Damnit, I was hoping he would appoint 600 new Tory peers (hint, hint Dave)
David Cameron has been secretly drawing up a plan to bypass an increasingly hostile anti-Tory majority in the House of Lords, which is threatening to wreak havoc with his legislative plans.
The UK prime minister will use the recent bust-up with the Lords on tax-credit reform as a chance to neuter the powers of the upper house.
Lord Strathclyde, the Tory grandee charged by Mr Cameron with reviewing the role of peers, is set to propose this month that the Lords should lose its veto over delegated or “secondary” legislation, such as the measure implementing tax-credit cuts.
Once that veto is removed, Mr Cameron is expected to step up his government’s increasing use of delegated legislation — also known as statutory instruments — to ram contentious measures through the upper house.
Tyson Fury has invited his critics to suck his balls. That's taking his wish to dispel accusations of homophobia to unnecessary lengths.
LOL...
What I don't like about this petition to get him removed from SPOTY list, it is that Dapper Laughs thing all over again. It is twitter mob rules. If you don't like Tyson Fury, vote for somebody else for SPOTY, if you don't like Dapper Laughs, don't watch any of his content or go to his gigs.
Tyson Fury is a twat (though I would not say that to his face!) But this sort of twitter mob can incite a pro Tyson Fury reaction. Undeniably he is a personality!
David Cameron famously forgot how many homes he owned — and now his stepfather-in-law can’t decide whether he owns a massive country estate on the Scottish island of Jura.
What’s more, the Astor family — whose hereditary peerage still allows Samantha Cameron’s stepfather William Astor to sit in the House of Lords — have their 18,736-acre Tarbert Estate owned via a company registered in a, errrr, Caribbean tax haven. The holidaying Cameron family enjoyed the charms of the island first hand as recently as 2013.
The code of conduct for peers clearly states that land or property holdings must be listed in the Register of Lords’ interests — but Astor only lists a partnership in a tenant of the island, ostensibly concerned with sporting pursuits:
As I said the Mail on Sunday story is complete rubbish.
It would be sensational if the PM had committed tax evasion, however I see it as unlikely but I don't know if anyone has investigated it.
From yesterday evening's discussion three odds on favs lost away from home this weekend, good profits if you were on. Big slip up for Liverpool today.
Incidentally fwiw I'd describe myself as a libertarian, the freedom of individuals should be paramount.
First weekend I've actually done it rather than think about it, couldn't have gone better. Don't suppose every weekend will be like this and can't help but think I've missed the boat with Chelsea and this bet.
My buy of Newcastle team bookings at 25 made up at 30, this market definitely has potential for me.
Looking at next weekend I think Utd will be a shade of odds on, Arsenal definitely will be at Villa. I'm very happy to lay both of them if so.
I'm going to do it until the end of the season and keep a record, three points up so far
Do you lay to a fixed stake or to lose a certain amount?
Its a joke (the Santa-Claude is a hint). Not a very good one but a joke never the less. Unfortunately TSE has a complete sense of humour failure when it comes to the EU.
From yesterday evening's discussion three odds on favs lost away from home this weekend, good profits if you were on. Big slip up for Liverpool today.
Incidentally fwiw I'd describe myself as a libertarian, the freedom of individuals should be paramount.
The football gods continue to smile on Leicester and mock Chelsea. I think this has someway to run yet. Therefore expect ManU, Man C and Arsenal to slip up next week.
Leicester are still underpriced. The table does not lie. We have lost only two matches in the Prem League since March. That is not a run of luck, it is seriously good form. Liverpool messed up today, but Leicester beat Newcastle 3 nil away a fortnight ago with them not having a proper goal on target.
Our Thai owners are willing to back us with money, stating £160 million which has hardly been touched. It is still possible to back LCFC at 33/1 to win the title, and Mahrez at 25/1 as top goal scorer. I am on at better odds but still some value there particularly each way.
I know nothing of the Leicester squad so don't know what happens when injuries and suspensions kick in, but like everybody else if you'd told me they'd be top now at the start of the season I'd have laughed.
This weekend confirms my point yesterday that the standards in the prem are compressing, so I'm not going to disagree with your assertion.
My lot, Spurs, are unbeaten since the opening day, there's no reason to think they're going to have a bad run, especially now they're almost finished with Thursday nights for a good while.
Fascinating at both ends, I'm enjoying it.
Still think City will win it, they have Kompany, Yaya and Aguerro to come back.
Would love Leicester to make the CL, meantime you are witnessing the short term demise of my lot. We will be back in four or five years when the new stadium is built, with a team of young guns that will conquer Europe led by Paul Clement
Couldn't pick a winner tbh, Arsenal usually find a way to mess up, Utd might just sneak it almost by default.
Can't think of anybody not enjoying Mourinho's demise at the moment, some of the players seem to have jacked it in. Clements doing well at Derby but managing one of the big clubs is a different matter, I think Chelsea could do worse than Pardew.
Mourinho is a childish egotist and is now proven to be a superb impact manager and nothing more. The damage he is doing to my club will set them back years.
Clement was assistant manager at Chelsea, PSG and Real Madrid, I would love him to come back and bring the kids through.
Current talk is of an Ancelotti and Makelele dream team.
There has to be a substantial chance that one of the Champions League teams will come in with the kind of money that will unsettle Mahrez and Vardy, while teams will adjust their game plans soon or set out to take them out of the game with some hefty treatment.
The Premier League is wide open this year though. There isn't a good team in it, and moderate teams all have a sprinkling of good players. It will all become clearer on 1st February when the transfer window closes.
I've already lost money (probably) backing West Ham to go down, but now fancy Swansea to drop and half believe that this is Arsenal's year.
Leicester have no need to sell either, and both have a couple of years on their contracts. I don't think either Vardy or Mahrez would be a certain to start in any of the CL teams. Mahrez is Algerian/French so could be tempted if a European side came in, but both seem very happy where they are and have years on their contracts. Champions League football is quite likely at Leicester next year anyway!
Its a joke (the Santa-Claude is a hint). Not a very good one but a joke never the less. Unfortunately TSE has a complete sense of humour failure when it comes to the EU.
Its a joke (the Santa-Claude is a hint). Not a very good one but a joke never the less. Unfortunately TSE has a complete sense of humour failure when it comes to the EU.
For someone with 10 years of success behind him, Cameron still seems quite detached and almost as if he'd just as soon do something else. Perhaps that's part of his appeal?
Euro-notes:
The socialists are withdrawing their lists in Nord and Provence to swing behind the centre-right lists in an attempt to block the FN. The FN are up from 25% to 31%, a useful but possibly insufficient gain for a real breakthrough.
German polls drifting in no particular direction at the moment. The CDU are off the bottom but not yet fully recovered.
Its a joke (the Santa-Claude is a hint). Not a very good one but a joke never the less. Unfortunately TSE has a complete sense of humour failure when it comes to the EU.
I don't. As I say it is clearly a joke. It looks as if Douglas has the same lack of sense of humour as you.
I'd have some sympathy with Carswell but he actually made a choice to to go out of his way join up with this jumped up gang of numpties. A joke? Well UKIP and you certainly make me laugh.
From yesterday evening's discussion three odds on favs lost away from home this weekend, good profits if you were on. Big slip up for Liverpool today.
Incidentally fwiw I'd describe myself as a libertarian, the freedom of individuals should be paramount.
First weekend I've actually done it rather than think about it, couldn't have gone better. Don't suppose every weekend will be like this and can't help but think I've missed the boat with Chelsea and this bet.
My buy of Newcastle team bookings at 25 made up at 30, this market definitely has potential for me.
Looking at next weekend I think Utd will be a shade of odds on, Arsenal definitely will be at Villa. I'm very happy to lay both of them if so.
