condemned for the behaviour of someone who just looked like they might support UKIP.
Is not Corbyn due to speak in solidarity with these people? Unless that is not happening, he has preannounced he is aligned with their causes - it doesn't make him responsible for everything they do, but he has tied himself to even those who are not fully paid up Labour members much more than another leader.
This rather smacks of pretending holding Corbyn responsible for such things would be somehow unique, when it isn't.
And now I really must go to bed. Good night again.
Not sure if you picked up on the ITV Wales poll story. Corbyn has had a nice bounce down my way, Plaid, Greens and Libs may be getting a kicking. Looking forward to Assembly elections now.
I ran around in circles holding hands with Lord Adonis at a Bat Mitzvah a few months ago. I don't think this was a big factor in his resignation of the Labour whip.
I have just learnt that Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah are both correct.
So Bar and Bat are interchangeable?
That means I've done some shocking things inside Bats
Isn't Bat Mitzvah for girls?
That's what I thought. The sons of all my Jewish friends have their bar mitzvahs; bat mitzvahs seem to be a lot less usual. Shame, because they're always good parties and I aleays find the ceremony itself very moving. It's strange to see good friends transported into a very different heritage that you know is there but rarely experience. And the Holocaust is always there in the background. The act honours the memories of all those family members the Nazis murdered.
I've read and seen many articles, books, documentaries about the holocaust, I even know people who lost family members. But it wasn't until I visited Dachau and Auschwitz 30 years ago that I realized the true horror and immensity of it. It is literally almost unimaginable.
The first concentration camp was built in Dachau which had been an artists colony. Auschwitz is just the ultimate death factory. As well as the original camp and Birkenau, there were some thirty satellite camps housing slave labor at the various factories around.
So today, Labour's more 'passionate' supporters are being knobs in Manchester whilst the Tories are being bipartisan.
I wonder what the voters will prefer?
The voters are Tory Scum. They don't count.
Only 24% of the voters are Tory scum!
Wrong.
37% of the voters are Tories. You may try to deflate that number by including non voters but 100% of non voters are not voters. So your claim is wrong.
ok, by your definition, 37% of voters are Tory scum.
Look to your left, now to your right. If you aren't Tory Scum, odds are one of them are.
I'm impressed by @JWisemann's feisty rearguard action as he tried to pretend that the nasty anti-democratic thugs behaving abominably outside the Conservative conference are nothing to do with the Trotskyists who have taken over the leadership of the Labour Party.
Nice try, but rather undermined by the words of the Shadow Chancellor:
I ran around in circles holding hands with Lord Adonis at a Bat Mitzvah a few months ago. I don't think this was a big factor in his resignation of the Labour whip.
I have just learnt that Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah are both correct.
So Bar and Bat are interchangeable?
That means I've done some shocking things inside Bats
Isn't Bat Mitzvah for girls?
That's what I thought. The sons of all my Jewish friends have their bar mitzvahs; bat mitzvahs seem to be a lot less usual. Shame, because they're always good parties and I aleays find the ceremony itself very moving. It's strange to see good friends transported into a very different heritage that you know is there but rarely experience. And the Holocaust is always there in the background. The act honours the memories of all those family members the Nazis murdered.
I've read and seen many articles, books, documentaries about the holocaust, I even know people who lost family members. But it wasn't until I visited Dachau and Auschwitz 30 years ago that I realized the true horror and immensity of it. It is literally almost unimaginable.
The first concentration camp was built in Dachau which had been an artists colony. Auschwitz is just the ultimate death factory. As well as the original camp and Birkenau, there were some thirty satellite camps housing slave labor at the various factories around.
Just listening, it's amusing to hear Professor Anthony King suggest there have only been three genuinely transformative Prime Ministers since the beginning of the 20th Century. Seems a little depressing for our PMs, although I suppose being a mere competent administrator or consolidator of others' transformations would be no bad thing too.
How many transformative novelists have there been, in all history? Three or four? The first (identity disputed), then Tolstoy, Joyce, Proust.... ?
Most novelists work within the form and the genre, and yet plenty of them, like Austen, Dickens, Nabokov, still achieve greatness.
Transformation, like revolution, is overrated.
What about Tolkien (fantasy) and Asimov (Sci fi)? ...
@afneil: Just had some chap shout "scum, scum, scum, scum" in my face. I promised to send him the "kinder, gentler politics" memo in the morning.
Erm... It was Corbyn who said that, I'm not sure what that has to do with whoever decided to do this - surprisingly he doesn't have a paternalistic monopoly of behavioural policy over everyone (a majority of the population at last count) who dislikes Tories?
They support Corbyn, almost certainly. It would be nice if they followed his example on such things. If a UKIP member or supporter says something stupid or offensive, do you think people do not condemn Farage and the party generally? So it is not as though Corbyn is being singled out here.
It would be a bit odd if farage were being condemned for the behaviour of someone who just looked like they might support UKIP.
How much do you want to bet they aren't Corbyn supporters?
David Cameron has vowed to ignore a European Court of Justice ruling expected this week that could outlaw Britain’s blanket ban on prisoner voting.
In an explosive move on the eve of Mr Cameron’s conference speech, Europe’s highest court is on Tuesday predicted to rule that automatically stripping convicts of the right to vote is a violation of their human rights.
I've never really understood the argument that not allowing prisoners to vote is a violation of their human rights. I disagree with but understand the argument that they should be allowed, or some should be allowed, but if someone is a prisoner we already take away many of their rights as a matter of course, so clearly it is deemed acceptable to infringe some of peoples' human rights when serving a custodial sentence.
If somebody was making the argument that not allowing prisoners to vote is a violation of their human rights, then you would be correct to disagree with it. But nobody, least of all the ECJ, is making that argument. The point is whether voting rights should be removed without due process
The British state is a democracy spatchcocked onto an absolute monarchy, and there are holes all over the place. One of those things is that you can do what you like to prisoners unless explicitly denied by law. This allows a certain flexibility with respect to sentence length ("at Her Majesty's Pleasure") and works quite well, allowing a penal system to function smoothly. But it causes a problem with removal of voting rights because the removal has never been explicitly stated - it's always been assumed. This has led the prisoners to argue that their votes are being removed from them as a class without due process, something human rights legislation was set up to explicitly prevent. Hence the ECJ ruling.
If the voting rights were removed at the point of sentence ("...and the franchise denied you") there would be no problem. If the voting rights were removed retrospectively by name ("The following people shall have the franchise removed: A.Aardvark...Z.Zzyzz") then there would be no problem. But Cameron is saying "we can remove voting rights from any class we please without due process" and because the disenfranchised are prisoners, nobody cares. Except me, because I think the state shouldn't act like that.
So today, Labour's more 'passionate' supporters are being knobs in Manchester whilst the Tories are being bipartisan.
I wonder what the voters will prefer?
The voters are Tory Scum. They don't count.
Only 24% of the voters are Tory scum!
Wrong.
37% of the voters are Tories. You may try to deflate that number by including non voters but 100% of non voters are not voters. So your claim is wrong.
ok, by your definition, 37% of voters are Tory scum.
