Is not the concept of "centre left" an idea whose time has gone? The politics of hope belong to the past; we are moving towards the politics of identity, in which there will be two and two only kinds of English - white Tories and non-white communal parties (e.g. Galloway) which teeter on the edge of treason.
I hope not. That does not sound like a country I would want to live in (and probably won't since I think a UK like that would break up).
The Tories believe in success. Economic success means growth. Growth is generally encouraged by lower taxes and less regulation. It comes at a price and we need a centre left to speak for those who pay it and to ensure that it is moderated on occasion by governments of a different view.
By that account only the Tories can produce growth and we also need periods of economic stagnation, if not outright recession. I wonder if you believe either of those things.
FWIW I believe that growth is produced by thuggery (e.g. Francis Drake, Robert Clive) and that prosperity implies dishonesty.
We certainly need recessions. They play an essential role in our economy deflating bubbles and ending the misallocation of resources as well as creating space for the new. Claiming to have ended boom and bust was just one example of Brown's economic illiteracy.
Of course the economy can grow under Labour too but we then tend to get a different kind of imbalance with, over time, excessive government spending, too much subsidy and vanity projects. Whilst the Tories have a tendency to want to shrink the state to allow the cutting of taxes Labour wants to grow it and its client base by increasing the tax base and, unfortunately, borrowing to "invest". Too much of one or the other inevitably leads to problems.
In other words, some must suffer so that more may prosper. Or perhaps the price of prosperity of the few is the suffering of the many. I cannot tell from your argument.
I think David is always very clear that he is in favour of the few prospering , like all Tories. Current UK policy is to deliberately enrich the few at the expense of the many.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
Clegg thought about quitting after the Euros, but was persuaded not to by several colleagues including Tim Farron
PBers will be aware of my view that the chances of Mrs Corbyn measuring for curtains in 10 Downing Street are almost zero however this criticism of her non appearance at the Cenotaph is risible.
We should all recall, this day more than most, that those who gave their lives in the service of the nation did so partly in order that we may enjoy robustly the freedoms of a liberal democracy and that critically includes the freedom to demur from the accepted norms and conventions of society.
With that, Mrs JackW and I must depart for our own service.
Well said, Jack !
I am off to our own service with my wife. Attending the cenotaph is not my particular issue. She was not at the Albert Hall or at St Paul's or the Banquet for the Chinese President. If she is making a point then she is pathetic. And my own father and other family members fought in the War to give me my freedom to make that point.
All well and good on this thread and as we remember our dead of 2 world wars and more, let us remind ourselves of what will be stabbing us all in the back, if we are not careful:
Is not the concept of "centre left" an idea whose time has gone? The politics of hope belong to the past; we are moving towards the politics of identity, in which there will be two and two only kinds of English - white Tories and non-white communal parties (e.g. Galloway) which teeter on the edge of treason.
I hope not. That does not sound like a country I would want to live in (and probably won't since I think a UK like that would break up).
The Tories believe in success. Economic success means growth. Growth is generally encouraged by lower taxes and less regulation. It comes at a price and we need a centre left to speak for those who pay it and to ensure that it is moderated on occasion by governments of a different view.
By that account only the Tories can produce growth and we also need periods of economic stagnation, if not outright recession. I wonder if you believe either of those things.
FWIW I believe that growth is produced by thuggery (e.g. Francis Drake, Robert Clive) and that prosperity implies dishonesty.
We certainly need recessions. They play an essential role in our economy deflating bubbles and ending the misallocation of resources as well as creating space for the new. Claiming to have ended boom and bust was just one example of Brown's economic illiteracy.
Of course the economy can grow under Labour too but we then tend to get a different kind of imbalance with, over time, excessive government spending, too much subsidy and vanity projects. Whilst the Tories have a tendency to want to shrink the state to allow the cutting of taxes Labour wants to grow it and its client base by increasing the tax base and, unfortunately, borrowing to "invest". Too much of one or the other inevitably leads to problems.
In other words, some must suffer so that more may prosper. Or perhaps the price of prosperity of the few is the suffering of the many. I cannot tell from your argument.
I think David is always very clear that he is in favour of the few prospering , like all Tories. Current UK policy is to deliberately enrich the few at the expense of the many.
And good morning to you too Malcolm. You know that is not true.
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
I will be very pleased indeed if that passes.
I have a horrible feeling at the back of my throat that there's devil in the detail there though. Off to buy the Sunday Times to read more.
I can already hear the whining about evil Tory Scum axing human rights.
If the HoL is always subservient to the government, then why keep the Hol ?
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
Clegg thought about quitting after the Euros, but was persuaded not to by several colleagues including Tim Farron
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
The devil is in the detail but it is not immediately obvious that losing human rights protection is a good thing.
Human rights in the UK existed prior to 1998.
And some were stronger.
I certainly felt less threatened and less under the beady eye of the various arms of the State back then.
There's an opportunity here to strengthen free speech protection. I wonder if Michael Gove will take it.
PBers will be aware of my view that the chances of Mrs Corbyn measuring for curtains in 10 Downing Street are almost zero however this criticism of her non appearance at the Cenotaph is risible.
We should all recall, this day more than most, that those who gave their lives in the service of the nation did so partly in order that we may enjoy robustly the freedoms of a liberal democracy and that critically includes the freedom to demur from the accepted norms and conventions of society.
With that, Mrs JackW and I must depart for our own service.
Well said, Jack !
I am off to our own service with my wife. Attending the cenotaph is not my particular issue. She was not at the Albert Hall or at St Paul's or the Banquet for the Chinese President. If she is making a point then she is pathetic. And my own father and other family members fought in the War to give me my freedom to make that point.
Bring out the violin !
Jack put it beautifully. People died so that others could enjoy freedom. Being "free" includes the right not to attend ceremonies. Particularly, eating in a banquet with a mass-murderer.
I may have missed it but there seems to have been zero discussion in liberal democrat circles as to why the party went down to a shattering political defeat last May.
The party needs to take a break, and that means Farron calling off his militants in the lords.
Amongst the blizzard of the usual anti-LD rhetoric from the usual suspects in response to my previous, this was perhaps the most asinine comment of all.
There is and has been a lot of discussion within the Party about what happened and why it happened and about what might have happened and why it did not. I have contributed to a couple of working groups set up to look at the entirety of the Party's operation and performance.
We are six months into a sixty month electoral cycle - the analysis and discussion will continue but politics and political life goes on and there is a Government to hold to account and if that means using the Lords as part of that process, so be it.
I can't work out who's more sensitive about criticism of the Liberal Democrats: you, or Mark Senior.
PBers will be aware of my view that the chances of Mrs Corbyn measuring for curtains in 10 Downing Street are almost zero however this criticism of her non appearance at the Cenotaph is risible.
You auld Harpenden fool:
Your sentiments are correct but your logic fallible: Mrs Mexican-Millionaire-Socialist Corbyn cannot have a non-appearance on a future event (or, at least thirty mins). If she chooses not to turn-up then it is her free-choice: Hopefully her coffee-company will be tied in to the "living-wage" if registered in Her Majesty's Kingdom.
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
I will be very pleased indeed if that passes.
I have a horrible feeling at the back of my throat that there's devil in the detail there though. Off to buy the Sunday Times to read more.
I can already hear the whining about evil Tory Scum axing human rights.
If the HoL is always subservient to the government, then why keep the Hol ?
Where was I talking about the HoL Of course it shouldn't be subservient, it should be a robust revising chamber. That doesn't mean opposing things which are given in a democratically-elected government's manifesto (which this explicitly is).
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
Clegg thought about quitting after the Euros, but was persuaded not to by several colleagues including Tim Farron
Indeed. And I still find it baffling why so many think the answer to 'what are the Liberal Democrats for?' is dogmatic europhilia on acid.
We know what they're for: Liberalism. That means personal, and civil, liberty and making the case against restrictions, censorship, suppression, bans, surveillance and control.
All well and good on this thread and as we remember our dead of 2 world wars and more, let us remind ourselves of what will be stabbing us all in the back, if we are not careful:
So refugees and/or migrants are now 'invaders', are they?
invader ɪnˈveɪdə(r) noun a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place
invade ɪnˈveɪd verb enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
Or alternative definitions: to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939. 2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields. 3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home. 4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream. 5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family. 6. to encroach or infringe upon: to invade the rights of citizens. 7. to permeate: The smell of baking invades the house.
Mr. M, interesting historical reference, as (from my very vague knowledge of that period) I believe the prosperity of success is what destroyed Sparta's strength.
[Checked the date, and Leuctra, the first of two major battles which saw the Thebans beat the Spartans, was only a few decades after the war ended. The Theban supremacy was short-lived, as their king, Epaminondas, died after Mantinea, the second victory, and the city made the terminal decision to oppose Philip and Alexander when the Macedonians had formerly been their allies].
I think the great irony was that both Athens and Sparta sought the support of Persia during the Corinthian war, and it was the Persians who imposed peace (very much to their own advantage) in the Peace of Antalcidas.
It's a sad coda to the heroic Greek tales that the public know well. We tend to elide everything after Plataea and move swiftly on to Alexander .
All well and good on this thread and as we remember our dead of 2 world wars and more, let us remind ourselves of what will be stabbing us all in the back, if we are not careful:
Isn't this illegal under British law ? Incitement against religion.
Should be no replacement sand let them sleep under the stars. Why they have not been shipped back to where they came from is what amazes me. Illegal immigrants should not be tolerated, they should be repatriated at the first opportunity to deter the next batch and events like this. As ever it seems over 90% are fit young men.