I'm going to do it until the end of the season and keep a record, three points up so far
Do you lay to a fixed stake or to lose a certain amount?
Fixed stake, £20 until the end of the season and if it goes well then will increase it next season. So £60 up minus commission, I will look around at double chance as it's possible it may be better than laying occasionally.
Damnit, I was hoping he would appoint 600 new Tory peers (hint, hint Dave)
David Cameron has been secretly drawing up a plan to bypass an increasingly hostile anti-Tory majority in the House of Lords, which is threatening to wreak havoc with his legislative plans.
The UK prime minister will use the recent bust-up with the Lords on tax-credit reform as a chance to neuter the powers of the upper house.
Lord Strathclyde, the Tory grandee charged by Mr Cameron with reviewing the role of peers, is set to propose this month that the Lords should lose its veto over delegated or “secondary” legislation, such as the measure implementing tax-credit cuts.
Once that veto is removed, Mr Cameron is expected to step up his government’s increasing use of delegated legislation — also known as statutory instruments — to ram contentious measures through the upper house.
What's the point of having a second house then if it can't veto even a single statutory instrument? If he wants to abolish the House of Lords why hide it?
But a lot of severely unpopular legislation seems to be on his mind, what can even more unpopular than tax credits could he be up too?
By what right does the HoL have to veto anything? If this is abolition by the back door then 3 cheers to Cameron.
Odd, because in the past, Corbyn has liked his Labour women on top *innocent face*
Jeremy Corbyn and his allies have been accused of preparing to mount "sexist purge" of his shadow cabinet amid claims he is planning to sack senior women in the wake of the Syria vote.
The Labour leader is said to be considering the future of six female members of his shadow cabinet including Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, Angela Eagle, the shadow business seccretary and Lucy Powell, the shadow education secretary.
Rosie Winterton, Labour's chief whip who abstained on the Syria vote ,is also being singled out for criticism because of her key role inensuring that he party held a free vote on the issue.
Tyson Fury has invited his critics to suck his balls. That's taking his wish to dispel accusations of homophobia to unnecessary lengths.
LOL...
What I don't like about this petition to get him removed from SPOTY list, it is that Dapper Laughs thing all over again. It is twitter mob rules. If you don't like Tyson Fury, vote for somebody else for SPOTY, if you don't like Dapper Laughs, don't watch any of his content or go to his gigs.
Indeed, everyone should vote for Jessica Ennis-Hill.
Just a note as well...Phil "The Power" Taylor has been up for SPOTY a number of times, and his "record" is far worse than Fury. I don't remember the petitions when he was on the list.
Do you have to pass an exam and write a manifesto now to qualify for Sports Personality of the Year?
Odd, because in the past, Corbyn has liked his Labour women on top *innocent face*
Jeremy Corbyn and his allies have been accused of preparing to mount "sexist purge" of his shadow cabinet amid claims he is planning to sack senior women in the wake of the Syria vote.
The Labour leader is said to be considering the future of six female members of his shadow cabinet including Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, Angela Eagle, the shadow business seccretary and Lucy Powell, the shadow education secretary.
Rosie Winterton, Labour's chief whip who abstained on the Syria vote ,is also being singled out for criticism because of her key role inensuring that he party held a free vote on the issue.
Oh it wont be women only, when it happens it wont be just those 6, it will be up to 10. Cleaning up the stables will be quite a treat, especially having Hilary Benn for toast.
Oh it wont be women only, when it happens it wont be just those 6, it will be up to 10. Cleaning up the stables will be quite a treat, especially having Hilary Benn for toast.
If it does happen, why wouldn't they resign en-mass as soon as the first one gets called in?
For someone with 10 years of success behind him, Cameron still seems quite detached and almost as if he'd just as soon do something else. Perhaps that's part of his appeal?
Yes. Dave remains an enigma. I am not sure whether I like him much. I prefer him to almost every other prominent Tory, and I am sure that he is charming at a personal level. One strength and flaw is his loyalty to friends. I am sure that this is a large part of the reason that there has been little dissent against him from within the cabinet, but it has also meant that he has persisted with a few duds for rather too long. Lansley, Hunt and Shapps spring to mind, but possible Osborne too. He could do with being a bit more ruthless, but seems to prize a united government over individual failures.
I think this loyalty will be reflected by almost all the Cabinet following his recommendation on the EU ref. Loyalty breeds loyalty in return, just as disloyalty breeds disloyalty in the party opposite.
Can anyone write a brief summary of how these French elections actually work?
I'm puzzled by the fact that comments below suggest there are individual constituencies yet we also have results being reported for regions as a whole.
Can anyone explain the above?
Who is being elected? A representative for each constituency? If so, what relevance do the regions have?
Well they have many different types of elections. There have Presidential, Parliamentary, Municipal, Regional, Departmental, and European elections all with a slightly different system.
Presidential ones are simple, Round 1 all candidates, Round 2 the top 2 and who wins becomes president, 50% is required to win in either round, they happen every 5 years, last one in 2012.
Parliamentary ones have 577 constituencies, the presidential system is used, they also happen every 5 years, last one in 2012
Municipals ones have a complex system of electing Mayors, Councillors and Deputies that are also different depending on the size of the municipality and special arrangements for the big cities, Wikipedia has devoted entire page just for the voting rules:
Regional ones have a variation of the presidential and municipal election rules, basically Round 2 is the top 3 that scored more than 10%, they happen every 6 years, last one in 2009.
Departmental elections are elections for all the cantons of France that comprise 342 arrondissements and 101 departments to elect members to the regional assembly of each department, that has the standard presidential system, they happen every 4 years, the last one was early this year.
And European elections have PR per region (what the UK has).
Thanks for all that. But my question is much simpler:
What is happening in today's election?
Who is being elected in today's election (or more accurately Round 2 next weekend).
People representing constituencies? If so, how many people and how many constituencies?
Or people representing regions? If so, how many people and how many regions?
Or both of the above?
Why not read a decent newspaper or even wiki and find out for yourself - I do appreciate that you are overdue an anti muslim twitter link, so I can readily understand why you are too busy.
Oh it wont be women only, when it happens it wont be just those 6, it will be up to 10. Cleaning up the stables will be quite a treat, especially having Hilary Benn for toast.
If it does happen, why wouldn't they resign en-mass as soon as the first one gets called in?
For someone with 10 years of success behind him, Cameron still seems quite detached and almost as if he'd just as soon do something else. Perhaps that's part of his appeal?
Yes. Dave remains an enigma. I am not sure whether I like him much. I prefer him to almost every other prominent Tory, and I am sure that he is charming at a personal level. One strength and flaw is his loyalty to friends. I am sure that this is a large part of the reason that there has been little dissent against him from within the cabinet, but it has also meant that he has persisted with a few duds for rather too long. Lansley, Hunt and Shapps spring to mind, but possible Osborne too. He could do with being a bit more ruthless, but seems to prize a united government over individual failures.
I think this loyalty will be reflected by almost all the Cabinet following his recommendation on the EU ref. Loyalty breeds loyalty in return, just as disloyalty breeds disloyalty in the party opposite.
Well if loyalty to a few bad ministers has caused some of the most stable cabinets the country has ever had, I would say it is a successful experiment.
Cleaning up the stables will be quite a treat, especially having Hilary Benn for toast.
It certainly will be a treat for the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and SNP if Corbyn decides to appoint a 100% moonbat shadow cabinet.
Much better than having shadow ministers going to the press everyday moaning how badly the Labour party is doing and how they really got to do a coup, let them join the unnamed Labour MP's from Rochdale on the whining queue.
After all why should Corbyn have such conspiring hateful people who would plunge the knife at any moment around him, better to sack them to have some peace and quiet at the top of the party for a change. Any sane leader would have sacked them long ago.