Look to your left, now to your right. If you aren't Tory Scum, odds are one of them are.
Not sure if you picked up on the ITV Wales poll story. Corbyn has had a nice bounce down my way, Plaid, Greens and Libs may be getting a kicking. Looking forward to Assembly elections now.
Lord Adonis' switch is a bit like Lord Freud's. They both appear to be more interested doing things than party politics. That said, I see from Adonis' wiki page that he chaired Labour's internal Progress group which is a semantic loss for the Party.
Far better to have people like Adonis doing meaningful work than being ignored by Corbyn Labour. It's a good move and should be welcomed by all on the rational centre left. It's positive to have sane voices like Adonis's in the middle of such important decision-making. I may be wrong, but to take the job I'd have thought he'd have to resign the Labour whip in the Lords. Unlike Levy he does not seem to have joined the Tories.
David Cameron has vowed to ignore a European Court of Justice ruling expected this week that could outlaw Britain’s blanket ban on prisoner voting.
In an explosive move on the eve of Mr Cameron’s conference speech, Europe’s highest court is on Tuesday predicted to rule that automatically stripping convicts of the right to vote is a violation of their human rights.
I've never really understood the argument that not allowing prisoners to vote is a violation of their human rights. I disagree with but understand the argument that they should be allowed, or some should be allowed, but if someone is a prisoner we already take away many of their rights as a matter of course, so clearly it is deemed acceptable to infringe some of peoples' human rights when serving a custodial sentence.
If somebody was making the argument that not allowing prisoners to vote is a violation of their human rights, then you would be correct to disagree with it. But nobody, least of all the ECJ, is making that argument. The point is whether voting rights should be removed without due process
That makes more sense - why don't those in favour of allowing it, to some extent, lead with that more often I wonder, because I read all the time that it is 'against their human rights' not to be able to vote (for all I am well aware no-one is saying they all must be given the vote, and indeed the plan was to give it to as few as possible to mollify the court), so you are wrong to say no-one is making that argument even if legal professionals are not the ones doing it.
So today, Labour's more 'passionate' supporters are being knobs in Manchester whilst the Tories are being bipartisan.
I wonder what the voters will prefer?
The voters are Tory Scum. They don't count.
Only 24% of the voters are Tory scum!
Wrong.
37% of the voters are Tories. You may try to deflate that number by including non voters but 100% of non voters are not voters. So your claim is wrong.
ok, by your definition, 37% of voters are Tory scum.
Look to your left, now to your right. If you aren't Tory Scum, odds are one of them are.
@afneil: Just had some chap shout "scum, scum, scum, scum" in my face. I promised to send him the "kinder, gentler politics" memo in the morning.
Erm... It was Corbyn who said that, I'm not sure what that has to do with whoever decided to do this - surprisingly he doesn't have a paternalistic monopoly of behavioural policy over everyone (a majority of the population at last count) who dislikes Tories?
They support Corbyn, almost certainly. It would be nice if they followed his example on such things. If a UKIP member or supporter says something stupid or offensive, do you think people do not condemn Farage and the party generally? So it is not as though Corbyn is being singled out here.
It would be a bit odd if farage were being condemned for the behaviour of someone who just looked like they might support UKIP.
How much do you want to bet they aren't Corbyn supporters?
We don't know, and won't find out, either way, so pointless to speculate. Corbyn can't be expected to account for everyone who dislikes the Tories or he'd be there for a long time.
Not sure if you picked up on the ITV Wales poll story. Corbyn has had a nice bounce down my way, Plaid, Greens and Libs may be getting a kicking. Looking forward to Assembly elections now.
Shhhhh.... Doesn't fit the approved reality
Don't worry - Wales is only losing 25% of its MPs in the boundary changes..
I'm impressed by @JWisemann's feisty rearguard action as he tried to pretend that the nasty anti-democratic thugs behaving abominably outside the Conservative conference are nothing to do with the Trotskyists who have taken over the leadership of the Labour Party.
Nice try, but rather undermined by the words of the Shadow Chancellor:
.......and the silence continues with no condemnation of the horrific behavious of the thugs that they yes Labour have unleashed.
These are just the initial skirmishes Next will be the public sector unions the real military wing of the Labour Party. They have already stated they intend to overthrow the elected government and will try to do so. They have no chance at the election so violence and anarchy is all they have left.
Anyone just anyone but this awful despicable Labour rabble.
@viewcode - Sorry, but that it poppycock. Firstly the ECJ have indicated that a completely arbitrary rule that prisoners serving sentences of over a certain length - six months has been mooted - would be OK. This is bonkers beyond belief - why 6 months, rather than a year, or (as we now have) zero months?
And secondly, it is even more bonkers - if that is possible - to claim there has not been due process and consideration. The current position is the result of democratic votes in parliament over many years, affirmed most recently in 2011 by a majority of 234 to 22.
I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue had a Yorkshire version of the Uxbridge English Dictionary. I remember Graeme Garden had "Scum" - meaning "It has arrived...."
@afneil: Just had some chap shout "scum, scum, scum, scum" in my face. I promised to send him the "kinder, gentler politics" memo in the morning.
Erm... It was Corbyn who said that, I'm not sure what that has to do with whoever decided to do this - surprisingly he doesn't have a paternalistic monopoly of behavioural policy over everyone (a majority of the population at last count) who dislikes Tories?
They support Corbyn, almost certainly. It would be nice if they followed his example on such things. If a UKIP member or supporter says something stupid or offensive, do you think people do not condemn Farage and the party generally? So it is not as though Corbyn is being singled out here.
It would be a bit odd if farage were being condemned for the behaviour of someone who just looked like they might support UKIP.
How much do you want to bet they aren't Corbyn supporters?
We don't know, and won't find out, either way, so pointless to speculate. Corbyn can't be expected to account for everyone who dislikes the Tories or he'd be there for a long time.
Which was most wrong about a things tory this year?
The spectator is just pathetic... so you know who gets my vote, and that's saying something.
It serves a certain purpose. There is a coterie of metropolitan critics who would be absolutely useless (in some cases, positively harmful) to let out into the real world. By supplying them with money and a pulpit it allows them to vent their spleen harmlessly into a magazine with little readership, instead of trying to do a proper job where they might hurt someone. If you imagine Rod Liddle or James Delingpole operating heavy machinery, serving a customer, or babysitting, or doing anything beyond the competence of an average 8yr old, you'll see what I mean.
Not sure if you picked up on the ITV Wales poll story. Corbyn has had a nice bounce down my way, Plaid, Greens and Libs may be getting a kicking. Looking forward to Assembly elections now.
Shhhhh.... Doesn't fit the approved reality
Don't worry - Wales is only losing 25% of its MPs in the boundary changes..
I'd be surprised if they happen, and even so, so what? Is that really your level of debate? The point was, a bunch of usual suspects on here were banging on about how Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales and it would be Tory fiefdom within a few years. This clearly is as much of a fantasy as 75% of the gout-ridden golf club barroom drivel that masquerades as serious political discussion here.