I don't approve on the principle, but it's effective as EU policy I guess.
African countries to be offered CASH if they take back illegal immigrants who have reached Europe
Plan drawn up to tackle crisis of hundreds of thousands of migrants Officials want 'return and sustainable reintegration of irregular migrants' But in return well-qualified Africans could get visas for some EU countries
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
I will be very pleased indeed if that passes.
I have a horrible feeling at the back of my throat that there's devil in the detail there though. Off to buy the Sunday Times to read more.
Claims for breaches of human rights tend to be very modest, nearly always under £4000, and completely swamped by the legal costs of the complex path that has to be followed to establish them. There is indeed a human rights business but it is not driven by compensation but by legal aid.
That is my principal concern about this. The roads through the HR maze have been fairly well beaten flat by litigation in this country at great expense and the circumstances where they arise are well known. If we replace the current maze with another one the lawyers start again exploring the new limits and pathways, at further public expense.
This just does not seem to be worth it to me although more explicit protection for freedom of the press than the idiotic Leveson proposals would be welcome.
There's more to it than that. The 1998 HRA makes the whole European Convention enforceable through our domestic courts, and leads judges to make their own interpretations against those principles which then become precedent.
That has driven great difficulty in deportations of dangerous criminals, the right to family life has been used to drive increases in immigration, and the right to life has been taken out of all context in relation to the armed forces.
There is an opportunity to now correct some of that by statute.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
Clegg thought about quitting after the Euros, but was persuaded not to by several colleagues including Tim Farron
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
I will be very pleased indeed if that passes.
I have a horrible feeling at the back of my throat that there's devil in the detail there though. Off to buy the Sunday Times to read more.
I can already hear the whining about evil Tory Scum axing human rights.
If the HoL is always subservient to the government, then why keep the Hol ?
Where was I talking about the HoL Of course it shouldn't be subservient, it should be a robust revising chamber. That doesn't mean opposing things which are given in a democratically-elected government's manifesto (which this explicitly is).
The manifesto did not give the details just like the welfare cuts. To say we will cut welfare by 12bn does not mean tax credits cuts. Please do not tell it must have been assumed.In which case, my riposte would be: if it was so obvious then why not say it [ before the election ] ?
Is not the concept of "centre left" an idea whose time has gone? The politics of hope belong to the past; we are moving towards the politics of identity, in which there will be two and two only kinds of English - white Tories and non-white communal parties (e.g. Galloway) which teeter on the edge of treason.
I hope not. That does not sound like a country I would want to live in (and probably won't since I think a UK like that would break up).
The Tories believe in success. Economic success means growth. Growth is generally encouraged by lower taxes and less regulation. It comes at a price and we need a centre left to speak for those who pay it and to ensure that it is moderated on occasion by governments of a different view.
By that account only the Tories can produce growth and we also need periods of economic stagnation, if not outright recession. I wonder if you believe either of those things.
FWIW I believe that growth is produced by thuggery (e.g. Francis Drake, Robert Clive) and that prosperity implies dishonesty.
We certainly need recessions. They play an essential role in our economy deflating bubbles and ending the misallocation of resources as well as creating space for the new. Claiming to have ended boom and bust was just one example of Brown's economic illiteracy.
Of course the economy can grow under Labour too but we then tend to get a different kind of imbalance with, over time, excessive government spending, too much subsidy and vanity projects. Whilst the Tories have a tendency to want to shrink the state to allow the cutting of taxes Labour wants to grow it and its client base by increasing the tax base and, unfortunately, borrowing to "invest". Too much of one or the other inevitably leads to problems.
In other words, some must suffer so that more may prosper. Or perhaps the price of prosperity of the few is the suffering of the many. I cannot tell from your argument.
I think David is always very clear that he is in favour of the few prospering , like all Tories. Current UK policy is to deliberately enrich the few at the expense of the many.
And good morning to you too Malcolm. You know that is not true.
David, Of course not but being a Tory bit was accurate. Just trying to stir up the frothers, debate is a bit tame at present.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
Clegg thought about quitting after the Euros, but was persuaded not to by several colleagues including Tim Farron
Indeed. And I still find it baffling why so many think the answer to 'what are the Liberal Democrats for?' is dogmatic europhilia on acid.
We know what they're for: Liberalism. That means personal, and civil, liberty and making the case against restrictions, censorship, suppression, bans, surveillance and control.
How about spreading a bit of that?
That's a very small market and it doesn't seem to be theirs. The classic for me was Lord Carlile and his role as "independent" reviewer of terrorism legislation. A Lib Dem peer, I never, ever heard him argue that some restriction on liberty was disproportionate or inappropriate.
In fairness he no doubt had access to intelligence as to the nature of the threat which we don't have and he seemed to genuinely believe that what was being proposed was proportionate to that threat. But Liberal? Not in any meaningful sense.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
Clegg thought about quitting after the Euros, but was persuaded not to by several colleagues including Tim Farron
He must be upset that Danny has a got a job already and he ahs been ignored. There were many here who complained that Gordon Brown did not attend Parliament. Surprising, none of them complain about Clegg's voting record in this Parliament !
So refugees and/or migrants are now 'invaders', are they?
invader ɪnˈveɪdə(r) noun a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place
invade ɪnˈveɪd verb enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
Or alternative definitions: to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939. 2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields. 3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home. 4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream. 5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family. 6. to encroach or infringe upon: to invade the rights of citizens. 7. to permeate: The smell of baking invades the house.
Are you suggesting that use of a word is only legitimate if it meets every definition?
- Judges don't need to follow ECHR rulings - but to use Common Law or cases from Aus/Canada et al. - Explicit statement about freedom of the press - Armed Services personnel protected from human rights claims when serving in theatre overseas - Big reduction in claims compensation for human rights - to thwart the human rights lawyer business
That sounds like good stuff, if the government follows through, and is prepared to use the Parliament Act if the Lords tries to thwart it.
I will be very pleased indeed if that passes.
I have a horrible feeling at the back of my throat that there's devil in the detail there though. Off to buy the Sunday Times to read more.
I can already hear the whining about evil Tory Scum axing human rights.
If the HoL is always subservient to the government, then why keep the Hol ?
Where was I talking about the HoL Of course it shouldn't be subservient, it should be a robust revising chamber. That doesn't mean opposing things which are given in a democratically-elected government's manifesto (which this explicitly is).
The manifesto did not give the details just like the welfare cuts. To say we will cut welfare by 12bn does not mean tax credits cuts. Please do not tell it must have been assumed.In which case, my riposte would be: if it was so obvious then why not say it [ before the election ] ?
Again, you seem to be putting words in my mouth. I never spoke about the HoL, nor did I about tax credits. In fact, that is why I used the word "explicitly" when referring to human rights legislation, as I think that the lack of detail on the tax credits was a major factor in the rebellion in the upper house.
1 Farron doesn't have a choice. The best way to guarantee a poor performance is not to campaign. He is leading from the front to get the best campaign going that the party can have. You have to start somewhere.... 2 One of the problems with British politics, and one of the reasons politicians are held in such low esteem, is the tendency to campaign mainly by attacking your opponents. All politicians contantly attacking all other politicians inevitably contributes massively to the impression that politicians are all useless. Time for a change. People on this thread are saying they don't know what the Lib Dems are for. So this by-election is an opportunity to tell people about Lib Dem values, Lib Dem policies and local Lib Dem action, and not just to have a pop at the other parties.
And 3 to answer the question at the top of the previous thread: NO.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
Clegg thought about quitting after the Euros, but was persuaded not to by several colleagues including Tim Farron
Indeed. And I still find it baffling why so many think the answer to 'what are the Liberal Democrats for?' is dogmatic europhilia on acid.
We know what they're for: Liberalism. That means personal, and civil, liberty and making the case against restrictions, censorship, suppression, bans, surveillance and control.
How about spreading a bit of that?
That's a very small market and it doesn't seem to be theirs. The classic for me was Lord Carlile and his role as "independent" reviewer of terrorism legislation. A Lib Dem peer, I never, ever heard him argue that some restriction on liberty was disproportionate or inappropriate.
In fairness he no doubt had access to intelligence as to the nature of the threat which we don't have and he seemed to genuinely believe that what was being proposed was proportionate to that threat. But Liberal? Not in any meaningful sense.
I suspect it's a much larger market than Eurofederalism.
Is not the concept of "centre left" an idea whose time has gone? The politics of hope belong to the past; we are moving towards the politics of identity, in which there will be two and two only kinds of English - white Tories and non-white communal parties (e.g. Galloway) which teeter on the edge of treason.
I hope not. That does not sound like a country I would want to live in (and probably won't since I think a UK like that would break up).
The Tories believe in success. Economic success means growth. Growth is generally encouraged by lower taxes and less regulation. It comes at a price and we need a centre left to speak for those who pay it and to ensure that it is moderated on occasion by governments of a different view.
By that account only the Tories can produce growth and we also need periods of economic stagnation, if not outright recession. I wonder if you believe either of those things.
FWIW I believe that growth is produced by thuggery (e.g. Francis Drake, Robert Clive) and that prosperity implies dishonesty.
We certainly need recessions. They play an essential role in our economy deflating bubbles and ending the misallocation of resources as well as creating space for the new. Claiming to have ended boom and bust was just one example of Brown's economic illiteracy.