Anyone who backed Blatter to be out by the end of the year must be feeling like they're about to be robbed tbh.
Yeah. I am on that one but he has an unbelievable brass neck. A bit like Mugabe in Zim, he knows that if he steps down there will be even more revealed.
Its a joke (the Santa-Claude is a hint). Not a very good one but a joke never the less. Unfortunately TSE has a complete sense of humour failure when it comes to the EU.
It must be based on fact - but facts don't always win - you have to appeal to emotion. The best emotion to trigger is to get people to hate the EU rather than to get them to love leaving it.
This kind of matches with Corbyn's cabinet with all major jobs going to men but claiming a female majority by giving non jobs (without portfolio) or more minor roles to females. Now this.
Cleaning up the stables will be quite a treat, especially having Hilary Benn for toast.
It certainly will be a treat for the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and SNP if Corbyn decides to appoint a 100% moonbat shadow cabinet.
Much better than having shadow ministers going to the press everyday moaning how badly the Labour party is doing and how they really got to do a coup, let them join the unnamed Labour MP's from Rochdale on the whining queue.
After all why should Corbyn have such conspiring hateful people who would plunge the knife at any moment around him, better to sack them to have some peace and quiet at the top of the party for a change. Any sane leader would have sacked them long ago.
On the other hand, it would be preferable to have someone in the Labour party trying to win the next general election.
After all why should Corbyn have such conspiring hateful people who would plunge the knife at any moment around him, better to sack them to have some peace and quiet at the top of the party for a change. Any sane leader would have sacked them long ago.
Of course how silly of me to not realise that Corbyn demands a degree of loyalty to the party leadership that he has never shown in the past. I forgot for a moment what a gigantic chump he is.
Cleaning up the stables will be quite a treat, especially having Hilary Benn for toast.
It certainly will be a treat for the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and SNP if Corbyn decides to appoint a 100% moonbat shadow cabinet.
Much better than having shadow ministers going to the press everyday moaning how badly the Labour party is doing and how they really got to do a coup, let them join the unnamed Labour MP's from Rochdale on the whining queue.
After all why should Corbyn have such conspiring hateful people who would plunge the knife at any moment around him, better to sack them to have some peace and quiet at the top of the party for a change. Any sane leader would have sacked them long ago.
Its a joke (the Santa-Claude is a hint). Not a very good one but a joke never the less. Unfortunately TSE has a complete sense of humour failure when it comes to the EU.
I don't. As I say it is clearly a joke. It looks as if Douglas has the same lack of sense of humour as you.
I'd have some sympathy with Carswell but he actually made a choice to to go out of his way join up with this jumped up gang of numpties. A joke? Well UKIP and you certainly make me laugh.
Whereas there is nothing remotely funny about your particular brand of idiocy.
I think Dave is very much the Harold Wilson of this generation. Never particularly well-loved by the public, yet always managing to muddle through due to tactical shrewdness (the obvious example being that both used an EU referendum to stop a split in their party), a kind of reassuring/"human" air about them which people quite liked, and always being just about tolerable enough when compared to their main opponents.
However, I doubt for all his longevity he will be remembered as a particularly great or significant PM (again like Wilson).
For someone with 10 years of success behind him, Cameron still seems quite detached and almost as if he'd just as soon do something else. Perhaps that's part of his appeal?
Euro-notes:
The socialists are withdrawing their lists in Nord and Provence to swing behind the centre-right lists in an attempt to block the FN. The FN are up from 25% to 31%, a useful but possibly insufficient gain for a real breakthrough.
German polls drifting in no particular direction at the moment. The CDU are off the bottom but not yet fully recovered.
Its a joke (the Santa-Claude is a hint). Not a very good one but a joke never the less. Unfortunately TSE has a complete sense of humour failure when it comes to the EU.
I don't. As I say it is clearly a joke. It looks as if Douglas has the same lack of sense of humour as you.
I'd have some sympathy with Carswell but he actually made a choice to to go out of his way join up with this jumped up gang of numpties. A joke? Well UKIP and you certainly make me laugh.
Whereas there is nothing remotely funny about your particular brand of idiocy.
It's obviously a joke, but it's a rather poor one. A better in-joke perhaps and hardly a good recruiting tool.
Its a joke (the Santa-Claude is a hint). Not a very good one but a joke never the less. Unfortunately TSE has a complete sense of humour failure when it comes to the EU.
It must be based on fact - but facts don't always win - you have to appeal to emotion. The best emotion to trigger is to get people to hate the EU rather than to get them to love leaving it.
You won't get a majority to hate the EU by turning yourself into a parody.
Odd, because in the past, Corbyn has liked his Labour women on top *innocent face*
Jeremy Corbyn and his allies have been accused of preparing to mount "sexist purge" of his shadow cabinet amid claims he is planning to sack senior women in the wake of the Syria vote.
The Labour leader is said to be considering the future of six female members of his shadow cabinet including Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, Angela Eagle, the shadow business seccretary and Lucy Powell, the shadow education secretary.
Rosie Winterton, Labour's chief whip who abstained on the Syria vote ,is also being singled out for criticism because of her key role inensuring that he party held a free vote on the issue.
Oh it wont be women only, when it happens it wont be just those 6, it will be up to 10. Cleaning up the stables will be quite a treat, especially having Hilary Benn for toast.
I do hope you are right. Personally I cannot wait.
For someone with 10 years of success behind him, Cameron still seems quite detached and almost as if he'd just as soon do something else. Perhaps that's part of his appeal?
Yes. Dave remains an enigma. I am not sure whether I like him much. I prefer him to almost every other prominent Tory, and I am sure that he is charming at a personal level. One strength and flaw is his loyalty to friends. I am sure that this is a large part of the reason that there has been little dissent against him from within the cabinet, but it has also meant that he has persisted with a few duds for rather too long. Lansley, Hunt and Shapps spring to mind, but possible Osborne too. He could do with being a bit more ruthless, but seems to prize a united government over individual failures.
I think this loyalty will be reflected by almost all the Cabinet following his recommendation on the EU ref. Loyalty breeds loyalty in return, just as disloyalty breeds disloyalty in the party opposite.
Dave is a better Tory leader than Prime Minister. Inarguably contributed heavily to the revival of his own party. But IMO he hasn't really achieved all that much with the power he has sought and frequently loses his concentration or his temper and then has to clear up the mess.
If he was ice cream he would be vanilla, with the occasional unknown gritty bit that leads you to question its provenance.
For someone with 10 years of success behind him, Cameron still seems quite detached and almost as if he'd just as soon do something else. Perhaps that's part of his appeal?
Euro-notes:
The socialists are withdrawing their lists in Nord and Provence to swing behind the centre-right lists in an attempt to block the FN. The FN are up from 25% to 31%, a useful but possibly insufficient gain for a real breakthrough.
German polls drifting in no particular direction at the moment. The CDU are off the bottom but not yet fully recovered.
For 'detached' Mr Palmer should have put 'normal'. But I for one have long since ceased to trust Mr Palmer's objectivity.
For someone with 10 years of success behind him, Cameron still seems quite detached and almost as if he'd just as soon do something else. Perhaps that's part of his appeal?
Yes. Dave remains an enigma. I am not sure whether I like him much. I prefer him to almost every other prominent Tory, and I am sure that he is charming at a personal level. One strength and flaw is his loyalty to friends. I am sure that this is a large part of the reason that there has been little dissent against him from within the cabinet, but it has also meant that he has persisted with a few duds for rather too long. Lansley, Hunt and Shapps spring to mind, but possible Osborne too. He could do with being a bit more ruthless, but seems to prize a united government over individual failures.
I think this loyalty will be reflected by almost all the Cabinet following his recommendation on the EU ref. Loyalty breeds loyalty in return, just as disloyalty breeds disloyalty in the party opposite.