Not sure if you picked up on the ITV Wales poll story. Corbyn has had a nice bounce down my way, Plaid, Greens and Libs may be getting a kicking. Looking forward to Assembly elections now.
Shhhhh.... Doesn't fit the approved reality
Don't worry - Wales is only losing 25% of its MPs in the boundary changes..
I'd be surprised if they happen, and even so, so what? Is that really your level of debate? The point was, a bunch of usual suspects on here were banging on about how Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales and it would be Tory fiefdom within a few years. This clearly is as much of a fantasy as 75% of the gout-ridden golf club barroom drivel that masquerades as serious political discussion here.
Someone actually predicted that it would become a "Tory fiefdom"?
So today, Labour's more 'passionate' supporters are being knobs in Manchester whilst the Tories are being bipartisan.
I wonder what the voters will prefer?
The voters are Tory Scum. They don't count.
Only 24% of the voters are Tory scum!
Wrong.
37% of the voters are Tories. You may try to deflate that number by including non voters but 100% of non voters are not voters. So your claim is wrong.
ok, by your definition, 37% of voters are Tory scum.
Look to your left, now to your right. If you aren't Tory Scum, odds are one of them are.
I'm pretty sure Heidi isn't Tory Scum.
Shy Tory Scum.
After reading that she wanted another biscuit, went upstairs and is lying on my bed.
I think you should apologize - German Shepherds are sensitive creatures
I'm impressed by @JWisemann's feisty rearguard action as he tried to pretend that the nasty anti-democratic thugs behaving abominably outside the Conservative conference are nothing to do with the Trotskyists who have taken over the leadership of the Labour Party.
Nice try, but rather undermined by the words of the Shadow Chancellor:
.......and the silence continues with no condemnation of the horrific behavious of the thugs that they yes Labour have unleashed.
These are just the initial skirmishes Next will be the public sector unions the real military wing of the Labour Party. They have already stated they intend to overthrow the elected government and will try to do so. They have no chance at the election so violence and anarchy is all they have left.
Anyone just anyone but this awful despicable Labour rabble.
In my very first comment on this I said that the (very) tiny minority who committed such acts were reprehensible idiots. You are clearly having a comprehension problem.
So today, Labour's more 'passionate' supporters are being knobs in Manchester whilst the Tories are being bipartisan.
I wonder what the voters will prefer?
The voters are Tory Scum. They don't count.
Only 24% of the voters are Tory scum!
Wrong.
37% of the voters are Tories. You may try to deflate that number by including non voters but 100% of non voters are not voters. So your claim is wrong.
ok, by your definition, 37% of voters are Tory scum.
Look to your left, now to your right. If you aren't Tory Scum, odds are one of them are.
I'm pretty sure Heidi isn't Tory Scum.
Shy Tory Scum.
After reading that she wanted another biscuit, went upstairs and is lying on my bed.
I think you should apologize - German Shepherds are sensitive creatures
I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue had a Yorkshire version of the Uxbridge English Dictionary. I remember Graeme Garden had "Scum" - meaning "It has arrived...."
Not sure if you picked up on the ITV Wales poll story. Corbyn has had a nice bounce down my way, Plaid, Greens and Libs may be getting a kicking. Looking forward to Assembly elections now.
Shhhhh.... Doesn't fit the approved reality
Don't worry - Wales is only losing 25% of its MPs in the boundary changes..
I'd be surprised if they happen, and even so, so what? Is that really your level of debate? The point was, a bunch of usual suspects on here were banging on about how Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales and it would be Tory fiefdom within a few years. This clearly is as much of a fantasy as 75% of the gout-ridden golf club barroom drivel that masquerades as serious political discussion here.
Insulting people, belittling and deriding them without any attempt to gainsay their argument. I think you have hit on a great way to advance your political philosophy and urge you to keep it up.
@viewcode - Sorry, but that it poppycock. Firstly the ECJ have indicated that a completely arbitrary rule that prisoners serving sentences of over a certain length - six months has been mooted - would be OK. This is bonkers beyond belief - why 6 months, rather than a year, or (as we now have) zero months?
And secondly, it is even more bonkers - if that is possible - to claim there has not been due process and consideration. The current position is the result of democratic votes in parliament over many years, affirmed most recently in 2011 by a majority of 234 to 22.
Your first point (arbitrariness of the ECJ concerning six months) is a non sequitur. The issue is the removal of votes from a class without due process
Your second point (motions in parliament) does not override the fact that votes are being removed from a class without due process. The votes you refer to do not create a law disenfranchising individuals.
Nice to see Richard Nabavi relying on the Mail to back up his bizarre reds under the beds rant at moderate social democrat labour. Always a strong argument-bolsterer.
@viewcode - Sorry, but that it poppycock. Firstly the ECJ have indicated that a completely arbitrary rule that prisoners serving sentences of over a certain length - six months has been mooted - would be OK. This is bonkers beyond belief - why 6 months, rather than a year, or (as we now have) zero months?
And secondly, it is even more bonkers - if that is possible - to claim there has not been due process and consideration. The current position is the result of democratic votes in parliament over many years, affirmed most recently in 2011 by a majority of 234 to 22.
Your first point (arbitrariness of the ECJ concerning six months) is a non sequitur. The issue is the removal of votes from a class without due process
Your second point (motions in parliament) does not override the fact that votes are being removed from a class without due process. The votes you refer to do not create a law disenfranchising individuals.
But it isn't due process at all.
What the ECJ have said is that the vote cannot be reasonably taken away from certain groups of people, broadly speaking, short term prisoners.
Whilst there is an element of avioding arbitrariness, the court has made a value judgement in saying that the importance of being able to vote will mean that the line will fall such that some prisoners are on the "allowed to vote" side. Of course the government would say that all prisoners would fall on the "not allowed to vote" side.
Not sure if you picked up on the ITV Wales poll story. Corbyn has had a nice bounce down my way, Plaid, Greens and Libs may be getting a kicking. Looking forward to Assembly elections now.
Shhhhh.... Doesn't fit the approved reality
Don't worry - Wales is only losing 25% of its MPs in the boundary changes..
I'd be surprised if they happen, and even so, so what? Is that really your level of debate? The point was, a bunch of usual suspects on here were banging on about how Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales and it would be Tory fiefdom within a few years. This clearly is as much of a fantasy as 75% of the gout-ridden golf club barroom drivel that masquerades as serious political discussion here.
You don't think there will be new boundaries ? Prepare for disappointment.
Not sure if you picked up on the ITV Wales poll story. Corbyn has had a nice bounce down my way, Plaid, Greens and Libs may be getting a kicking. Looking forward to Assembly elections now.
Shhhhh.... Doesn't fit the approved reality
Don't worry - Wales is only losing 25% of its MPs in the boundary changes..
I'd be surprised if they happen, and even so, so what? Is that really your level of debate? The point was, a bunch of usual suspects on here were banging on about how Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales and it would be Tory fiefdom within a few years. This clearly is as much of a fantasy as 75% of the gout-ridden golf club barroom drivel that masquerades as serious political discussion here.