Of course the economy can grow under Labour too but we then tend to get a different kind of imbalance with, over time, excessive government spending, too much subsidy and vanity projects. Whilst the Tories have a tendency to want to shrink the state to allow the cutting of taxes Labour wants to grow it and its client base by increasing the tax base and, unfortunately, borrowing to "invest". Too much of one or the other inevitably leads to problems.
In other words, some must suffer so that more may prosper. Or perhaps the price of prosperity of the few is the suffering of the many. I cannot tell from your argument.
I think David is always very clear that he is in favour of the few prospering , like all Tories. Current UK policy is to deliberately enrich the few at the expense of the many.
And good morning to you too Malcolm. You know that is not true.
David, Of course not but being a Tory bit was accurate. Just trying to stir up the frothers, debate is a bit tame at present.
So refugees and/or migrants are now 'invaders', are they?
invader ɪnˈveɪdə(r) noun a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place
invade ɪnˈveɪd verb enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
Or alternative definitions: to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939. 2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields. 3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home. 4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream. 5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family. 6. to encroach or infringe upon: to invade the rights of citizens. 7. to permeate: The smell of baking invades the house.
Are you suggesting that use of a word is only legitimate if it meets every definition?
No. I'm suggesting that the intended meaning is fairly obvious when used in conjunction with the linked images.
1 Farron doesn't have a choice. The best way to guarantee a poor performance is not to campaign. He is leading from the front to get the best campaign going that the party can have. You have to start somewhere.... 2 One of the problems with British politics, and one of the reasons politicians are held in such low esteem, is the tendency to campaign mainly by attacking your opponents. All politicians contantly attacking all other politicians inevitably contributes massively to the impression that politicians are all useless. Time for a change. People on this thread are saying they don't know what the Lib Dems are for. So this by-election is an opportunity to tell people about Lib Dem values, Lib Dem policies and local Lib Dem action, and not just to have a pop at the other parties.
And 3 to answer the question at the top of the previous thread: NO.
Well said. Let's hope the Lib Dems take this opportunity and, just as importantly, the media give them airtime.
So refugees and/or migrants are now 'invaders', are they?
invader ɪnˈveɪdə(r) noun a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place
invade ɪnˈveɪd verb enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
Or alternative definitions: to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939. 2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields. 3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home. 4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream. 5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family. 6. to encroach or infringe upon: to invade the rights of citizens. 7. to permeate: The smell of baking invades the house.
Are you suggesting that use of a word is only legitimate if it meets every definition?
No. I'm suggesting that the intended meaning is fairly obvious when used in conjunction with the linked images.
I don't think so, given it explains in the caption that the fire is them burning down their own tents, rather than attacking cities with grenades.
''One of the problems with British politics, and one of the reasons politicians are held in such low esteem, is the tendency to campaign mainly by attacking your opponents.''
Maybe. But do the lib dems ever attack labour these days?? Corbynite labour is your deadly enemy, if only you realised it. Fail to distance yourselves from them at your peril.
I think @david_herdson nailed it upthread by noting that Kennedy led the LDs up a cul-de-sac.
You can't be a Party of HMG and ride two horses, without one or both of those horses noticing.
Also the LDs bitched and moaned during their entire period in HMG, which gained them no brownie points either. It really was an institutional strategic failure in the most part.
If you don't really want to be in power as complaining and pointing at potholes is more exciting - then don't get too big and put the electorate in a position where they'll call your bluff.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
You can ride two or more horses. But, not if it turns out those horses wish to gallop in different directions.
UKIP now seem to be trying to ride those two horses. Right wing libertarianists and publjc school boys like Farage and Carswell in the South, yet pitching for a left wing vote in the North.
UKIP have to ride both horses if they're to win the referendum.
The SNP didn't manage to hold onto enough of their traditional support to tip them over 50%, because, when it came down to it, the independence offer wasn't in the interests of their rural, wealthy support base.
Ukip have a very similar problem. The soft eurosceptics in the tory shires will be voting. And they won't be voting out.
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
I think @david_herdson nailed it upthread by noting that Kennedy led the LDs up a cul-de-sac.
You can't be a Party of HMG and ride two horses, without one or both of those horses noticing.
Also the LDs bitched and moaned during their entire period in HMG, which gained them no brownie points either. It really was an institutional strategic failure in the most part.
If you don't really want to be in power as complaining and pointing at potholes is more exciting - then don't get too big and put the electorate in a position where they'll call your bluff.
I think people underestimated how successful Charlie Kennedy was in attracting the votes of the soft left and those appalled by Iraq. It was a brave position he adopted and one that has been wholly vindicated. A weak and badly led Labour party proved very vulnerable to what seemed a more principled opposition.
Going into Coalition with the Tories was always going to be a betrayal to that soft left vote. It was undoubtedly in the national interest and the UK was in a very bad place after the idiocy of Brown in desperate need of stable government but the Lib Dems said goodbye to that broad swathe of support. Many left immediately but some drifted away over time as it became apparent that the Coalition was adopting and implementing a broadly Tory agenda. In this context the increase in tuition fees was a symptom of both a Tory agenda and a loss of that "principled" standing rather than an issue in itself.
There was a great deal of talk on this site before the last election about whether Clegg was going to stand down as leader and try to take some of that toxicity with him. There is little evidence that he even gave it serious thought and the party paid the price.
You can ride two or more horses. But, not if it turns out those horses wish to gallop in different directions.
UKIP now seem to be trying to ride those two horses. Right wing libertarianists and publjc school boys like Farage and Carswell in the South, yet pitching for a left wing vote in the North.
UKIP have to ride both horses if they're to win the referendum.
The SNP didn't manage to hold onto enough of their traditional support to tip them over 50%, because, when it came down to it, the independence offer wasn't in the interests of their rural, wealthy support base.
Ukip have a very similar problem. The soft eurosceptics in the tory shires will be voting. And they won't be voting out.
Because its not in their interests.
Didn't SNP supporters vote something like 95% yes?
It is understood that since the Election – when Ukip managed to win just one seat – the party membership has lost around one quarter of its 50,000 members, wiping £300,000 from annual revenues.
It comes as the party hopes to mount a strong challenge in the Oldham West and Royton by-election next month, which is being fought after the death of Labour’s Michael Meacher.
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
You have bought Tory propaganda on the House of Lords and tax credits They were debating a statutory instrument, not a bill. Therefore it was not covered by the Parliament Act. Plus, it is the Tories' own fault that they did not reform the House of Lords when they had the chance. The Lords took the opportunity to act on something the majority agreed with. Saying they shouldn't would be like complaining when parties that don't believe in FPTP put up candidates and win seats in FPTP elections. Why should they vacate the field and leave it to their enemies?
I am not sure why people seem to like attacking Farron. What exactly has he done wrong ? I quite like him - but not as much as Charlie Kennedy, who is really up there !
Someone hinted at his Christianity. Surely that is his personal business and as long as it does not intrude on others, should not be any of our business.
Unfortunately, Clegg has taken the Liberals back to Jo Grimond days. All the work done by Steele, Ashdown and Kennedy has been squandered.
Clegg lost twice. In 2010, when conditions were good for his party he managed to lose 5 seats and in 2015, well no need to go into that one.
Sactimony and opportunism sit ill at ease together.
It's wrong to blame Clegg entirely for the Lib Dems' woes. He reaped the whirlwind that Ashdown and Kennedy sowed. The so-called 'good work' led the Lib Dems up a cul de sac. You cannot be all things to all people forever; at some point that bluff will be called because th electorate were likely to deliver a hung parliament precisely because there were so many Lib Dems. Furthermore, because Ashdown andKennedy abandoned the traditional policy of equidistance, the Lib Dems were doubly vulnerable to a Tory revival: locally, where they'd built anti-Tory coalitions, and nationally, where dynamics meant they were likely to have to prop up a Con administration, one way or another (or become a subsidiary of Labour).
Thy abandoned equidistance because Labour moved TOWARDS them and the Tories moved AWAY from them. Presumably you think the Lib Dems should have moved to the right from the mid-nineties onwards just as the Tories were getting hammered?
Claims for breaches of human rights tend to be very modest, nearly always under £4000, and completely swamped by the legal costs of the complex path that has to be followed to establish them. There is indeed a human rights business but it is not driven by compensation but by legal aid.
That is my principal concern about this. The roads through the HR maze have been fairly well beaten flat by litigation in this country at great expense and the circumstances where they arise are well known. If we replace the current maze with another one the lawyers start again exploring the new limits and pathways, at further public expense.
This just does not seem to be worth it to me although more explicit protection for freedom of the press than the idiotic Leveson proposals would be welcome.
There's more to it than that. The 1998 HRA makes the whole European Convention enforceable through our domestic courts, and leads judges to make their own interpretations against those principles which then become precedent.
That has driven great difficulty in deportations of dangerous criminals, the right to family life has been used to drive increases in immigration, and the right to life has been taken out of all context in relation to the armed forces.
There is an opportunity to now correct some of that by statute.
Lord Stewart had no problems in rejecting a right for family visits between 2 predatory paedophiles in 2 different prisons after conviction and finding that this did not come within article 8. The case was dismissed. If we have a new set of rules with new criteria these ridiculous arguments will need to be had again.
The Courts have recently upheld the validity of out of jurisdiction appeals for overstayers in respect of Visas etc. In short they are sent home and can appeal from there if they are so minded. The reality may be that such appeals are much more difficult to pursue and it is much less likely that they will do so having lost residence and, usually, employment here. We risk losing all of this jurisprudence if we have a new set of rules.
Being "free" includes the right not to attend ceremonies. Particularly, eating in a banquet with a mass-murderer.