Well if loyalty to a few bad ministers has caused some of the most stable cabinets the country has ever had, I would say it is a successful experiment.
It is a moot point as to whether this sort of cabinet stability is a good thing. I generally think it is.
It must make some backbenchers a bit restive though. That may make for interesting times when he does step down.
FT says Cameron's plan is for Lords to lose its veto over Secondary legislation.
That has to be approved by.........the Lords ?
Yup, or if not it would have to go through the extremely time-consuming Parliament Act process.
At the heart of this seems to be the Tories' astonishing sense of entitlement. They genuinely seem to think it's an anti-democratic affront whenever anyone opposes one of their policies.
Its a joke (the Santa-Claude is a hint). Not a very good one but a joke never the less. Unfortunately TSE has a complete sense of humour failure when it comes to the EU.
I don't. As I say it is clearly a joke. It looks as if Douglas has the same lack of sense of humour as you.
I'd have some sympathy with Carswell but he actually made a choice to to go out of his way join up with this jumped up gang of numpties. A joke? Well UKIP and you certainly make me laugh.
Whereas there is nothing remotely funny about your particular brand of idiocy.
It's obviously a joke, but it's a rather poor one. A better in-joke perhaps and hardly a good recruiting tool.
Leave.EU have been the more dodgy of the two campaigns since the start. Too much Farage influence I'm afraid. The Vote Leave Campaign looks far more reasonable and professional.
Its a joke (the Santa-Claude is a hint). Not a very good one but a joke never the less. Unfortunately TSE has a complete sense of humour failure when it comes to the EU.
For someone with 10 years of success behind him, Cameron still seems quite detached and almost as if he'd just as soon do something else. Perhaps that's part of his appeal?
Yes. Dave remains an enigma. I am not sure whether I like him much. I prefer him to almost every other prominent Tory, and I am sure that he is charming at a personal level. One strength and flaw is his loyalty to friends. I am sure that this is a large part of the reason that there has been little dissent against him from within the cabinet, but it has also meant that he has persisted with a few duds for rather too long. Lansley, Hunt and Shapps spring to mind, but possible Osborne too. He could do with being a bit more ruthless, but seems to prize a united government over individual failures.
I think this loyalty will be reflected by almost all the Cabinet following his recommendation on the EU ref. Loyalty breeds loyalty in return, just as disloyalty breeds disloyalty in the party opposite.
Well if loyalty to a few bad ministers has caused some of the most stable cabinets the country has ever had, I would say it is a successful experiment.
It is a moot point as to whether this sort of cabinet stability is a good thing. I generally think it is.
It must make some backbenchers a bit restive though. That may make for interesting times when he does step down.
Being loyal to his ministers and the cabinet stability that follows, allows the ministers to get a better understanding of there department and therefor, the ability to implement much needed reform, rather than being fobbed of by civil servants of the 'Humphrey Appleby' type.
If a few back benchers therefore miss out on the opportunity for a try, then that is a small price to pay for the good of the contrary.
Panorama: Fifa, Sepp Blatter and Me is on BBC One at 20:30 GMT on Monday, 7 December
Sky+ set....unfortunately it is just the 30 mins. I really wish Panorama would go back to the hour long programmes, especially on topics they have plenty of material to go on.
I think Dave is very much the Harold Wilson of this generation. Never particularly well-loved by the public, yet always managing to muddle through due to tactical shrewdness (the obvious example being that both used an EU referendum to stop a split in their party), a kind of reassuring/"human" air about them which people quite liked, and always being just about tolerable enough when compared to their main opponents.
However, I doubt for all his longevity he will be remembered as a particularly great or significant PM (again like Wilson).
If Labour supporters do not think Wilson is significant then it shows how far removed from their history they have become.
Can anyone write a brief summary of how these French elections actually work?
I'm puzzled by the fact that comments below suggest there are individual constituencies yet we also have results being reported for regions as a whole.
Can anyone explain the above?
Who is being elected? A representative for each constituency? If so, what relevance do the regions have?
Well they have many different types of elections. There have Presidential, Parliamentary, Municipal, Regional, Departmental, and European elections all with a slightly different system.
Presidential ones are simple, Round 1 all candidates, Round 2 the top 2 and who wins becomes president, 50% is required to win in either round, they happen every 5 years, last one in 2012.
Parliamentary ones have 577 constituencies, the presidential system is used, they also happen every 5 years, last one in 2012
Municipals ones have a complex system of electing Mayors, Councillors and Deputies that are also different depending on the size of the municipality and special arrangements for the big cities, Wikipedia has devoted entire page just for the voting rules:
Regional ones have a variation of the presidential and municipal election rules, basically Round 2 is the top 3 that scored more than 10%, they happen every 6 years, last one in 2009.
Departmental elections are elections for all the cantons of France that comprise 342 arrondissements and 101 departments to elect members to the regional assembly of each department, that has the standard presidential system, they happen every 4 years, the last one was early this year.
And European elections have PR per region (what the UK has).
Thanks for all that. But my question is much simpler:
What is happening in today's election?
Who is being elected in today's election (or more accurately Round 2 next weekend).
People representing constituencies? If so, how many people and how many constituencies?
Or people representing regions? If so, how many people and how many regions?
Or both of the above?
Why not read a decent newspaper or even wiki and find out for yourself - I do appreciate that you are overdue an anti muslim twitter link, so I can readily understand why you are too busy.
For someone with 10 years of success behind him, Cameron still seems quite detached and almost as if he'd just as soon do something else. Perhaps that's part of his appeal?
Yes. Dave remains an enigma. I am not sure whether I like him much. I prefer him to almost every other prominent Tory, and I am sure that he is charming at a personal level. One strength and flaw is his loyalty to friends. I am sure that this is a large part of the reason that there has been little dissent against him from within the cabinet, but it has also meant that he has persisted with a few duds for rather too long. Lansley, Hunt and Shapps spring to mind, but possible Osborne too. He could do with being a bit more ruthless, but seems to prize a united government over individual failures.
I think this loyalty will be reflected by almost all the Cabinet following his recommendation on the EU ref. Loyalty breeds loyalty in return, just as disloyalty breeds disloyalty in the party opposite.
Dave is a better Tory leader than Prime Minister. Inarguably contributed heavily to the revival of his own party. But IMO he hasn't really achieved all that much with the power he has sought and frequently loses his concentration or his temper and then has to clear up the mess.
If he was ice cream he would be vanilla, with the occasional unknown gritty bit that leads you to question its provenance.
I think he is a bit lazy. That sloth is part of his charm but also why the swivel eyed loons hate him so much. He is rather slow at introducing the draconian changes that they desire. I think Dave is quite conservative as well as Conservative and has that intrinsically British trait of suspiscion of change, particularly radical change. It is part of why he is more popular with the public than his party, and why the hardliners hate him so much.
Dan Hannan is very intelligent and a good speaker but would be unpopular with the country at large. It is pretty rare for British voters to favour radical change. Only Maggie would fit that bill in my lifetime. It is also why Corbyn will never win.
Can anyone write a brief summary of how these French elections actually work?
I'm puzzled by the fact that comments below suggest there are individual constituencies yet we also have results being reported for regions as a whole.
Can anyone explain the above?
Who is being elected? A representative for each constituency? If so, what relevance do the regions have?
Well they have many different types of elections. There have Presidential, Parliamentary, Municipal, Regional, Departmental, and European elections all with a slightly different system.
Presidential ones are simple, Round 1 all candidates, Round 2 the top 2 and who wins becomes president, 50% is required to win in either round, they happen every 5 years, last one in 2012.