Insulting people, belittling and deriding them without any attempt to gainsay their argument. I think you have hit on a great way to advance your political philosophy and urge you to keep it up.
It wasn't an argument though was it? It was an irrelevant non-sequitur, that deserved an equally contemptuous response. Are you denying that there was people on here saying Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales? This was a response to that.
Not sure if you picked up on the ITV Wales poll story. Corbyn has had a nice bounce down my way, Plaid, Greens and Libs may be getting a kicking. Looking forward to Assembly elections now.
Shhhhh.... Doesn't fit the approved reality
Don't worry - Wales is only losing 25% of its MPs in the boundary changes..
I'd be surprised if they happen, and even so, so what? Is that really your level of debate? The point was, a bunch of usual suspects on here were banging on about how Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales and it would be Tory fiefdom within a few years. This clearly is as much of a fantasy as 75% of the gout-ridden golf club barroom drivel that masquerades as serious political discussion here.
Interesting that you are a member of a golf club and are fully familiar with the bar room discussions...who would have thought?
Do you still wave at the poor and downtrodden masses through the clubhouse windows?
Not sure if you picked up on the ITV Wales poll story. Corbyn has had a nice bounce down my way, Plaid, Greens and Libs may be getting a kicking. Looking forward to Assembly elections now.
Shhhhh.... Doesn't fit the approved reality
Don't worry - Wales is only losing 25% of its MPs in the boundary changes..
I'd be surprised if they happen, and even so, so what? Is that really your level of debate? The point was, a bunch of usual suspects on here were banging on about how Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales and it would be Tory fiefdom within a few years. This clearly is as much of a fantasy as 75% of the gout-ridden golf club barroom drivel that masquerades as serious political discussion here.
You don't think there will be new boundaries ? Prepare for disappointment.
There may be, there may not be, either way, the fools on here who thought Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales are looking more and more likely to be wrong. I suspect it won't be for the last time, given the drivel many come out with here, you being a particularly bad offender. This isn't aimed at the sensible right wingers on here, who I find an interesting source of alternate viewpoints.
Not sure if you picked up on the ITV Wales poll story. Corbyn has had a nice bounce down my way, Plaid, Greens and Libs may be getting a kicking. Looking forward to Assembly elections now.
Shhhhh.... Doesn't fit the approved reality
Don't worry - Wales is only losing 25% of its MPs in the boundary changes..
I'd be surprised if they happen, and even so, so what? Is that really your level of debate? The point was, a bunch of usual suspects on here were banging on about how Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales and it would be Tory fiefdom within a few years. This clearly is as much of a fantasy as 75% of the gout-ridden golf club barroom drivel that masquerades as serious political discussion here.
You don't think there will be new boundaries ? Prepare for disappointment.
There may be, there may not be, either way, the fools on here who thought Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales are looking more and more likely to be wrong. I suspect it won't be for the last time, given the drivel many come out with here, you being a particularly bad offender. This isn't aimed at the sensible right wingers on here, who I find an interesting source of alternate viewpoints.
You probably will do well in Liverpool too - great stuff.
Not sure if you picked up on the ITV Wales poll story. Corbyn has had a nice bounce down my way, Plaid, Greens and Libs may be getting a kicking. Looking forward to Assembly elections now.
Shhhhh.... Doesn't fit the approved reality
Don't worry - Wales is only losing 25% of its MPs in the boundary changes..
I'd be surprised if they happen, and even so, so what? Is that really your level of debate? The point was, a bunch of usual suspects on here were banging on about how Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales and it would be Tory fiefdom within a few years. This clearly is as much of a fantasy as 75% of the gout-ridden golf club barroom drivel that masquerades as serious political discussion here.
Insulting people, belittling and deriding them without any attempt to gainsay their argument. I think you have hit on a great way to advance your political philosophy and urge you to keep it up.
It wasn't an argument though was it? It was an irrelevant non-sequitur, that deserved an equally contemptuous response. Are you denying that there was people on here saying Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales? This was a response to that.
He might be eventually - it's early days yet. We don't know what his support will be in 2 or 3 years. I would have thought he'd do well in Wales, as it's left of England (and I don't mean geographically).
Not sure if you picked up on the ITV Wales poll story. Corbyn has had a nice bounce down my way, Plaid, Greens and Libs may be getting a kicking. Looking forward to Assembly elections now.
Shhhhh.... Doesn't fit the approved reality
Don't worry - Wales is only losing 25% of its MPs in the boundary changes..
I'd be surprised if they happen, and even so, so what? Is that really your level of debate? The point was, a bunch of usual suspects on here were banging on about how Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales and it would be Tory fiefdom within a few years. This clearly is as much of a fantasy as 75% of the gout-ridden golf club barroom drivel that masquerades as serious political discussion here.
You don't think there will be new boundaries ? Prepare for disappointment.
There may be, there may not be, either way, the fools on here who thought Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales are looking more and more likely to be wrong. I suspect it won't be for the last time, given the drivel many come out with here, you being a particularly bad offender. This isn't aimed at the sensible right wingers on here, who I find an interesting source of alternate viewpoints.
I'm impressed by @JWisemann's feisty rearguard action as he tried to pretend that the nasty anti-democratic thugs behaving abominably outside the Conservative conference are nothing to do with the Trotskyists who have taken over the leadership of the Labour Party.
Nice try, but rather undermined by the words of the Shadow Chancellor:
.......and the silence continues with no condemnation of the horrific behavious of the thugs that they yes Labour have unleashed.
These are just the initial skirmishes Next will be the public sector unions the real military wing of the Labour Party. They have already stated they intend to overthrow the elected government and will try to do so. They have no chance at the election so violence and anarchy is all they have left.
Anyone just anyone but this awful despicable Labour rabble.
In my very first comment on this I said that the (very) tiny minority who committed such acts were reprehensible idiots. You are clearly having a comprehension problem.
Attention.....
I am having a problem understanding why the second most important person in your party called for this direct illegal and undemocratic action against the Tories and now remains silent along with your leader who intends to further stir the pot tomorrow.
@viewcode - Sorry, but that it poppycock. Firstly the ECJ have indicated that a completely arbitrary rule that prisoners serving sentences of over a certain length - six months has been mooted - would be OK. This is bonkers beyond belief - why 6 months, rather than a year, or (as we now have) zero months?
And secondly, it is even more bonkers - if that is possible - to claim there has not been due process and consideration. The current position is the result of democratic votes in parliament over many years, affirmed most recently in 2011 by a majority of 234 to 22.
Your first point (arbitrariness of the ECJ concerning six months) is a non sequitur. The issue is the removal of votes from a class without due process
Your second point (motions in parliament) does not override the fact that votes are being removed from a class without due process. The votes you refer to do not create a law disenfranchising individuals.
But it isn't due process at all.
What the ECJ have said is that the vote cannot be reasonably taken away from certain groups of people, broadly speaking, short term prisoners.