I was going to make a rather unkind comment about Jeremy Corbyn there. However, I decided that I would not debase myself to his level and would observe the kinder, gentler politics that he preaches rather than the loathsome negative stuff he practices.
I am off to our own service with my wife. Attending the cenotaph is not my particular issue. She was not at the Albert Hall or at St Paul's or the Banquet for the Chinese President. If she is making a point then she is pathetic. And my own father and other family members fought in the War to give me my freedom to make that point.
Most of us had family members fighting for freedom in the War, some of whom didn't return - we probably shouldn't use them to make any political point. You are of course free to make any point you wish, but you're IMO mistaken to think that being married to a politician carries any obligations whatsoever. I've never seen Mrs Corbyn at a local Labour event either - so far as I know, she simply has her own life. It really is none of our business.
I agree that Tim Farron's religion has never obtruded. I was a bit shocked to read in Norman Baker's memoirs (which are partisan but good for amusing anecotes) that Simon Hughes was a fundamentalist - Norman apparently had an animal welfare proposal opposed by Simon because the Bible said that Man was placed into dominance over the animal kingdom, or words to that effect.
Thy abandoned equidistance because Labour moved TOWARDS them and the Tories moved AWAY from them. Presumably you think the Lib Dems should have moved to the right from the mid-nineties onwards just as the Tories were getting hammered?
It would have been smart tactics, if they wanted to be the party of opposition. As I noted upthread, a huge chunk of their vote in 1997 and 2001 was Conservative. Moreover, Conservative policies in and of themselves remained popular - it was the party itself that was toxic to voters (who could forget Francis Maude's presentations on the subject? And I remember gallons of ink being spilled on it by puzzled Conservative academics even before then). However, the Liberal Democrats continued to think of themselves as a centre-left, social democratic party when that had been effectually stitched up by Labour. It was only really the Iraq war that allowed them to differentiate themselves from Labour to remain a powerful force. When that went, they were left with very little.
With Corbyn now jumping more sharks than you will see in the average Japanese restaurant, and the Conservatives about as convincing on the social democratic stuff as Mao was on agricultural reform, there is space for a centrist Social Democratic party to re-emerge and be a significant force in England and Wales (probably not in Scotland with the SNP about). The question is whether Farron can do that. He has two problems: (1) he is starting from a low base and (2) nobody is listening. So whatever happens, he's got to be out there trying to get noticed. The by-election campaign is the obvious place to start.
I am off to our own service with my wife. Attending the cenotaph is not my particular issue. She was not at the Albert Hall or at St Paul's or the Banquet for the Chinese President. If she is making a point then she is pathetic. And my own father and other family members fought in the War to give me my freedom to make that point.
Most of us had family members fighting for freedom in the War, some of whom didn't return - we probably shouldn't use them to make any political point. You are of course free to make any point you wish, but you're IMO mistaken to think that being married to a politician carries any obligations whatsoever. I've never seen Mrs Corbyn at a local Labour event either - so far as I know, she simply has her own life. It really is none of our business.
I agree that Tim Farron's religion has never obtruded. I was a bit shocked to read in Norman Baker's memoirs (which are partisan but good for amusing anecotes) that Simon Hughes was a fundamentalist - Norman apparently had an animal welfare proposal opposed by Simon because the Bible said that Man was placed into dominance over the animal kingdom, or words to that effect.
He can't be that much of a fundamentalist if he is bisexual
Being "free" includes the right not to attend ceremonies. Particularly, eating in a banquet with a mass-murderer.
I was going to make a rather unkind comment about Jeremy Corbyn there. However, I decided that I would not debase myself to his level and would observe the kinder, gentler politics that he preaches rather than the loathsome negative stuff he practices.
Yes, let's also draw a veil of politeness over David Cameron (not to mention the Royals) and their nauseating obsequiousness toward the Saudis.
MrsB, it's my understanding a statutory instrument relating to finance matters has never before been voted down, and that only about 4-5 on any subject have been voted down by the Lords since the war.
Also, Farron said during an interview around the Lib Dem conference that he wanted the Lords to oppose and vote down matters even if that meant ignoring the Salisbury Convention.
Thy abandoned equidistance because Labour moved TOWARDS them and the Tories moved AWAY from them. Presumably you think the Lib Dems should have moved to the right from the mid-nineties onwards just as the Tories were getting hammered?
It would have been smart tactics, if they wanted to be the party of opposition. As I noted upthread, a huge chunk of their vote in 1997 and 2001 was Conservative. Moreover, Conservative policies in and of themselves remained popular - it was the party itself that was toxic to voters (who could forget Francis Maude's presentations on the subject? And I remember gallons of ink being spilled on it by puzzled Conservative academics even before then). However, the Liberal Democrats continued to think of themselves as a centre-left, social democratic party when that had been effectually stitched up by Labour. It was only really the Iraq war that allowed them to differentiate themselves from Labour to remain a powerful force. When that went, they were left with very little.
With Corbyn now jumping more sharks than you will see in the average Japanese restaurant, and the Conservatives about as convincing on the social democratic stuff as Mao was on agricultural reform, there is space for a centrist Social Democratic party to re-emerge and be a significant force in England and Wales (probably not in Scotland with the SNP about). The question is whether Farron can do that. He has two problems: (1) he is starting from a low base and (2) nobody is listening. So whatever happens, he's got to be out there trying to get noticed. The by-election campaign is the obvious place to start.
''The Lords took the opportunity to act on something the majority agreed with.''
Your justification for liberal democrat behaviour runs very hollow and I suspect you know it.
Government by opinion poll? do me a favour.
The electorate wants the liberal democrats, in their current form, to get out of the way. High profile cabinet ministers like Cable and Davey were sent packing. That message was sent loud and clear in May. The lib dems' lords interventions are making things worse, not better.
UKIP have to ride both horses if they're to win the referendum.
The SNP didn't manage to hold onto enough of their traditional support to tip them over 50%, because, when it came down to it, the independence offer wasn't in the interests of their rural, wealthy support base.
Ukip have a very similar problem. The soft eurosceptics in the tory shires will be voting. And they won't be voting out.
Because its not in their interests.
Didn't SNP supporters vote something like 95% yes?
If you look at Aberdeenshire, or on a micro-case, the western isles - historical support for the SNP simply didn't translate into support for an independence offer pitched at winning the central belt.
eg, from the figures I can find to compare - Aberdeenshire voted 53% SNP on the 2011 list. When it came down to the referendum, only 40% voted yes.
I am off to our own service with my wife. Attending the cenotaph is not my particular issue. She was not at the Albert Hall or at St Paul's or the Banquet for the Chinese President. If she is making a point then she is pathetic. And my own father and other family members fought in the War to give me my freedom to make that point.
Most of us had family members fighting for freedom in the War, some of whom didn't return - we probably shouldn't use them to make any political point. You are of course free to make any point you wish, but you're IMO mistaken to think that being married to a politician carries any obligations whatsoever. I've never seen Mrs Corbyn at a local Labour event either - so far as I know, she simply has her own life. It really is none of our business.
I agree that Tim Farron's religion has never obtruded. I was a bit shocked to read in Norman Baker's memoirs (which are partisan but good for amusing anecotes) that Simon Hughes was a fundamentalist - Norman apparently had an animal welfare proposal opposed by Simon because the Bible said that Man was placed into dominance over the animal kingdom, or words to that effect.
He can't be that much of a fundamentalist if he is bisexual
Hyufd, if you wish to google 'American pastors sex scandals', it might suggest that quite a lot of fundamentalists can simply be ordinary hypocrites. Why should Hughes be different?
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
Suzanne Evans failed to get selected as a Tory PPC, defected to UKIP and lost her seat on Merton council, then didn't become an MP at the GE... Hardly a serial winner. If she were UKIP leader, the people bigging her up now would be slaughtering her for this.
As a Kipper (who has forgotten to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
Suzanne Evans failed to get selected as a Tory PPC, defected to UKIP and lost her seat on Merton council, then didn't become an MP at the GE... Hardly a serial winner. If she were UKIP leader, the people bigging her up now would be slaughtering her for this.
As a Kipper (who has forgot to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
Suzanne Evans failed to get selected as a Tory PPC, defected to UKIP and lost her seat on Merton council, then didn't become an MP at the GE... Hardly a serial winner. If she were UKIP leader, the people bigging her up now would be slaughtering her for this.
As a Kipper (who has forgot to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
But Farage is a serial loser. He's only an MEP because of the stupid party-list system. And how many times has he failed to win a seat at a GE? Seven? Eight?
If Evans is a loser, then so is Farage by any benchmark.
''And being CorbynLite isn't the right positioning at all. Why bother if you can have the real thing?''
I'm not sure Farron is Corbynlite, Ms PLato, I reckon he's more CorbynHeavy.
Farron should be saying that labour is being led by extremists. Its a party that's lost its mind, its soul, its direction, and that the only coherent centre left alternative is us.
Instead, he's trying to outdo Corbyn. Whether you are tory, labour or lib dem, its just stupid politics.
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
Suzanne Evans failed to get selected as a Tory PPC, defected to UKIP and lost her seat on Merton council, then didn't become an MP at the GE... Hardly a serial winner. If she were UKIP leader, the people bigging her up now would be slaughtering her for this.
As a Kipper (who has forgotten to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
The inability to hear any criticism is one of the hallmarks of a personality cult. I am not one of those individuals that never criticises my own side, nor am I someone who never praises other parties when they do things right. Farage did a very good job at getting UKIP to where they are, but he undermined their main selling point that they were not like other parties by breaking his pledge on resignation. Now the UKIP vote is collapsing in every election, and membership has fallen substantially. The Conservatives were willing to remove Margaret Thatcher when she ceased to be an electoral asset, and she achieved a damn sight more than Farage has or ever will.