Parliamentary ones have 577 constituencies, the presidential system is used, they also happen every 5 years, last one in 2012
Municipals ones have a complex system of electing Mayors, Councillors and Deputies that are also different depending on the size of the municipality and special arrangements for the big cities, Wikipedia has devoted entire page just for the voting rules:
Regional ones have a variation of the presidential and municipal election rules, basically Round 2 is the top 3 that scored more than 10%, they happen every 6 years, last one in 2009.
Departmental elections are elections for all the cantons of France that comprise 342 arrondissements and 101 departments to elect members to the regional assembly of each department, that has the standard presidential system, they happen every 4 years, the last one was early this year.
And European elections have PR per region (what the UK has).
Thanks for all that. But my question is much simpler:
What is happening in today's election?
Who is being elected in today's election (or more accurately Round 2 next weekend).
People representing constituencies? If so, how many people and how many constituencies?
Or people representing regions? If so, how many people and how many regions?
Or both of the above?
Why not read a decent newspaper or even wiki and find out for yourself - I do appreciate that you are overdue an anti muslim twitter link, so I can readily understand why you are too busy.
Can anyone write a brief summary of how these French elections actually work?
I'm puzzled by the fact that comments below suggest there are individual constituencies yet we also have results being reported for regions as a whole.
Can anyone explain the above?
Who is being elected? A representative for each constituency? If so, what relevance do the regions have?
Well they have many different types of elections. There have Presidential, Parliamentary, Municipal, Regional, Departmental, and European elections all with a slightly different system.
Presidential ones are simple, Round 1 all candidates, Round 2 the top 2 and who wins becomes president, 50% is required to win in either round, they happen every 5 years, last one in 2012.
Parliamentary ones have 577 constituencies, the presidential system is used, they also happen every 5 years, last one in 2012
Municipals ones have a complex system of electing Mayors, Councillors and Deputies that are also different depending on the size of the municipality and special arrangements for the big cities, Wikipedia has devoted entire page just for the voting rules:
Regional ones have a variation of the presidential and municipal election rules, basically Round 2 is the top 3 that scored more than 10%, they happen every 6 years, last one in 2009.
Departmental elections are elections for all the cantons of France that comprise 342 arrondissements and 101 departments to elect members to the regional assembly of each department, that has the standard presidential system, they happen every 4 years, the last one was early this year.
And European elections have PR per region (what the UK has).
Thanks for all that. But my question is much simpler:
What is happening in today's election?
Who is being elected in today's election (or more accurately Round 2 next weekend).
People representing constituencies? If so, how many people and how many constituencies?
Or people representing regions? If so, how many people and how many regions?
Or both of the above?
Why not read a decent newspaper or even wiki and find out for yourself - I do appreciate that you are overdue an anti muslim twitter link, so I can readily understand why you are too busy.
Presumably you've confused me with another poster?
I'm not on twitter, nor have I ever looked at it, nor have I ever posted on the subject to which you are referring.
FT says Cameron's plan is for Lords to lose its veto over Secondary legislation.
That has to be approved by.........the Lords ?
Yup, or if not it would have to go through the extremely time-consuming Parliament Act process.
At the heart of this seems to be the Tories' astonishing sense of entitlement. They genuinely seem to think it's an anti-democratic affront whenever anyone opposes one of their policies.
Can anyone write a brief summary of how these French elections actually work?
I'm puzzled by the fact that comments below suggest there are individual constituencies yet we also have results being reported for regions as a whole.
Can anyone explain the above?
Who is being elected? A representative for each constituency? If so, what relevance do the regions have?
Well they have many different types of elections. There have Presidential, Parliamentary, Municipal, Regional, Departmental, and European elections all with a slightly different system.
Presidential ones are simple, Round 1 all candidates, Round 2 the top 2 and who wins becomes president, 50% is required to win in either round, they happen every 5 years, last one in 2012.
Parliamentary ones have 577 constituencies, the presidential system is used, they also happen every 5 years, last one in 2012
Municipals ones have a complex system of electing Mayors, Councillors and Deputies that are also different depending on the size of the municipality and special arrangements for the big cities, Wikipedia has devoted entire page just for the voting rules:
Regional ones have a variation of the presidential and municipal election rules, basically Round 2 is the top 3 that scored more than 10%, they happen every 6 years, last one in 2009.
Departmental elections are elections for all the cantons of France that comprise 342 arrondissements and 101 departments to elect members to the regional assembly of each department, that has the standard presidential system, they happen every 4 years, the last one was early this year.
And European elections have PR per region (what the UK has).
Thanks for all that. But my question is much simpler:
What is happening in today's election?
Who is being elected in today's election (or more accurately Round 2 next weekend).
People representing constituencies? If so, how many people and how many constituencies?
Or people representing regions? If so, how many people and how many regions?
Or both of the above?
Why not read a decent newspaper or even wiki and find out for yourself - I do appreciate that you are overdue an anti muslim twitter link, so I can readily understand why you are too busy.
Presumably you've confused me with another poster?
I'm not on twitter, nor have I ever looked at it, nor have I ever posted on the subject to which you are referring.
Can anyone write a brief summary of how these French elections actually work?
I'm puzzled by the fact that comments below suggest there are individual constituencies yet we also have results being reported for regions as a whole.
Can anyone explain the above?
Who is being elected? A representative for each constituency? If so, what relevance do the regions have?
Well they have many different types of elections. There have Presidential, Parliamentary, Municipal, Regional, Departmental, and European elections all with a slightly different system.
Presidential ones are simple, Round 1 all candidates, Round 2 the top 2 and who wins becomes president, 50% is required to win in either round, they happen every 5 years, last one in 2012.
Parliamentary ones have 577 constituencies, the presidential system is used, they also happen every 5 years, last one in 2012
Municipals ones have a complex system of electing Mayors, Councillors and Deputies that are also different depending on the size of the municipality and special arrangements for the big cities, Wikipedia has devoted entire page just for the voting rules:
Regional ones have a variation of the presidential and municipal election rules, basically Round 2 is the top 3 that scored more than 10%, they happen every 6 years, last one in 2009.
Departmental elections are elections for all the cantons of France that comprise 342 arrondissements and 101 departments to elect members to the regional assembly of each department, that has the standard presidential system, they happen every 4 years, the last one was early this year.
And European elections have PR per region (what the UK has).
Thanks for all that. But my question is much simpler:
What is happening in today's election?
Who is being elected in today's election (or more accurately Round 2 next weekend).
People representing constituencies? If so, how many people and how many constituencies?
Or people representing regions? If so, how many people and how many regions?
Or both of the above?
Why not read a decent newspaper or even wiki and find out for yourself - I do appreciate that you are overdue an anti muslim twitter link, so I can readily understand why you are too busy.
Presumably you've confused me with another poster?
I'm not on twitter, nor have I ever looked at it, nor have I ever posted on the subject to which you are referring.
Correct . My only excuse is that K is next to L.
OK - thanks - now seen your subsequent post - and thanks to Sunil too!
I think Dave is very much the Harold Wilson of this generation. Never particularly well-loved by the public, yet always managing to muddle through due to tactical shrewdness (the obvious example being that both used an EU referendum to stop a split in their party), a kind of reassuring/"human" air about them which people quite liked, and always being just about tolerable enough when compared to their main opponents.
However, I doubt for all his longevity he will be remembered as a particularly great or significant PM (again like Wilson).
If Labour supporters do not think Wilson is significant then it shows how far removed from their history they have become.
I would say Wilson isn't historically significant in the same league as Churchill, Thatcher, Attlee and Blair, yes. I think it's fair to say his "legacy" on history is not as great as one would assume for someone who was PM for nearly a decade, and I think the same will apply to Cameron.
There has to be a substantial chance that one of the Champions League teams will come in with the kind of money that will unsettle Mahrez and Vardy, while teams will adjust their game plans soon or set out to take them out of the game with some hefty treatment.