Whilst there is an element of avioding arbitrariness, the court has made a value judgement in saying that the importance of being able to vote will mean that the line will fall such that some prisoners are on the "allowed to vote" side. Of course the government would say that all prisoners would fall on the "not allowed to vote" side.
I thought the 6-months was in the nature of a compromise by the ECJ to the UK. If I have misunderstood the ECJ position, then I apologise.
But my point about franchise removal without due process still stands. Did I miss the law explicitly removing it? Is it explicitly stated at sentence? If there is no law removing it, and it was not explicitly stated at sentence, then we are back to my original point.
@viewcode - Sorry, but that it poppycock. Firstly the ECJ have indicated that a completely arbitrary rule that prisoners serving sentences of over a certain length - six months has been mooted - would be OK. This is bonkers beyond belief - why 6 months, rather than a year, or (as we now have) zero months?
And secondly, it is even more bonkers - if that is possible - to claim there has not been due process and consideration. The current position is the result of democratic votes in parliament over many years, affirmed most recently in 2011 by a majority of 234 to 22.
Your first point (arbitrariness of the ECJ concerning six months) is a non sequitur. The issue is the removal of votes from a class without due process
Your second point (motions in parliament) does not override the fact that votes are being removed from a class without due process. The votes you refer to do not create a law disenfranchising individuals.
The acts of 1969 and 1983 specifically took away voting rights for prisoners. It has nothing to do with your ramblings about 'absolute monarchies'. So the issue is quite clearly one of a parliamentary responsibility and the issue is one which has been quite democratically arrived at. FWIW, 1969 was a Labour year. It's only as late as 1948 that we finally got one man one vote anyway. In some cases businesses got two votes. So your comment about due process is cobblers. My right not to pay tax has been taken away without due process. Every law that parliament passes takes away my right not to do something without your notions of due process.
I'm impressed by @JWisemann's feisty rearguard action as he tried to pretend that the nasty anti-democratic thugs behaving abominably outside the Conservative conference are nothing to do with the Trotskyists who have taken over the leadership of the Labour Party.
Nice try, but rather undermined by the words of the Shadow Chancellor:
.......and the silence continues with no condemnation of the horrific behavious of the thugs that they yes Labour have unleashed.
These are just the initial skirmishes Next will be the public sector unions the real military wing of the Labour Party. They have already stated they intend to overthrow the elected government and will try to do so. They have no chance at the election so violence and anarchy is all they have left.
Anyone just anyone but this awful despicable Labour rabble.
In my very first comment on this I said that the (very) tiny minority who committed such acts were reprehensible idiots. You are clearly having a comprehension problem.
Attention.....
I am having a problem understanding why the second most important person in your party called for this direct illegal and undemocratic action against the Tories and now remains silent along with your leader who intends to further stir the pot tomorrow.
That is all.
Pillock Wisemann speaks again. Best thing to do is spit in his eye.
Yay. @BBCBreaking: Portugal's Socialists admit defeat as early election results show clear win for centre-right governing coalition http://t.co/Pp0Ar2254K
I'm impressed by @JWisemann's feisty rearguard action as he tried to pretend that the nasty anti-democratic thugs behaving abominably outside the Conservative conference are nothing to do with the Trotskyists who have taken over the leadership of the Labour Party.
Nice try, but rather undermined by the words of the Shadow Chancellor:
.......and the silence continues with no condemnation of the horrific behavious of the thugs that they yes Labour have unleashed.
These are just the initial skirmishes Next will be the public sector unions the real military wing of the Labour Party. They have already stated they intend to overthrow the elected government and will try to do so. They have no chance at the election so violence and anarchy is all they have left.
Anyone just anyone but this awful despicable Labour rabble.
In my very first comment on this I said that the (very) tiny minority who committed such acts were reprehensible idiots. You are clearly having a comprehension problem.
Attention.....
I am having a problem understanding why the second most important person in your party called for this direct illegal and undemocratic action against the Tories and now remains silent along with your leader who intends to further stir the pot tomorrow.
That is all.
It's back to the 1970s, Vic Feather, Red Robbo, Derek Hatton, Jack Jones et al all over again.
Not sure if you picked up on the ITV Wales poll story. Corbyn has had a nice bounce down my way, Plaid, Greens and Libs may be getting a kicking. Looking forward to Assembly elections now.
Shhhhh.... Doesn't fit the approved reality
Don't worry - Wales is only losing 25% of its MPs in the boundary changes..
I'd be surprised if they happen, and even so, so what? Is that really your level of debate? The point was, a bunch of usual suspects on here were banging on about how Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales and it would be Tory fiefdom within a few years. This clearly is as much of a fantasy as 75% of the gout-ridden golf club barroom drivel that masquerades as serious political discussion here.
Insulting people, belittling and deriding them without any attempt to gainsay their argument. I think you have hit on a great way to advance your political philosophy and urge you to keep it up.
It wasn't an argument though was it? It was an irrelevant non-sequitur, that deserved an equally contemptuous response. Are you denying that there was people on here saying Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales? This was a response to that.
He might be eventually - it's early days yet. We don't know what his support will be in 2 or 3 years. I would have thought he'd do well in Wales, as it's left of England (and I don't mean geographically).
IIRC many have said Corbyn will pile up votes where they are not needed. It should surely be no surprise that the former chairman of the Stop the War Campaign would take votes from the Greenie loonie party.
Lord Adonis' switch is a bit like Lord Freud's. They both appear to be more interested doing things than party politics. That said, I see from Adonis' wiki page that he chaired Labour's internal Progress group which is a semantic loss for the Party.
Far better to have people like Adonis doing meaningful work than being ignored by Corbyn Labour. It's a good move and should be welcomed by all on the rational centre left. It's positive to have sane voices like Adonis's in the middle of such important decision-making. I may be wrong, but to take the job I'd have thought he'd have to resign the Labour whip in the Lords. Unlike Levy he does not seem to have joined the Tories.
Has Levy joined the Tories? He's still listed as Labour on the Parliament website so I don't think so unless he has defected over this weekend. It's usually updated daily on weekdays.
Healey's death plus Adonis resigning the Labour whip (presumably he becomes a Crossbencher) should see the number of Labour Peers fall to 209 when the State of the Parties is updated - see link below.
@viewcode - Sorry, but that it poppycock. Firstly the ECJ have indicated that a completely arbitrary rule that prisoners serving sentences of over a certain length - six months has been mooted - would be OK. This is bonkers beyond belief - why 6 months, rather than a year, or (as we now have) zero months?
And secondly, it is even more bonkers - if that is possible - to claim there has not been due process and consideration. The current position is the result of democratic votes in parliament over many years, affirmed most recently in 2011 by a majority of 234 to 22.
Your first point (arbitrariness of the ECJ concerning six months) is a non sequitur. The issue is the removal of votes from a class without due process
Your second point (motions in parliament) does not override the fact that votes are being removed from a class without due process. The votes you refer to do not create a law disenfranchising individuals.