It is still possible UKIP will be the beneficiaries of the Conservative leadership mismanaging the EU debate, but you would be in a much better place with Evans in charge. She would have helped UKIP's issues with women, represented the UKIP view in a far less inflammatory manner, and shown the party has grown beyond a personality cult.
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
Suzanne Evans failed to get selected as a Tory PPC, defected to UKIP and lost her seat on Merton council, then didn't become an MP at the GE... Hardly a serial winner. If she were UKIP leader, the people bigging her up now would be slaughtering her for this.
As a Kipper (who has forgot to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
Suzanne Evans failed to get selected as a Tory PPC, defected to UKIP and lost her seat on Merton council, then didn't become an MP at the GE... Hardly a serial winner. If she were UKIP leader, the people bigging her up now would be slaughtering her for this.
As a Kipper (who has forgot to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
But Farage is a serial loser. He's only an MEP because of the stupid party-list system. And how many times has he failed to win a seat at a GE? Seven? Eight?
If Evans is a loser, then so is Farage by any benchmark.
And Farage isn't an MP because of that stupid FPTP system. How many political leaders have quadrupled their party's vote between general elections?
So refugees and/or migrants are now 'invaders', are they?
invader ɪnˈveɪdə(r) noun a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place
invade ɪnˈveɪd verb enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
Or alternative definitions: to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939. 2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields. 3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home. 4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream. 5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family. 6. to encroach or infringe upon: to invade the rights of citizens. 7. to permeate: The smell of baking invades the house.
Are you suggesting that use of a word is only legitimate if it meets every definition?
No. I'm suggesting that the intended meaning is fairly obvious when used in conjunction with the linked images.
I don't think so, given it explains in the caption that the fire is them burning down their own tents, rather than attacking cities with grenades.
Well, I utterly disagree. It's a fairly sick tweet, deliberately worded. It shouldn't be illegal though, and I'd never call for it to be banned.
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
Suzanne Evans failed to get selected as a Tory PPC, defected to UKIP and lost her seat on Merton council, then didn't become an MP at the GE... Hardly a serial winner. If she were UKIP leader, the people bigging her up now would be slaughtering her for this.
As a Kipper (who has forgot to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
But Farage is a serial loser. He's only an MEP because of the stupid party-list system. And how many times has he failed to win a seat at a GE? Seven? Eight?
If Evans is a loser, then so is Farage by any benchmark.
Pretty sure the Lib Dems will not be "winning here"
But if their councillors here in Colchester are anything to go by they will work hard.
We have had leaflets / visits from the Lib Dems last 2 weekends and they arranged a petition about a local issue only 2 weeks before that.
Interestingly the conservatives here are begining to copy this approach which has lead to some interesting "handbag"s on line (from supporters not the councillors if I recall correctly).
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
Suzanne Evans failed to get selected as a Tory PPC, defected to UKIP and lost her seat on Merton council, then didn't become an MP at the GE... Hardly a serial winner. If she were UKIP leader, the people bigging her up now would be slaughtering her for this.
As a Kipper (who has forgot to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
But Farage is a serial loser. He's only an MEP because of the stupid party-list system. And how many times has he failed to win a seat at a GE? Seven? Eight?
If Evans is a loser, then so is Farage by any benchmark.
I wouldn't want to be nasty and call Suzanne a loser, I am just pointing out that the same shit would get flung at her.
I wouldn't call Farage a loser either, though I can see its an easy thing to say. He has almost single handedly dragged UKIP up to the modest level they are now. True, he has failed to become an MP many times, but only once, last May, did he have any real chance
In any case he has done a lot more with his life than most people, including me, and if I called him a loser to his face, I am sure I would be the one who lost the game of top trumps
MrsB, it's my understanding a statutory instrument relating to finance matters has never before been voted down, and that only about 4-5 on any subject have been voted down by the Lords since the war.
Also, Farron said during an interview around the Lib Dem conference that he wanted the Lords to oppose and vote down matters even if that meant ignoring the Salisbury Convention.
All Farron is doing is spouting the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
I wouldn't call a thousand years of PB Tory rule a disaster for the country
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
Suzanne Evans failed to get selected as a Tory PPC, defected to UKIP and lost her seat on Merton council, then didn't become an MP at the GE... Hardly a serial winner. If she were UKIP leader, the people bigging her up now would be slaughtering her for this.
As a Kipper (who has forgotten to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
The inability to hear any criticism is one of the hallmarks of a personality cult. I am not one of those individuals that never criticises my own side, nor am I someone who never praises other parties when they do things right. Farage did a very good job at getting UKIP to where they are, but he undermined their main selling point that they were not like other parties by breaking his pledge on resignation. Now the UKIP vote is collapsing in every election, and membership has fallen substantially. The Conservatives were willing to remove Margaret Thatcher when she ceased to be an electoral asset, and she achieved a damn sight more than Farage has or ever will.
It is still possible UKIP will be the beneficiaries of the Conservative leadership mismanaging the EU debate, but you would be in a much better place with Evans in charge. She would have helped UKIP's issues with women, represented the UKIP view in a far less inflammatory manner, and shown the party has grown beyond a personality cult.
I don't want to get into an argument, you are entitled to your own opinion, but I think it is utter nonsense
Reminds me of Arsenal fans who think we should get rid of Wenger every year when we get knocked out of the Champions League EVERY YEAR
Or in this case, Tottenham fans who think we should
Have to say, been quite impressed at Sky's coverage of Remembrance Sunday - bit perplexed about the intv about Belsen, but otherwise it's been comprehensive and not mawkish at all.
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
I wouldn't call a thousand years of PB Tory rule a disaster for the country
I am off to our own service with my wife. Attending the cenotaph is not my particular issue. She was not at the Albert Hall or at St Paul's or the Banquet for the Chinese President. If she is making a point then she is pathetic. And my own father and other family members fought in the War to give me my freedom to make that point.
Most of us had family members fighting for freedom in the War, some of whom didn't return - we probably shouldn't use them to make any political point. You are of course free to make any point you wish, but you're IMO mistaken to think that being married to a politician carries any obligations whatsoever. I've never seen Mrs Corbyn at a local Labour event either - so far as I know, she simply has her own life. It really is none of our business.
I agree that Tim Farron's religion has never obtruded. I was a bit shocked to read in Norman Baker's memoirs (which are partisan but good for amusing anecotes) that Simon Hughes was a fundamentalist - Norman apparently had an animal welfare proposal opposed by Simon because the Bible said that Man was placed into dominance over the animal kingdom, or words to that effect.
On the contrary, it is our business. She has insulted my country at least 3 times that know of. I can observe the world and the people in it and I can form my judgement of them thank you very much. And I can assure you that as far as Labour Corbyn and you are concerned I have done.
Tax credit cuts were not in the Tory manifesto and were denied before the election.
The House of Lords voted the Tory statutory instrument down. Not just Lib Dem peers.
So far have tried to argue this on your ground. But personally - and perhaps because I have a Lib Dem viewpoint - on the point about Farron being willing to break the Salisbury Convention, I don't see what is wrong with that. It's a convention. It's not part of a written constitution. Which we don't have. I have no problem with challenging "authority". We need constitutional reform, including reform of the House of Lords.
No plans to respond to Taffys, who is just out to find a way to get at the Lib Dems, and not engaging in discussion.
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
Suzanne Evans failed to get selected as a Tory PPC, defected to UKIP and lost her seat on Merton council, then didn't become an MP at the GE... Hardly a serial winner. If she were UKIP leader, the people bigging her up now would be slaughtering her for this.
As a Kipper (who has forgotten to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
The inability to hear any criticism is one of the hallmarks of a personality cult. I am not one of those individuals that never criticises my own side, nor am I someone who never praises other parties when they do things right. Farage did a very good job at getting UKIP to where they are, but he undermined their main selling point that they were not like other parties by breaking his pledge on resignation. Now the UKIP vote is collapsing in every election, and membership has fallen substantially. The Conservatives were willing to remove Margaret Thatcher when she ceased to be an electoral asset, and she achieved a damn sight more than Farage has or ever will.
It is still possible UKIP will be the beneficiaries of the Conservative leadership mismanaging the EU debate, but you would be in a much better place with Evans in charge. She would have helped UKIP's issues with women, represented the UKIP view in a far less inflammatory manner, and shown the party has grown beyond a personality cult.
I don't want to get into an argument, you are entitled to your own opinion, but I think it is utter nonsense
Reminds me of Arsenal fans who think we should get rid of Wenger every year when we get knocked out of the Champions League EVERY YEAR
Or in this case, Tottenham fans who think we should
You say you do not want to get into an argument, but then continue to use analogies to argue your case! The comparison with Arsenal would only make sense if they were losing vast amounts of fans and revenue. But please, go ahead and pretend your party is not in trouble. As a Conservative, I would love to welcome UKIP voters into the Conservative fold, as we are the best placed to truly address their concerns.
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
Suzanne Evans failed to get selected as a Tory PPC, defected to UKIP and lost her seat on Merton council, then didn't become an MP at the GE... Hardly a serial winner. If she were UKIP leader, the people bigging her up now would be slaughtering her for this.
As a Kipper (who has forgot to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
But Farage is a serial loser. He's only an MEP because of the stupid party-list system. And how many times has he failed to win a seat at a GE? Seven? Eight?