The Premier League is wide open this year though. There isn't a good team in it, and moderate teams all have a sprinkling of good players. It will all become clearer on 1st February when the transfer window closes.
I've already lost money (probably) backing West Ham to go down, but now fancy Swansea to drop and half believe that this is Arsenal's year.
Leicester have no need to sell either, and both have a couple of years on their contracts. I don't think either Vardy or Mahrez would be a certain to start in any of the CL teams. Mahrez is Algerian/French so could be tempted if a European side came in, but both seem very happy where they are and have years on their contracts. Champions League football is quite likely at Leicester next year anyway!
They could offer them the chance to be in a movie like Ipswich did in 1981.
For someone with 10 years of success behind him, Cameron still seems quite detached and almost as if he'd just as soon do something else. Perhaps that's part of his appeal?
Yes. Dave remains an enigma. I am not sure whether I like him much. I prefer him to almost every other prominent Tory, and I am sure that he is charming at a personal level. One strength and flaw is his loyalty to friends. I am sure that this is a large part of the reason that there has been little dissent against him from within the cabinet, but it has also meant that he has persisted with a few duds for rather too long. Lansley, Hunt and Shapps spring to mind, but possible Osborne too. He could do with being a bit more ruthless, but seems to prize a united government over individual failures.
I think this loyalty will be reflected by almost all the Cabinet following his recommendation on the EU ref. Loyalty breeds loyalty in return, just as disloyalty breeds disloyalty in the party opposite.
Well if loyalty to a few bad ministers has caused some of the most stable cabinets the country has ever had, I would say it is a successful experiment.
It is a moot point as to whether this sort of cabinet stability is a good thing. I generally think it is.
It must make some backbenchers a bit restive though. That may make for interesting times when he does step down.
Following the permanent change of the Blair years I think I know which system has worked better.
I think Dave is very much the Harold Wilson of this generation. Never particularly well-loved by the public, yet always managing to muddle through due to tactical shrewdness (the obvious example being that both used an EU referendum to stop a split in their party), a kind of reassuring/"human" air about them which people quite liked, and always being just about tolerable enough when compared to their main opponents.
However, I doubt for all his longevity he will be remembered as a particularly great or significant PM (again like Wilson).
If Labour supporters do not think Wilson is significant then it shows how far removed from their history they have become.
I would say Wilson isn't historically significant in the same league as Churchill, Thatcher, Attlee and Blair, yes. I think it's fair to say his "legacy" on history is not as great as one would assume for someone who was PM for nearly a decade, and I think the same will apply to Cameron.
I think Dave is very much the Harold Wilson of this generation. Never particularly well-loved by the public, yet always managing to muddle through due to tactical shrewdness (the obvious example being that both used an EU referendum to stop a split in their party), a kind of reassuring/"human" air about them which people quite liked, and always being just about tolerable enough when compared to their main opponents.
However, I doubt for all his longevity he will be remembered as a particularly great or significant PM (again like Wilson).
If Labour supporters do not think Wilson is significant then it shows how far removed from their history they have become.
I would say Wilson isn't historically significant in the same league as Churchill, Thatcher, Attlee and Blair, yes. I think it's fair to say his "legacy" on history is not as great as one would assume for someone who was PM for nearly a decade, and I think the same will apply to Cameron.
As I said the Mail on Sunday story is complete rubbish.
As in "untrue"?
He's admitted it.
Or is it only "Tax Avoidance" when Tories do it, but "Legitimate Tax Planning" when SNP MPs do it?
So much for Nicola's "zero tolerance"!
But great LOOK SQUIRREL by the way.......
The idea he has done something wrong is nonsense. It's a positive story for the SNP. Chap forced to avoid tax due to his contract wants such contracts ended. Perfect role for the SNP and excellent politics.
The Loyalists have undone their own hopes and improved the 56 idea.
As I said the Mail on Sunday story is complete rubbish.
As in "untrue"?
He's admitted it.
Or is it only "Tax Avoidance" when Tories do it, but "Legitimate Tax Planning" when SNP MPs do it?
So much for Nicola's "zero tolerance"!
But great LOOK SQUIRREL by the way.......
The idea he has done something wrong is nonsense. It's a positive story for the SNP. Chap forced to avoid tax due to his contract wants such contracts ended. Perfect role for the SNP and excellent politics..
Ask Nicola - she's the one with "zero tolerance" of tax avoidance schemes.
But not for SNP MPs it appears.
Where has he claimed he was "forced" to avoid tax? Or are you just making stuff up?
As I said the Mail on Sunday story is complete rubbish.
As in "untrue"?
He's admitted it.
Or is it only "Tax Avoidance" when Tories do it, but "Legitimate Tax Planning" when SNP MPs do it?
So much for Nicola's "zero tolerance"!
But great LOOK SQUIRREL by the way.......
The idea he has done something wrong is nonsense. It's a positive story for the SNP. Chap forced to avoid tax due to his contract wants such contracts ended. Perfect role for the SNP and excellent politics.
The Loyalists have undone their own hopes and improved the 56 idea.
The Inland Revenue are not averse to anyone paying extra - if the tax was, in his view, too low... a simple cheque would do the job.
I'm not quite sure how to do that for Scottish government (rather than paying extra to London), but I'm sure it could be done.
FBI is probing role played by Fifa president Sepp Blatter in $100m bribes scandal, BBC learns bbc.in/1IO4jmn
Scandalous. I for one felt his defence of his position of not being corrupt, merely incompetent at monitoring and preventing corruption, was and is solid as a rock. A rock you could hide money under.
On Cameron, I do agree with those that say what he does once he goes will probably define how he is remembered as much as anything he does while he is in office, and that some of his biggest challenges as party leader and PM are upcoming in terms of the EU.
On a more general level, I have usually been pretty forgiving of the guy, though at times his governments have been crappy. Granted, I expect governments in general to be a little crappy, but there has been more incompetence and shifting goals than I would like (even though shifting is sometimes necessary), but it hasn't been disastrous. And that being said, Cameron seems not driven by ideology, is flexible, and willing to take on at least a few big things, which is more appealing to me personally than a fanatic. As I've commented before, he is not, or has not at any rate, been frightening or offputting for most people, and though no-one's favourite, is just likable enough that while he is mocked as insincere and out of touch more than I suspect he likes, it never ruined him and he retained a perception as relatively competent. His opposition has helped with that, and not having to constantly guard against internal moves from his Chancellor as well no doubt, but no easy task nevertheless.
David Cameron: We could have done worse. Probably. The Tory party certainly could have.
This kind of matches with Corbyn's cabinet with all major jobs going to men but claiming a female majority by giving non jobs (without portfolio) or more minor roles to females. Now this.
Corbyn likes his women to be seen but not heard.
My honest impression is he would not care about proportion of jobs to genders at all, and that ideological purity and loyalty would be more important, and it just happens most of those who meet those criteria are men. But in terms of perceptions it looks more sinister than it probably is if a purge like that were to happen.
I'd have thought the "right on" bunch would be pleased that one of Britain's most maligned ethnic minorities was in line for SPOTY.
You have to be the right kind of maligned minority to get the cred. Honestly, he seems like a arsehole - not that I would say that to his face - but if they are worried he would win or place highly, well, the problem is not him but the public.
Damnit, I was hoping he would appoint 600 new Tory peers (hint, hint Dave)
David Cameron has been secretly drawing up a plan to bypass an increasingly hostile anti-Tory majority in the House of Lords, which is threatening to wreak havoc with his legislative plans.
The UK prime minister will use the recent bust-up with the Lords on tax-credit reform as a chance to neuter the powers of the upper house.
Lord Strathclyde, the Tory grandee charged by Mr Cameron with reviewing the role of peers, is set to propose this month that the Lords should lose its veto over delegated or “secondary” legislation, such as the measure implementing tax-credit cuts.