Sorry but you're wrong due process is part and parcel of the whole process of being convicted. The law is that prisoners lose the vote and if someone becomes a prisoner then due process must be met.
Your idea that it'd be better to have the government choose individuals to disenfranchise is horrific. So if Parliament decided Len McCluskey should lose the vote that would be ok?
No Parliament needs to set the law up to apply equitably and the Courts must ensure due process is followed. No need for a separate sentence of losing the vote as the law set that in advance before the due process conviction and imprisonment.
I'm impressed by @JWisemann's feisty rearguard action as he tried to pretend that the nasty anti-democratic thugs behaving abominably outside the Conservative conference are nothing to do with the Trotskyists who have taken over the leadership of the Labour Party.
Nice try, but rather undermined by the words of the Shadow Chancellor:
.......and the silence continues with no condemnation of the horrific behavious of the thugs that they yes Labour have unleashed.
These are just the initial skirmishes Next will be the public sector unions the real military wing of the Labour Party. They have already stated they intend to overthrow the elected government and will try to do so. They have no chance at the election so violence and anarchy is all they have left.
Anyone just anyone but this awful despicable Labour rabble.
In my very first comment on this I said that the (very) tiny minority who committed such acts were reprehensible idiots. You are clearly having a comprehension problem.
Attention.....
I am having a problem understanding why the second most important person in your party called for this direct illegal and undemocratic action against the Tories and now remains silent along with your leader who intends to further stir the pot tomorrow.
That is all.
It's back to the 1970s, Vic Feather, Red Robbo, Derek Hatton, Jack Jones et al all over again.
I'm just glad I'm not there to relive it.
You just be happy with Trump/Hilary and school massacares
I'm impressed by @JWisemann's feisty rearguard action as he tried to pretend that the nasty anti-democratic thugs behaving abominably outside the Conservative conference are nothing to do with the Trotskyists who have taken over the leadership of the Labour Party.
Nice try, but rather undermined by the words of the Shadow Chancellor:
.......and the silence continues with no condemnation of the horrific behavious of the thugs that they yes Labour have unleashed.
These are just the initial skirmishes Next will be the public sector unions the real military wing of the Labour Party. They have already stated they intend to overthrow the elected government and will try to do so. They have no chance at the election so violence and anarchy is all they have left.
Anyone just anyone but this awful despicable Labour rabble.
In my very first comment on this I said that the (very) tiny minority who committed such acts were reprehensible idiots. You are clearly having a comprehension problem.
Attention.....
I am having a problem understanding why the second most important person in your party called for this direct illegal and undemocratic action against the Tories and now remains silent along with your leader who intends to further stir the pot tomorrow.
That is all.
It's back to the 1970s, Vic Feather, Red Robbo, Derek Hatton, Jack Jones et al all over again.
I'm just glad I'm not there to relive it.
I remember it too very well. It's why I have been absolutely anyone but Labour ever since.
@viewcode - Sorry, but that it poppycock. Firstly the ECJ have indicated that a completely arbitrary rule that prisoners serving sentences of over a certain length - six months has been mooted - would be OK. This is bonkers beyond belief - why 6 months, rather than a year, or (as we now have) zero months?
And secondly, it is even more bonkers - if that is possible - to claim there has not been due process and consideration. The current position is the result of democratic votes in parliament over many years, affirmed most recently in 2011 by a majority of 234 to 22.
Your first point (arbitrariness of the ECJ concerning six months) is a non sequitur. The issue is the removal of votes from a class without due process
Your second point (motions in parliament) does not override the fact that votes are being removed from a class without due process. The votes you refer to do not create a law disenfranchising individuals.
The acts of 1969 and 1983 specifically took away voting rights for prisoners. It has nothing to do with your ramblings about 'absolute monarchies'. So the issue is quite clearly one of a parliamentary responsibility and the issue is one which has been quite democratically arrived at. FWIW, 1969 was a Labour year. It's only as late as 1948 that we finally got one man one vote anyway. In some cases businesses got two votes. So your comment about due process is cobblers. My right not to pay tax has been taken away without due process. Every law that parliament passes takes away my right not to do something without your notions of due process.
Having googled the Representation of the People Act 1983, I find that it is explicitly removed (so the answer to my question "Did I miss the law explicitly removing it?" is "Yes, I did"). It would have been a lot quicker if you had just pointed that out instead of resorting to abuse.
@viewcode - Sorry, but that it poppycock. Firstly the ECJ have indicated that a completely arbitrary rule that prisoners serving sentences of over a certain length - six months has been mooted - would be OK. This is bonkers beyond belief - why 6 months, rather than a year, or (as we now have) zero months?
And secondly, it is even more bonkers - if that is possible - to claim there has not been due process and consideration. The current position is the result of democratic votes in parliament over many years, affirmed most recently in 2011 by a majority of 234 to 22.
Your first point (arbitrariness of the ECJ concerning six months) is a non sequitur. The issue is the removal of votes from a class without due process
Your second point (motions in parliament) does not override the fact that votes are being removed from a class without due process. The votes you refer to do not create a law disenfranchising individuals.
Your idea that it'd be better to have the government choose individuals to disenfranchise is horrific. So if Parliament decided Len McCluskey should lose the vote that would be ok?
If by "OK" you mean "done properly within the powers of Parliament" then the answer, horrifying or not, is "yes, it is OK". It is not a decision I would agree with (is that what you meant?) but procedurally then yes, it would be valid. Why do you think it wouldn't?
@viewcode - Sorry, but that it poppycock. Firstly the ECJ have indicated that a completely arbitrary rule that prisoners serving sentences of over a certain length - six months has been mooted - would be OK. This is bonkers beyond belief - why 6 months, rather than a year, or (as we now have) zero months?
And secondly, it is even more bonkers - if that is possible - to claim there has not been due process and consideration. The current position is the result of democratic votes in parliament over many years, affirmed most recently in 2011 by a majority of 234 to 22.
Your first point (arbitrariness of the ECJ concerning six months) is a non sequitur. The issue is the removal of votes from a class without due process
Your second point (motions in parliament) does not override the fact that votes are being removed from a class without due process. The votes you refer to do not create a law disenfranchising individuals.
The acts of 1969 and 1983 specifically took away voting rights for prisoners. It has nothing to do with your ramblings about 'absolute monarchies'. So the issue is quite clearly one of a parliamentary responsibility and the issue is one which has been quite democratically arrived at. FWIW, 1969 was a Labour year. It's only as late as 1948 that we finally got one man one vote anyway. In some cases businesses got two votes. So your comment about due process is cobblers. My right not to pay tax has been taken away without due process. Every law that parliament passes takes away my right not to do something without your notions of due process.
Having googled the Representation of the People Act 1983, I find that it is explicitly removed (so the answer to my question "Did I miss the law explicitly removing it?" is "Yes, I did"). It would have been a lot quicker if you had just pointed that out instead of resorting to abuse.