If Evans is a loser, then so is Farage by any benchmark.
I wouldn't want to be nasty and call Suzanne a loser, I am just pointing out that the same shit would get flung at her.
I wouldn't call Farage a loser either, though I can see its an easy thing to say. He has almost single handedly dragged UKIP up to the modest level they are now. True, he has failed to become an MP many times, but only once, last May, did he have any real chance
In any case he has done a lot more with his life than most people, including me, and if I called him a loser to his face, I am sure I would be the one who lost the game of top trumps
It would be much harder to fling the same muck at her, as she does not have the same track record of saying some rather stupid things that are easy to attack. She'd be a fresh face to the public, most of whom will not be aware of her. Some of the guns routinely trained on UKIP would be spiked if she were leader, at least initially. She also seems to respond better in the media to problems than Farage: I think she's much more of an instinctual politician.
If you keep on mentioning her losing her seat on the council, then it's only right to accept Farage's own terrible electoral record. And I'm really not sure your assertion that he never really had a chance in previous elections is really right.
Evans was in charge of writing the 2015 manifesto, which as I pointed out before the GE, was so much more professional than the ridiculous 2010 one that was signed by Farage.
UKIP needs to move on. Evans seems the person to move it on. Then again, I'm not a UKIPper.
I am off to our own service with my wife. Attending the cenotaph is not my particular issue. She was not at the Albert Hall or at St Paul's or the Banquet for the Chinese President. If she is making a point then she is pathetic. And my own father and other family members fought in the War to give me my freedom to make that point.
Most of us had family members fighting for freedom in the War, some of whom didn't return - we probably shouldn't use them to make any political point. You are of course free to make any point you wish, but you're IMO mistaken to think that being married to a politician carries any obligations whatsoever. I've never seen Mrs Corbyn at a local Labour event either - so far as I know, she simply has her own life. It really is none of our business.
I agree that Tim Farron's religion has never obtruded. I was a bit shocked to read in Norman Baker's memoirs (which are partisan but good for amusing anecotes) that Simon Hughes was a fundamentalist - Norman apparently had an animal welfare proposal opposed by Simon because the Bible said that Man was placed into dominance over the animal kingdom, or words to that effect.
He can't be that much of a fundamentalist if he is bisexual
Hyufd, if you wish to google 'American pastors sex scandals', it might suggest that quite a lot of fundamentalists can simply be ordinary hypocrites. Why should Hughes be different?
Error his ways when young? There is more joy in heavan over a sinner that repenteth and all that!
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
I wouldn't call a thousand years of PB Tory rule a disaster for the country
UKIP have to ride both horses if they're to win the referendum.
The SNP didn't manage to hold onto enough of their traditional support to tip them over 50%, because, when it came down to it, the independence offer wasn't in the interests of their rural, wealthy support base.
Ukip have a very similar problem. The soft eurosceptics in the tory shires will be voting. And they won't be voting out.
Because its not in their interests.
Didn't SNP supporters vote something like 95% yes?
If you look at Aberdeenshire, or on a micro-case, the western isles - historical support for the SNP simply didn't translate into support for an independence offer pitched at winning the central belt.
eg, from the figures I can find to compare - Aberdeenshire voted 53% SNP on the 2011 list. When it came down to the referendum, only 40% voted yes.
UKIP have to ride both horses if they're to win the referendum.
The SNP didn't manage to hold onto enough of their traditional support to tip them over 50%, because, when it came down to it, the independence offer wasn't in the interests of their rural, wealthy support base.
Ukip have a very similar problem. The soft eurosceptics in the tory shires will be voting. And they won't be voting out.
Because its not in their interests.
Didn't SNP supporters vote something like 95% yes?
If you look at Aberdeenshire, or on a micro-case, the western isles - historical support for the SNP simply didn't translate into support for an independence offer pitched at winning the central belt.
eg, from the figures I can find to compare - Aberdeenshire voted 53% SNP on the 2011 list. When it came down to the referendum, only 40% voted yes.
A higher percentage of Tories voted for the Union than SNP voters for independence. Some Labour voters in the Central belt voted for independence and now back the SNP, some rural SNP voters backed the Union but are still voting SNP
I am off to our own service with my wife. Attending the cenotaph is not my particular issue. She was not at the Albert Hall or at St Paul's or the Banquet for the Chinese President. If she is making a point then she is pathetic. And my own father and other family members fought in the War to give me my freedom to make that point.
Most of us had family members fighting for freedom in the War, some of whom didn't return - we probably shouldn't use them to make any political point. You are of course free to make any point you wish, but you're IMO mistaken to think that being married to a politician carries any obligations whatsoever. I've never seen Mrs Corbyn at a local Labour event either - so far as I know, she simply has her own life. It really is none of our business.
I agree that Tim Farron's religion has never obtruded. I was a bit shocked to read in Norman Baker's memoirs (which are partisan but good for amusing anecotes) that Simon Hughes was a fundamentalist - Norman apparently had an animal welfare proposal opposed by Simon because the Bible said that Man was placed into dominance over the animal kingdom, or words to that effect.
He can't be that much of a fundamentalist if he is bisexual
Hyufd, if you wish to google 'American pastors sex scandals', it might suggest that quite a lot of fundamentalists can simply be ordinary hypocrites. Why should Hughes be different?
Hughes is not a hypocrite though, he is openly bisexual and has always been pro homosexual equality, even if his campaign in the Southwark by election was somewhat dubious
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
Have you read in the article in this mornings Telegraph about the Momentum Organisation? If that bunch are allowed to follow through then they will destroy Labour as a social-democratic party of the centre(ish)-left. That will clearly be a disaster for many members of the Labour Party. I am not sure that it could ever be a disaster for the country.
How could a party that matched the dreams and intentions of Momentum ever achieve power to actually do any damage? Only I would suggest by the old Labour core vote remaining true and some, several million, voters switching to them from other parties. That is only going to happen if people willfully ignore what such a Party stood for. Neither event seems very likely, especially if, as in Scotland, there are other parties that can compete for the anti-Conservative vote.
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
Suzanne Evans failed to get selected as a Tory PPC, defected to UKIP and lost her seat on Merton council, then didn't become an MP at the GE... Hardly a serial winner. If she were UKIP leader, the people bigging her up now would be slaughtering her for this.
As a Kipper (who has forgotten to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
The inability to hear any criticism is one of the hallmarks of a personality cult. I am not one of those individuals that never criticises my own side, nor am I someone who never praises other parties when they do things right. Farage did a very good job at getting UKIP to where they are, but he undermined their main selling point that they were not like other parties by breaking his pledge on resignation. Now the UKIP vote is collapsing in every election, and membership has fallen substantially. The Conservatives were willing to remove Margaret Thatcher when she ceased to be an electoral asset, and she achieved a damn sight more than Farage has or ever will.
It is still possible UKIP will be the beneficiaries of the Conservative leadership mismanaging the EU debate, but you would be in a much better place with Evans in charge. She would have helped UKIP's issues with women, represented the UKIP view in a far less inflammatory manner, and shown the party has grown beyond a personality cult.
I don't want to get into an argument, you are entitled to your own opinion, but I think it is utter nonsense
Reminds me of Arsenal fans who think we should get rid of Wenger every year when we get knocked out of the Champions League EVERY YEAR
Or in this case, Tottenham fans who think we should
... As a Conservative, I would love to welcome UKIP voters into the Conservative fold, as we are the best placed to truly address their concerns.
Best placed maybe, but have no intention of actually doing so.
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
I wouldn't call a thousand years of PB Tory rule a disaster for the country
HS2 Heathrow 3 Moonbase 1
Actually, we Brits are doing the last of these, at least in simulation! British (and Cambridge) company Frontier are launching their latest expansion for Elite in the next month or so. Called Horizons, it allows you to travel around airless worlds.
Naturally, we PBTories know that this is really a training simulator for Maggie 1, the moonbase we're building in Thebit crater, which will be renamed 'Tebbit'. Other craters will be renamed 'Falklands', 'Up yours Delors', and 'HMS Conquerer'. The waste dump will be 'Scargill pit'.The experimental atmosphere generator will be named after the Welsh Windbag himself, and will frequently blow itself out.
Crater 'poll tax' will be on the far side of the moon, out of sight ...
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
Have you read in the article in this mornings Telegraph about the Momentum Organisation? If that bunch are allowed to follow through then they will destroy Labour as a social-democratic party of the centre(ish)-left. That will clearly be a disaster for many members of the Labour Party. I am not sure that it could ever be a disaster for the country.
How could a party that matched the dreams and intentions of Momentum ever achieve power to actually do any damage? Only I would suggest by the old Labour core vote remaining true and some, several million, voters switching to them from other parties. That is only going to happen if people willfully ignore what such a Party stood for. Neither event seems very likely, especially if, as in Scotland, there are other parties that can compete for the anti-Conservative vote.
It would be much harder to fling the same muck at her, as she does not have the same track record of saying some rather stupid things that are easy to attack. She'd be a fresh face to the public, most of whom will not be aware of her. Some of the guns routinely trained on UKIP would be spiked if she were leader, at least initially. She also seems to respond better in the media to problems than Farage: I think she's much more of an instinctual politician.
If you keep on mentioning her losing her seat on the council, then it's only right to accept Farage's own terrible electoral record. And I'm really not sure your assertion that he never really had a chance in previous elections is really right.
Evans was in charge of writing the 2015 manifesto, which as I pointed out before the GE, was so much more professional than the ridiculous 2010 one that was signed by Farage.