Once that veto is removed, Mr Cameron is expected to step up his government’s increasing use of delegated legislation — also known as statutory instruments — to ram contentious measures through the upper house.
What's the point of having a second house then if it can't veto even a single statutory instrument? If he wants to abolish the House of Lords why hide it?
I doubt he does, he just wants it to stop causing trouble, but the question you raise is still fair. The system we have is open to all sorts of these types of conflicts, and tweaking the rules to try to iron out conflicts fairly is also reasonable, and I'm not sure that's what's happening.
'The idea he has done something wrong is nonsense. It's a positive story for the SNP. Chap forced to avoid tax due to his contract wants such contracts ended. Perfect role for the SNP and excellent politics.
Cut the bul$hit.
If this 'saint' thought he was prevented from paying enough tax he could donate to Scottish charities.
I think Dave is very much the Harold Wilson of this generation. Never particularly well-loved by the public, yet always managing to muddle through due to tactical shrewdness (the obvious example being that both used an EU referendum to stop a split in their party), a kind of reassuring/"human" air about them which people quite liked, and always being just about tolerable enough when compared to their main opponents.
However, I doubt for all his longevity he will be remembered as a particularly great or significant PM (again like Wilson).
If Labour supporters do not think Wilson is significant then it shows how far removed from their history they have become.
I would say Wilson isn't historically significant in the same league as Churchill, Thatcher, Attlee and Blair, yes. I think it's fair to say his "legacy" on history is not as great as one would assume for someone who was PM for nearly a decade, and I think the same will apply to Cameron.
What is Blair's historical legacy?
Gordon Brown
From reading Mandelson's memoires it's an extraordinary demonstration of Blair's weakness that he tolerated Brown in Number 11 for the entirety of his premiership.
Mandelson also compares New Labour's readiness for government in 1997 unfavourably with Thatcher in 1979, but then she and team had been in the Cabinet just a few years previously so it's understandable that she had more understanding about how to operate the levers of power.
The Blair government was a generational missed opportunity.
Mr Pethers, however, said he was upset by the fact that several people stood by and recorded the incident on their phones, rather than help. ‘The worst part about it was me and the bloke with the rucksack, we were basically baying for his attention so he would not go for anyone else and there were other adult men standing there, just filming it on their phones.
‘There were so many opportunities where someone could have grabbed him. One guy came up to me afterwards and said “well done, I want to shake your hand, you are the only one who did anything, I got the whole thing on film”.
‘I was so angry, I nearly turned on him but I walked away. I thought “Are you crazy? You are standing there filming and did nothing”. I was really angry afterwards. I had to go for a walk for about two hours to calm down.’
This kind of matches with Corbyn's cabinet with all major jobs going to men but claiming a female majority by giving non jobs (without portfolio) or more minor roles to females. Now this.
Corbyn likes his women to be seen but not heard.
My honest impression is he would not care about proportion of jobs to genders at all, and that ideological purity and loyalty would be more important, and it just happens most of those who meet those criteria are men. But in terms of perceptions it looks more sinister than it probably is if a purge like that were to happen.
The Purge - "for 12 hours, all crime deselections are legal"
The headline is "SNP Stand by MP over Tax Scandal' - so much for 'Zero Tolerance'!
Other headlines on this 'nonsense':
SNP MP accused of hypocrisy over tax avoidance HMRC urged to investigate after Phil Boswell, who has been campaigning against tax avoidance, benefited from a legal loophole himself
Nats ‘must probe’ MP Phil Boswell over tax NICOLA Sturgeon faced fresh questions about her control over the SNP last night after one of her MPs admitted cashing in on a tax avoidance scheme.
Mr Pethers, however, said he was upset by the fact that several people stood by and recorded the incident on their phones, rather than help. ‘The worst part about it was me and the bloke with the rucksack, we were basically baying for his attention so he would not go for anyone else and there were other adult men standing there, just filming it on their phones.
‘There were so many opportunities where someone could have grabbed him. One guy came up to me afterwards and said “well done, I want to shake your hand, you are the only one who did anything, I got the whole thing on film”.
‘I was so angry, I nearly turned on him but I walked away. I thought “Are you crazy? You are standing there filming and did nothing”. I was really angry afterwards. I had to go for a walk for about two hours to calm down.’
Maybe I lack your unique 'insight' but the article appears to be about sanctions imposed by the US against individuals purportedly assisting in the Syrian government raising funds that go to help fight IS? To be honest it doesn't seem a great source and the article does nothing to contradict that initial impression. Thanks but I think I will stick to my position that we should support the Syrian government in their battle against IS.
Mr Pethers, however, said he was upset by the fact that several people stood by and recorded the incident on their phones, rather than help. ‘The worst part about it was me and the bloke with the rucksack, we were basically baying for his attention so he would not go for anyone else and there were other adult men standing there, just filming it on their phones.
‘There were so many opportunities where someone could have grabbed him. One guy came up to me afterwards and said “well done, I want to shake your hand, you are the only one who did anything, I got the whole thing on film”.
‘I was so angry, I nearly turned on him but I walked away. I thought “Are you crazy? You are standing there filming and did nothing”. I was really angry afterwards. I had to go for a walk for about two hours to calm down.’
Tw@t filming...I think I would have definitely punched him if he said that.
Tall black man with an Arabic accent? That's strange, last night on here people were saying it was a white man...
San Bernadino Syndrome?
Who said that, I don't remember anybody claiming that on here? I think it was pretty clear what the individual looked like very early on. Speaking of which, least surprising news of the day, guy has been charged with attempted murder.
@gabyhinsliffAt least in their wilderness years the Tories were content with just being unelectable. They didn't actively try to purge electable people.
The fact that there are "headlines" in the unionist press doesn't change anything not least because you are just about the only person who reads them. The story is complete and utter nonsense and your hopes of another MP falling by the wayside shall be dashed.
I still do not understand why the First Minister removed the Thomson person. No other party would have under the circumstances of not even a police investigation into her affairs never mind criminal charges. The McGarrie (Is that her name) I do not know enough about. However this one is nothing and not even the SNP's "holier than thou" type code will remove this one.
The fact that there are "headlines" in the unionist press doesn't change anything not least because you are just about the only person who reads them. The story is complete and utter nonsense and your hopes of another MP falling by the wayside shall be dashed.
Why is it 'nonsense'?
Asserting isn't the same as arguing.
In his previous employment an SNP MP used a scheme to avoid tax.
Nicola says there should be 'zero tolerance' of tax avoidance.
The MP stood up in the HoC and criticised HMG for failure to limit tax avoidance without declaring his own interest
It is nonsense as a story or "scandal" because a) it is legal and b) relates to his previous employment. Parliamentary declarations whether on the register or in the Commons itself relate to current income or interest while an MP not before becoming an MP.
If you do not know that fairly basic information then you should still be wearing L plates on your posts. On the basis of what we know from these "stories" from journalists (some who do not even know the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance) any Revenue investigation would clear him and any standards complaint would be dismissed out of hand.
The fact that you are excited by this nonsense it is just your political hopes overcoming whatever critical faculties you have left after 13,000 foaming at the mouth posts.
The fact that you are excited by this nonsense it is just your political hopes overcoming whatever critical faculties you have left after 13,000 foaming at the mouth posts.
I'm not the one foaming at the mouth dear.....
And thank you for demonstrating that Nat's cant spot
H Y P O C R I S Y
When its one of their own.
And while you're at it, as the loan is still outstanding (and has been declared in his register of interests - so you're wrong on that too) it would have been wise for him to declare it when he was busy attending to the mote in HMG's eye.....otherwise people might think he's a - what's the word?
But nice to see Nicola's 'Zero Tolerance' doesn't extend to SNP MPs.......