Hah. It would have been nice if you had not droned on about absolute monarchies. It was removed for sure in 1969. Before that and the advent of postal voting it was in effect removed in 1870. Even with postal voting the terms of the act introducing it effectively removed voting. But throughout all those periods the franchise was explicitly not a full one up until 1928. But it could have been removed by parliament last year and it still would have been none of the business of anyone outside the UK. Our constitutional monarchy has nothing to do with it.
@viewcode - Sorry, but that it poppycock. Firstly the ECJ have indicated that a completely arbitrary rule that prisoners serving sentences of over a certain length - six months has been mooted - would be OK. This is bonkers beyond belief - why 6 months, rather than a year, or (as we now have) zero months?
And secondly, it is even more bonkers - if that is possible - to claim there has not been due process and consideration. The current position is the result of democratic votes in parliament over many years, affirmed most recently in 2011 by a majority of 234 to 22.
Your first point (arbitrariness of the ECJ concerning six months) is a non sequitur. The issue is the removal of votes from a class without due process
Your second point (motions in parliament) does not override the fact that votes are being removed from a class without due process. The votes you refer to do not create a law disenfranchising individuals.
The acts of 1969 and 1983 specifically took away voting rights for prisoners. It has nothing to do with your ramblings about 'absolute monarchies'. So the issue is quite clearly one of a parliamentary responsibility and the issue is one which has been quite democratically arrived at. FWIW, 1969 was a Labour year. It's only as late as 1948 that we finally got one man one vote anyway. In some cases businesses got two votes. So your comment about due process is cobblers. My right not to pay tax has been taken away without due process. Every law that parliament passes takes away my right not to do something without your notions of due process.
Having googled the Representation of the People Act 1983, I find that it is explicitly removed (so the answer to my question "Did I miss the law explicitly removing it?" is "Yes, I did"). It would have been a lot quicker if you had just pointed that out instead of resorting to abuse.
Hah. It would have been nice if you had not droned on about absolute monarchies. It was removed for sure in 1969. Before that and the advent of postal voting it was in effect removed in 1870. Even with postal voting the terms of the act introducing it effectively removed voting. But throughout all those periods the franchise was explicitly not a full one up until 1928. But it could have been removed by parliament last year and it still would have been none of the business of anyone outside the UK. Our constitutional monarchy has nothing to do with it.
I did not drone. I explained carefully what I thought the situation was. You wasted pixels on abuse when all you needed to say was "Representation of the People Act 1969" and the conversation would have concluded early
The acts of 1969 and 1983 specifically took away voting rights for prisoners. It has nothing to do with your ramblings about 'absolute monarchies'. So the issue is quite clearly one of a parliamentary responsibility and the issue is one which has been quite democratically arrived at. FWIW, 1969 was a Labour year. It's only as late as 1948 that we finally got one man one vote anyway. In some cases businesses got two votes. So your comment about due process is cobblers. My right not to pay tax has been taken away without due process. Every law that parliament passes takes away my right not to do something without your notions of due process.
Having googled the Representation of the People Act 1983, I find that it is explicitly removed (so the answer to my question "Did I miss the law explicitly removing it?" is "Yes, I did"). It would have been a lot quicker if you had just pointed that out instead of resorting to abuse.
Hah. It would have been nice if you had not droned on about absolute monarchies. It was removed for sure in 1969. Before that and the advent of postal voting it was in effect removed in 1870. Even with postal voting the terms of the act introducing it effectively removed voting. But throughout all those periods the franchise was explicitly not a full one up until 1928. But it could have been removed by parliament last year and it still would have been none of the business of anyone outside the UK. Our constitutional monarchy has nothing to do with it.
(Continued from below)
With the caveat below about you wasting time on abuse rather than explanation, thank you for explaining it to me: at least I am wiser now than I was this morning. Next time I am in error, pointing out the specific error instead of abuse will be more productive.
PRESSURE is growing on the SNP in the wake of the scandal engulfing an MP’s business dealings after it was revealed a prominent member was linked to the controversial politician’s property business.
An SNP candidate in next year’s Scottish election has become embroiled in the row over MP Michelle Thomson buy-to-let portfolio, after it emerged he hired one of her firms that specialises in purchasing homes below market value.
Lord Adonis, who served as Transport Secretary under Gordon Brown and was the architect of the HS2 rail link between London and the Midlands, is to surrender the Labour whip at Westminster to take charge of a new National Infrastructure Commission.
His appointment, which will carry a salary, was negotiated in secret over the past fortnight. Senior Tories were jubilant over the recruitment of a respected political figure who was Tony Blair’s policy chief at Downing Street and the driving force behind the last government’s academies programme.
Scotland’s top legal bodies are to hold an emergency meeting over the unfolding scandal surrounding suspicious property deals linked to former Scottish National party business spokeswoman Michelle Thomson.
Executives at the Law Society of Scotland, the governing body for the country’s legal profession, have been called in for crisis talks by senior prosecutors at the Crown Office to discuss their handling of evidence of alleged mortgage fraud in transactions linked to the MP for Edinburgh West.
Just listening, it's amusing to hear Professor Anthony King suggest there have only been three genuinely transformative Prime Ministers since the beginning of the 20th Century. Seems a little depressing for our PMs, although I suppose being a mere competent administrator or consolidator of others' transformations would be no bad thing too.
How many transformative novelists have there been, in all history? Three or four? The first (identity disputed), then Tolstoy, Joyce, Proust.... ?
Most novelists work within the form and the genre, and yet plenty of them, like Austen, Dickens, Nabokov, still achieve greatness.
Transformation, like revolution, is overrated.
What about Tolkien (fantasy) and Asimov (Sci fi)?
As a fan of fantasy I appreciate many outside the Sci Fi and Fantasy genre don't respect it as much (whereas I'd prefer it to be considered two genres) but both revolutionised their field. It's hard to imagine a fantasy epic that doesn't have Tolkienesque themes and I'd argue Asimov transformed the Sci Fi genre.
Tolkein did much to make fantasy mainstream, and spawned a lot of imitators. But, I don't think he was transformative. Much contemporary fantasy writing is just as much influenced by writers like Jack Vance, H P Lovecraft, Robert Howard, Fritz Leiber, IMHO, among Tolkien's contemporaries.
WRT Sci-Fi, I'm not sure I'd see Asimov as being more influential than say, Frank Herbert or Ray Bradbury.
Comments
I'm a paragon of virtue.
Cum Story
Good night all.
37% of the voters are Tories. You may try to deflate that number by including non voters but 100% of non voters are not voters. So your claim is wrong.
@FraserNelson: @Peston Sounds more like Osborne has been recruited by Adonis - gvt now enacting this Labour 'Infrastructure Commission' chapter & verse
Dare one say it.... A spittlefest.
As a fan of fantasy I appreciate many outside the Sci Fi and Fantasy genre don't respect it as much (whereas I'd prefer it to be considered two genres) but both revolutionised their field. It's hard to imagine a fantasy epic that doesn't have Tolkienesque themes and I'd argue Asimov transformed the Sci Fi genre.
so gently did it steal,
'till suddenly the crimson tide,
our darling's doom revealed."