UKIP needs to move on. Evans seems the person to move it on. Then again, I'm not a UKIPper.
You have to ask the question though, is Farage a boorish chauvinistic loose cannon who has damaged the anti-EU cause, or is it the anti-EU cause that has damaged Farage by virtue of the vituperative and frankly disturbing mass-media and political class campaign against it and him?
When the media gets an agenda between its teeth it can still make or break anyone. As an example, the father of Aylan Kurdi is a saint in the media. If you actually look into his actions, what he did is criminally neglectful at best, cold blooded murder at worst. But the media was not a whit dissuaded by the glaring inconsistencies in his story - they simply kept pushing. Deliberately and dangerously manipulative.
My point is not that Farage has not done or said a stupid thing in his life, but that all these sins have been brought to light in the worst possible way, and his opponent's weaknesses never mentioned. The same could (and if she gets in will) happen to Suzanne Evans. She might have a brief period where she can try to seize the media agenda and get some positive momentum, but it won't be long before the teeth sink in.
Here's a glimpse in to the mindset of a Corbynite...a Labour councilor who I've known for years. The crazy thing is that she actually believes it - she says "One of the reasons Labour lost was that it was too far to the right with too many Blairites in it."
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
I wouldn't call a thousand years of PB Tory rule a disaster for the country
HS2 Heathrow 3 Moonbase 1
Actually, we Brits are doing the last of these, at least in simulation! British (and Cambridge) company Frontier are launching their latest expansion for Elite in the next month or so. Called Horizons, it allows you to travel around airless worlds.
Naturally, we PBTories know that this is really a training simulator for Maggie 1, the moonbase we're building in Thebit crater, which will be renamed 'Tebbit'. Other craters will be renamed 'Falklands', 'Up yours Delors', and 'HMS Conquerer'. The waste dump will be 'Scargill pit'.The experimental atmosphere generator will be named after the Welsh Windbag himself, and will frequently blow itself out.
Crater 'poll tax' will be on the far side of the moon, out of sight ...
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
Have you read in the article in this mornings Telegraph about the Momentum Organisation? If that bunch are allowed to follow through then they will destroy Labour as a social-democratic party of the centre(ish)-left. That will clearly be a disaster for many members of the Labour Party. I am not sure that it could ever be a disaster for the country.
How could a party that matched the dreams and intentions of Momentum ever achieve power to actually do any damage? Only I would suggest by the old Labour core vote remaining true and some, several million, voters switching to them from other parties. That is only going to happen if people willfully ignore what such a Party stood for. Neither event seems very likely, especially if, as in Scotland, there are other parties that can compete for the anti-Conservative vote.
The problem is though even with a Momentum agenda Labour is still polling around 30% as present polling indicates and with the LDs nowhere and UKIP unlikely to ever gain more than 15-20% at a general election they will remain the main opposition party. That is neither good for the party nor the country and as the tax credits vote showed and the placing of airstrikes on ISIS in Syria on the backburner even if Labour has no hope of forming a government it can still hamper the government's agenda and delay it in the Lords. Therefore even Tories should hope Corbyn is replaced before the election, even if it is only to Hilary Benn, Benn, unlike his father and Corbyn, is at least more of a social democrat rather than a hard core socialist
I am off to our own service with my wife. Attending the cenotaph is not my particular issue. She was not at the Albert Hall or at St Paul's or the Banquet for the Chinese President. If she is making a point then she is pathetic. And my own father and other family members fought in the War to give me my freedom to make that point.
Most of us had family members fighting for freedom in the War, some of whom didn't return - we probably shouldn't use them to make any political point. You are of course free to make any point you wish, but you're IMO mistaken to think that being married to a politician carries any obligations whatsoever. I've never seen Mrs Corbyn at a local Labour event either - so far as I know, she simply has her own life. It really is none of our business.
I agree that Tim Farron's religion has never obtruded. I was a bit shocked to read in Norman Baker's memoirs (which are partisan but good for amusing anecotes) that Simon Hughes was a fundamentalist - Norman apparently had an animal welfare proposal opposed by Simon because the Bible said that Man was placed into dominance over the animal kingdom, or words to that effect.
He can't be that much of a fundamentalist if he is bisexual
Hyufd, if you wish to google 'American pastors sex scandals', it might suggest that quite a lot of fundamentalists can simply be ordinary hypocrites. Why should Hughes be different?
Hughes is not a hypocrite though, he is openly bisexual and has always been pro homosexual equality, even if his campaign in the Southwark by election was somewhat dubious
As I recall, he repeatedly denied being bisexual before finally admitting it when he was caught out using a gay dating site. Ironically, however, my understanding is that actually it was a split in the Labour party that caused most of Tatchell's problems, with an Old-Labour candidate who thought homosexuality was pure unsophisticated evil running against him. Hughes' only contribution was the ambiguous 'straight choice' leaflet, which I must admit I would not automatically have considered to be an anti-homosexual pun.
I may of course be wrong on both counts - I am not an expert on Simon Hughes!
''Neither event seems very likely, especially if, as in Scotland, there are other parties that can compete for the anti-Conservative vote.''
One of the reasons why the conservatives won in May is the reaction of the electorate to anti-tories. IE bemusement.
Yes many millions don;t vote tory and think they are less caring and socially aware than the other parties.
They simply don;t identify with the current 'Modest Proposal' labour characterisation of the tory party though. A characterisation the liberal democrats seem to have adopted wholesale.
When labour and the liberal democrats start attacking the tories like grown ups instead of teenagers, that is the time when they will be back on the path to power.
Oh, the direction Labour is going with the help of Corbyn, momentum and their merry little band of helpers is going to be a disaster for both them and possibly the country.
I wouldn't call a thousand years of PB Tory rule a disaster for the country
HS2 Heathrow 3 Moonbase 1
Actually, we Brits are doing the last of these, at least in simulation! British (and Cambridge) company Frontier are launching their latest expansion for Elite in the next month or so. Called Horizons, it allows you to travel around airless worlds.
Naturally, we PBTories know that this is really a training simulator for Maggie 1, the moonbase we're building in Thebit crater, which will be renamed 'Tebbit'. Other craters will be renamed 'Falklands', 'Up yours Delors', and 'HMS Conquerer'. The waste dump will be 'Scargill pit'.The experimental atmosphere generator will be named after the Welsh Windbag himself, and will frequently blow itself out.
Crater 'poll tax' will be on the far side of the moon, out of sight ...
IMHO having met Mr Tatchell socially - it's his IN YOUR FACE attitude that caused him most problems. He's got that sinewy, fixed eye zeal that makes your average person shrink backwards a yard.
I am off to our own service with my wife. Attending the cenotaph is not my particular issue. She was not at the Albert Hall or at St Paul's or the Banquet for the Chinese President. If she is making a point then she is pathetic. And my own father and other family members fought in the War to give me my freedom to make that point.
Most of us had family members fighting for freedom in the War, some of whom didn't return - we probably shouldn't use them to make any political point. You are of course free to make any point you wish, but you're IMO mistaken to think that being married to a politician carries any obligations whatsoever. I've never seen Mrs Corbyn at a local Labour event either - so far as I know, she simply has her own life. It really is none of our business.
I agree that Tim Farron's religion has never obtruded. I was a bit shocked to read in Norman Baker's memoirs (which are partisan but good for amusing anecotes) that Simon Hughes was a fundamentalist - Norman apparently had an animal welfare proposal opposed by Simon because the Bible said that Man was placed into dominance over the animal kingdom, or words to that effect.
He can't be that much of a fundamentalist if he is bisexual
Hyufd, if you wish to google 'American pastors sex scandals', it might suggest that quite a lot of fundamentalists can simply be ordinary hypocrites. Why should Hughes be different?
Hughes is not a hypocrite though, he is openly bisexual and has always been pro homosexual equality, even if his campaign in the Southwark by election was somewhat dubious
As I recall, he repeatedly denied being bisexual before finally admitting it when he was caught out using a gay dating site. Ironically, however, my understanding is that actually it was a split in the Labour party that caused most of Tatchell's problems, with an Old-Labour candidate running against him. Hughes' only contribution was the ambiguous 'straight choice' leaflet, which I must admit I would not automatically have considered to be an anti-homosexual pun.
I may of course be wrong on both counts - I am not an expert on Simon Hughes!
Comments
Current UK policy is to deliberately enrich the few at the expense of the many.
Attending the cenotaph is not my particular issue. She was not at the Albert Hall or at St Paul's or the Banquet for the Chinese President. If she is making a point then she is pathetic.
And my own father and other family members fought in the War to give me my freedom to make that point.
I certainly felt less threatened and less under the beady eye of the various arms of the State back then.
There's an opportunity here to strengthen free speech protection. I wonder if Michael Gove will take it.
Jack put it beautifully. People died so that others could enjoy freedom. Being "free" includes the right not to attend ceremonies. Particularly, eating in a banquet with a mass-murderer.
Here on PB news is a good look at an attempted stabbing by an Arab woman.
Your sentiments are correct but your logic fallible: Mrs Mexican-Millionaire-Socialist Corbyn cannot have a non-appearance on a future event (or, at least thirty mins). If she chooses not to turn-up then it is her free-choice: Hopefully her coffee-company will be tied in to the "living-wage" if registered in Her Majesty's Kingdom.
Of course it shouldn't be subservient, it should be a robust revising chamber. That doesn't mean opposing things which are given in a democratically-elected government's manifesto (which this explicitly is).
We know what they're for: Liberalism. That means personal, and civil, liberty and making the case against restrictions, censorship, suppression, bans, surveillance and control.
How about spreading a bit of that?
ɪnˈveɪdə(r)
noun
a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place
invade
ɪnˈveɪd
verb
enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent:
Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2.
to enter like an enemy:
Locusts invaded the fields.
3.
to enter as if to take possession:
to invade a neighbor's home.
4.
to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease:
viruses that invade the bloodstream.
5.
to intrude upon:
to invade the privacy of a family.
6.
to encroach or infringe upon:
to invade the rights of citizens.
7.
to permeate:
The smell of baking invades the house.
It's a sad coda to the heroic Greek tales that the public know well. We tend to elide everything after Plataea and move swiftly on to Alexander
That has driven great difficulty in deportations of dangerous criminals, the right to family life has been used to drive increases in immigration, and the right to life has been taken out of all context in relation to the armed forces.
There is an opportunity to now correct some of that by statute.
In fairness he no doubt had access to intelligence as to the nature of the threat which we don't have and he seemed to genuinely believe that what was being proposed was proportionate to that threat. But Liberal? Not in any meaningful sense.
There were many here who complained that Gordon Brown did not attend Parliament.
Surprising, none of them complain about Clegg's voting record in this Parliament !
2 One of the problems with British politics, and one of the reasons politicians are held in such low esteem, is the tendency to campaign mainly by attacking your opponents. All politicians contantly attacking all other politicians inevitably contributes massively to the impression that politicians are all useless. Time for a change. People on this thread are saying they don't know what the Lib Dems are for. So this by-election is an opportunity to tell people about Lib Dem values, Lib Dem policies and local Lib Dem action, and not just to have a pop at the other parties.
And 3 to answer the question at the top of the previous thread: NO.
Maybe. But do the lib dems ever attack labour these days?? Corbynite labour is your deadly enemy, if only you realised it. Fail to distance yourselves from them at your peril.
The SNP didn't manage to hold onto enough of their traditional support to tip them over 50%, because, when it came down to it, the independence offer wasn't in the interests of their rural, wealthy support base.
Ukip have a very similar problem. The soft eurosceptics in the tory shires will be voting. And they won't be voting out.
Because EUEXIT ain't in their interest.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308767/Ukip-brink-going-bust-Party-hit-huge-fall-members-flop-Election.html
As a Conservative, all I can say is that I'm very glad Suzanne Evans isn't in charge right now. The party is paying a price for being a personality cult.
You have bought Tory propaganda on the House of Lords and tax credits They were debating a statutory instrument, not a bill. Therefore it was not covered by the Parliament Act. Plus, it is the Tories' own fault that they did not reform the House of Lords when they had the chance. The Lords took the opportunity to act on something the majority agreed with. Saying they shouldn't would be like complaining when parties that don't believe in FPTP put up candidates and win seats in FPTP elections. Why should they vacate the field and leave it to their enemies?
Lord Stewart had no problems in rejecting a right for family visits between 2 predatory paedophiles in 2 different prisons after conviction and finding that this did not come within article 8. The case was dismissed. If we have a new set of rules with new criteria these ridiculous arguments will need to be had again.
The Courts have recently upheld the validity of out of jurisdiction appeals for overstayers in respect of Visas etc. In short they are sent home and can appeal from there if they are so minded. The reality may be that such appeals are much more difficult to pursue and it is much less likely that they will do so having lost residence and, usually, employment here. We risk losing all of this jurisprudence if we have a new set of rules.
I agree that Tim Farron's religion has never obtruded. I was a bit shocked to read in Norman Baker's memoirs (which are partisan but good for amusing anecotes) that Simon Hughes was a fundamentalist - Norman apparently had an animal welfare proposal opposed by Simon because the Bible said that Man was placed into dominance over the animal kingdom, or words to that effect.
With Corbyn now jumping more sharks than you will see in the average Japanese restaurant, and the Conservatives about as convincing on the social democratic stuff as Mao was on agricultural reform, there is space for a centrist Social Democratic party to re-emerge and be a significant force in England and Wales (probably not in Scotland with the SNP about). The question is whether Farron can do that. He has two problems: (1) he is starting from a low base and (2) nobody is listening. So whatever happens, he's got to be out there trying to get noticed. The by-election campaign is the obvious place to start.
Also, Farron said during an interview around the Lib Dem conference that he wanted the Lords to oppose and vote down matters even if that meant ignoring the Salisbury Convention.
Your justification for liberal democrat behaviour runs very hollow and I suspect you know it.
Government by opinion poll? do me a favour.
The electorate wants the liberal democrats, in their current form, to get out of the way. High profile cabinet ministers like Cable and Davey were sent packing. That message was sent loud and clear in May. The lib dems' lords interventions are making things worse, not better.
eg, from the figures I can find to compare - Aberdeenshire voted 53% SNP on the 2011 list. When it came down to the referendum, only 40% voted yes.
As a Kipper (who has forgotten to renew his membership) I am happy with the leader that has made the party more successful than ever, who also happens to be the most popular leader with the public
If Evans is a loser, then so is Farage by any benchmark.
I'm not sure Farron is Corbynlite, Ms PLato, I reckon he's more CorbynHeavy.
Farron should be saying that labour is being led by extremists. Its a party that's lost its mind, its soul, its direction, and that the only coherent centre left alternative is us.
Instead, he's trying to outdo Corbyn. Whether you are tory, labour or lib dem, its just stupid politics.
It is still possible UKIP will be the beneficiaries of the Conservative leadership mismanaging the EU debate, but you would be in a much better place with Evans in charge. She would have helped UKIP's issues with women, represented the UKIP view in a far less inflammatory manner, and shown the party has grown beyond a personality cult.
But if their councillors here in Colchester are anything to go by they will work hard.
We have had leaflets / visits from the Lib Dems last 2 weekends and they arranged a petition about a local issue only 2 weeks before that.
Interestingly the conservatives here are begining to copy this approach which has lead to some interesting "handbag"s on line (from supporters not the councillors if I recall correctly).
I wouldn't call Farage a loser either, though I can see its an easy thing to say. He has almost single handedly dragged UKIP up to the modest level they are now. True, he has failed to become an MP many times, but only once, last May, did he have any real chance
In any case he has done a lot more with his life than most people, including me, and if I called him a loser to his face, I am sure I would be the one who lost the game of top trumps
Reminds me of Arsenal fans who think we should get rid of Wenger every year when we get knocked out of the Champions League EVERY YEAR
Or in this case, Tottenham fans who think we should
Tax credit cuts were not in the Tory manifesto and were denied before the election.
The House of Lords voted the Tory statutory instrument down. Not just Lib Dem peers.
So far have tried to argue this on your ground. But personally - and perhaps because I have a Lib Dem viewpoint - on the point about Farron being willing to break the Salisbury Convention, I don't see what is wrong with that. It's a convention. It's not part of a written constitution. Which we don't have. I have no problem with challenging "authority". We need constitutional reform, including reform of the House of Lords.
No plans to respond to Taffys, who is just out to find a way to get at the Lib Dems, and not engaging in discussion.
Still you know that.
If you keep on mentioning her losing her seat on the council, then it's only right to accept Farage's own terrible electoral record. And I'm really not sure your assertion that he never really had a chance in previous elections is really right.
Evans was in charge of writing the 2015 manifesto, which as I pointed out before the GE, was so much more professional than the ridiculous 2010 one that was signed by Farage.
UKIP needs to move on. Evans seems the person to move it on. Then again, I'm not a UKIPper.
Heathrow 3
Moonbase 1
How could a party that matched the dreams and intentions of Momentum ever achieve power to actually do any damage? Only I would suggest by the old Labour core vote remaining true and some, several million, voters switching to them from other parties. That is only going to happen if people willfully ignore what such a Party stood for. Neither event seems very likely, especially if, as in Scotland, there are other parties that can compete for the anti-Conservative vote.
Naturally, we PBTories know that this is really a training simulator for Maggie 1, the moonbase we're building in Thebit crater, which will be renamed 'Tebbit'. Other craters will be renamed 'Falklands', 'Up yours Delors', and 'HMS Conquerer'. The waste dump will be 'Scargill pit'.The experimental atmosphere generator will be named after the Welsh Windbag himself, and will frequently blow itself out.
Crater 'poll tax' will be on the far side of the moon, out of sight ...
When the media gets an agenda between its teeth it can still make or break anyone. As an example, the father of Aylan Kurdi is a saint in the media. If you actually look into his actions, what he did is criminally neglectful at best, cold blooded murder at worst. But the media was not a whit dissuaded by the glaring inconsistencies in his story - they simply kept pushing. Deliberately and dangerously manipulative.
My point is not that Farage has not done or said a stupid thing in his life, but that all these sins have been brought to light in the worst possible way, and his opponent's weaknesses never mentioned. The same could (and if she gets in will) happen to Suzanne Evans. She might have a brief period where she can try to seize the media agenda and get some positive momentum, but it won't be long before the teeth sink in.
I may of course be wrong on both counts - I am not an expert on Simon Hughes!
One of the reasons why the conservatives won in May is the reaction of the electorate to anti-tories. IE bemusement.
Yes many millions don;t vote tory and think they are less caring and socially aware than the other parties.
They simply don;t identify with the current 'Modest Proposal' labour characterisation of the tory party though. A characterisation the liberal democrats seem to have adopted wholesale.
When labour and the liberal democrats start attacking the tories like grown ups instead of teenagers, that is the time when they will be back on the path to power.