Engraved on my ancestors' tombstone, Abney Park Cemetery, London...
The first concentration camp was built in Dachau which had been an artists colony. Auschwitz is just the ultimate death factory. As well as the original camp and Birkenau, there were some thirty satellite camps housing slave labor at the various factories around.
This rather smacks of pretending holding Corbyn responsible for such things would be somehow unique, when it isn't.
And now I really must go to bed. Good night again.
Nice try, but rather undermined by the words of the Shadow Chancellor:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3251408/Shadow-Chancellor-wants-direct-action-against-Tory-MPs-McDonnell-brands-Conservatives-social-criminals-threatens-confront-opponents-working-class.html
If somebody was making the argument that not allowing prisoners to vote is a violation of their human rights, then you would be correct to disagree with it. But nobody, least of all the ECJ, is making that argument. The point is whether voting rights should be removed without due process
The British state is a democracy spatchcocked onto an absolute monarchy, and there are holes all over the place. One of those things is that you can do what you like to prisoners unless explicitly denied by law. This allows a certain flexibility with respect to sentence length ("at Her Majesty's Pleasure") and works quite well, allowing a penal system to function smoothly. But it causes a problem with removal of voting rights because the removal has never been explicitly stated - it's always been assumed. This has led the prisoners to argue that their votes are being removed from them as a class without due process, something human rights legislation was set up to explicitly prevent. Hence the ECJ ruling.
If the voting rights were removed at the point of sentence ("...and the franchise denied you") there would be no problem. If the voting rights were removed retrospectively by name ("The following people shall have the franchise removed: A.Aardvark...Z.Zzyzz") then there would be no problem. But Cameron is saying "we can remove voting rights from any class we please without due process" and because the disenfranchised are prisoners, nobody cares. Except me, because I think the state shouldn't act like that.
That makes more sense - why don't those in favour of allowing it, to some extent, lead with that more often I wonder, because I read all the time that it is 'against their human rights' not to be able to vote (for all I am well aware no-one is saying they all must be given the vote, and indeed the plan was to give it to as few as possible to mollify the court), so you are wrong to say no-one is making that argument even if legal professionals are not the ones doing it.
Corbyn can't be expected to account for everyone who dislikes the Tories or he'd be there for a long time.
These are just the initial skirmishes Next will be the public sector unions the real military wing of the Labour Party. They have already stated they intend to overthrow the elected government and will try to do so. They have no chance at the election so violence and anarchy is all they have left.
Anyone just anyone but this awful despicable Labour rabble.
And secondly, it is even more bonkers - if that is possible - to claim there has not been due process and consideration. The current position is the result of democratic votes in parliament over many years, affirmed most recently in 2011 by a majority of 234 to 22.
How apt. The Tories have arrived.
The point was, a bunch of usual suspects on here were banging on about how Corbyn would be a disaster in Wales and it would be Tory fiefdom within a few years. This clearly is as much of a fantasy as 75% of the gout-ridden golf club barroom drivel that masquerades as serious political discussion here.
I think you should apologize - German Shepherds are sensitive creatures
Your second point (motions in parliament) does not override the fact that votes are being removed from a class without due process. The votes you refer to do not create a law disenfranchising individuals.
What the ECJ have said is that the vote cannot be reasonably taken away from certain groups of people, broadly speaking, short term prisoners.
Whilst there is an element of avioding arbitrariness, the court has made a value judgement in saying that the importance of being able to vote will mean that the line will fall such that some prisoners are on the "allowed to vote" side. Of course the government would say that all prisoners would fall on the "not allowed to vote" side.
Do you still wave at the poor and downtrodden masses through the clubhouse windows?
I am having a problem understanding why the second most important person in your party called for this direct illegal and undemocratic action against the Tories and now remains silent along with your leader who intends to further stir the pot tomorrow.
That is all.
But my point about franchise removal without due process still stands. Did I miss the law explicitly removing it? Is it explicitly stated at sentence? If there is no law removing it, and it was not explicitly stated at sentence, then we are back to my original point.
FWIW, 1969 was a Labour year.
It's only as late as 1948 that we finally got one man one vote anyway. In some cases businesses got two votes.
So your comment about due process is cobblers. My right not to pay tax has been taken away without due process. Every law that parliament passes takes away my right not to do something without your notions of due process.
@BBCBreaking: Portugal's Socialists admit defeat as early election results show clear win for centre-right governing coalition http://t.co/Pp0Ar2254K
I'm just glad I'm not there to relive it.
http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-levy/2033
Healey's death plus Adonis resigning the Labour whip (presumably he becomes a Crossbencher) should see the number of Labour Peers fall to 209 when the State of the Parties is updated - see link below.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/
If we then add the Peers announced a while ago who haven't yet officially joined the State of the Parties should become:
Con = 224 + 26 + 1 (by-election due) = 251
Lab = 211 - 2 + 8 = 217
LD = 101 + 11 = 112
Crossbench = 175 + 1 + 1 (by-election due) = 177
Con position is gradually strengthening.
Your idea that it'd be better to have the government choose individuals to disenfranchise is horrific. So if Parliament decided Len McCluskey should lose the vote that would be ok?
No Parliament needs to set the law up to apply equitably and the Courts must ensure due process is followed. No need for a separate sentence of losing the vote as the law set that in advance before the due process conviction and imprisonment.
But it could have been removed by parliament last year and it still would have been none of the business of anyone outside the UK. Our constitutional monarchy has nothing to do with it.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQgM0oNWIAAupYT.jpg
Goodnight.......
With the caveat below about you wasting time on abuse rather than explanation, thank you for explaining it to me: at least I am wiser now than I was this morning. Next time I am in error, pointing out the specific error instead of abuse will be more productive.
I thought he was basically a cross-bencher anyway? Didn't he do some stuff for the ConDems previously?
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/26/7877619/saudi-arabia-questions
PRESSURE is growing on the SNP in the wake of the scandal engulfing an MP’s business dealings after it was revealed a prominent member was linked to the controversial politician’s property business.
An SNP candidate in next year’s Scottish election has become embroiled in the row over MP Michelle Thomson buy-to-let portfolio, after it emerged he hired one of her firms that specialises in purchasing homes below market value.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13802914.SNP_candidate_embroiled_in_Michelle_Thomson_property_row/
Imagine the spitting fury if it had been Tory politians buying property at below market value.....
Scotland’s top legal bodies are to hold an emergency meeting over the unfolding scandal surrounding suspicious property deals linked to former Scottish National party business spokeswoman Michelle Thomson.
Executives at the Law Society of Scotland, the governing body for the country’s legal profession, have been called in for crisis talks by senior prosecutors at the Crown Office to discuss their handling of evidence of alleged mortgage fraud in transactions linked to the MP for Edinburgh West.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/04/scotland-legal-bodies-to-discuss-mp-michelle-thomson-suspicious-property-deals
ScottishUK number 1 thirty years ago this week:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dboze9wjE10
WRT Sci-Fi, I'm not sure I'd see Asimov as being more influential than say, Frank Herbert or Ray Bradbury.