Already claims and counter-claims are being made as to how the closure of the bridge has come about, but two things are certain and neither of them absolve the SNP. The first is that the Forth Road Bridge is the sole responsibility of the Scottish Government that has been in power since 2007 and which received a report in 2009 detailing the structural faults that required maintenance.
These were costed at £10m but were then shelved indefinitely. Whatever the reason for the delay in attending to the impending failure of the bridge it is not good enough to pass the blame on to the government’s agency, Transport Scotland......
The second difficulty for ministers is that it was the SNP which introduced the abolition of the tolls on the Forth Road Bridge and was made aware of the impact on public finances when it passed the legislation to do so.
The Forth Road Bridge tolls generated an annual income of £12m that could have gone towards the maintenance of the bridge. This was an important consideration, some £60m has been foregone over the past five years that could have gone towards contracts of £10m to replace those bearings and joints as well as the suspended span painting costing £65m. Blaming Westminster’s austerity economics will not wash when such key decisions are made in Edinburgh
Parliamentary declarations whether on the register or in the Commons itself relate to current income or interest while an MP not before becoming an MP.
If you do not know that fairly basic information then you should still be wearing L plates on your posts.
Really? Then why did he declare it?
Mr Boswell’s register of interest in the House of Commons discloses that he has benefited from an “interest-free” loan £18,308.82, made by Hyrax Resourcing and “now repayable on demand”.
Comments
https://twitter.com/kyleworton/status/673539958737604608
Clement was assistant manager at Chelsea, PSG and Real Madrid, I would love him to come back and bring the kids through.
Current talk is of an Ancelotti and Makelele dream team.
Now here's a joke that I hope you (and other PBers like)
@eddiemarsan: I've had BBC news channel on all day waiting for the guy who does the sign language, to do the story about the flooding in Cockermouth
Euro-notes:
The socialists are withdrawing their lists in Nord and Provence to swing behind the centre-right lists in an attempt to block the FN. The FN are up from 25% to 31%, a useful but possibly insufficient gain for a real breakthrough.
German polls drifting in no particular direction at the moment. The CDU are off the bottom but not yet fully recovered.
A joke? Well UKIP and you certainly make me laugh.
Jeremy Corbyn and his allies have been accused of preparing to mount "sexist purge" of his shadow cabinet amid claims he is planning to sack senior women in the wake of the Syria vote.
The Labour leader is said to be considering the future of six female members of his shadow cabinet including Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, Angela Eagle, the shadow business seccretary and Lucy Powell, the shadow education secretary.
Rosie Winterton, Labour's chief whip who abstained on the Syria vote ,is also being singled out for criticism because of her key role inensuring that he party held a free vote on the issue.
http://bit.ly/1IykWYp
*Innocent Face*
http://bit.ly/1IykWYp
Cleaning up the stables will be quite a treat, especially having Hilary Benn for toast.
Also Scott Brash should have been in. He's achieved more than DuJardin did when she got 4th tbh.
No @ 7/4Will Sepp Blatter see out his full 4 year term as FIFA President?Open
Will Sepp Blatter see out his full 4 year term as FIFA President?
Stake: £14.29Potential Returns: £39.30
Will it come in :P ?
I think this loyalty will be reflected by almost all the Cabinet following his recommendation on the EU ref. Loyalty breeds loyalty in return, just as disloyalty breeds disloyalty in the party opposite.
After all why should Corbyn have such conspiring hateful people who would plunge the knife at any moment around him, better to sack them to have some peace and quiet at the top of the party for a change. Any sane leader would have sacked them long ago.
Goodnight.
Corbyn likes his women to be seen but not heard.
However, I doubt for all his longevity he will be remembered as a particularly great or significant PM (again like Wilson).
Blair got out at the right time, but has trashed his reputation since. Brown has looked increasingly ill suited for anything.
Cameron.... he may do something remarkable after he leaves. You never know.
If he was ice cream he would be vanilla, with the occasional unknown gritty bit that leads you to question its provenance.
It must make some backbenchers a bit restive though. That may make for interesting times when he does step down.
At the heart of this seems to be the Tories' astonishing sense of entitlement. They genuinely seem to think it's an anti-democratic affront whenever anyone opposes one of their policies.
Or any predictions?
If a few back benchers therefore miss out on the opportunity for a try, then that is a small price to pay for the good of the contrary.
Sky+ set....unfortunately it is just the 30 mins. I really wish Panorama would go back to the hour long programmes, especially on topics they have plenty of material to go on.
Dan Hannan is very intelligent and a good speaker but would be unpopular with the country at large. It is pretty rare for British voters to favour radical change. Only Maggie would fit that bill in my lifetime. It is also why Corbyn will never win.
I'm not on twitter, nor have I ever looked at it, nor have I ever posted on the subject to which you are referring.
He's admitted it.
Or is it only "Tax Avoidance" when Tories do it, but "Legitimate Tax Planning" when SNP MPs do it?
So much for Nicola's "zero tolerance"!
But great LOOK SQUIRREL by the way.......
However, I have atleast finally got my head round the difference between JackW and Richard Nabavi.
The Loyalists have undone their own hopes and improved the 56 idea.
But not for SNP MPs it appears.
Where has he claimed he was "forced" to avoid tax? Or are you just making stuff up?
I'm not quite sure how to do that for Scottish government (rather than paying extra to London), but I'm sure it could be done.
On Cameron, I do agree with those that say what he does once he goes will probably define how he is remembered as much as anything he does while he is in office, and that some of his biggest challenges as party leader and PM are upcoming in terms of the EU.
On a more general level, I have usually been pretty forgiving of the guy, though at times his governments have been crappy. Granted, I expect governments in general to be a little crappy, but there has been more incompetence and shifting goals than I would like (even though shifting is sometimes necessary), but it hasn't been disastrous. And that being said, Cameron seems not driven by ideology, is flexible, and willing to take on at least a few big things, which is more appealing to me personally than a fanatic. As I've commented before, he is not, or has not at any rate, been frightening or offputting for most people, and though no-one's favourite, is just likable enough that while he is mocked as insincere and out of touch more than I suspect he likes, it never ruined him and he retained a perception as relatively competent. His opposition has helped with that, and not having to constantly guard against internal moves from his Chancellor as well no doubt, but no easy task nevertheless.
David Cameron: We could have done worse. Probably. The Tory party certainly could have.
Good night.
'The idea he has done something wrong is nonsense. It's a positive story for the SNP. Chap forced to avoid tax due to his contract wants such contracts ended. Perfect role for the SNP and excellent politics.
Cut the bul$hit.
If this 'saint' thought he was prevented from paying enough tax he could donate to Scottish charities.
Mandelson also compares New Labour's readiness for government in 1997 unfavourably with Thatcher in 1979, but then she and team had been in the Cabinet just a few years previously so it's understandable that she had more understanding about how to operate the levers of power.
The Blair government was a generational missed opportunity.
‘There were so many opportunities where someone could have grabbed him. One guy came up to me afterwards and said “well done, I want to shake your hand, you are the only one who did anything, I got the whole thing on film”.
‘I was so angry, I nearly turned on him but I walked away. I thought “Are you crazy? You are standing there filming and did nothing”. I was really angry afterwards. I had to go for a walk for about two hours to calm down.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3348612/How-fought-tube-knifeman-Hero-s-fury-ghouls-stood-filming.html
Tw@t filming...I think I would have definitely punched him if he said that.
crimedeselections are legal"Other headlines on this 'nonsense':
SNP MP accused of hypocrisy over tax avoidance
HMRC urged to investigate after Phil Boswell, who has been campaigning against tax avoidance, benefited from a legal loophole himself
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/12036355/SNP-MP-accused-of-hypocrisy-over-tax-avoidance.html
Investigation urged into tax claims against SNP MP
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/investigation-urged-into-tax-claims-against-snp-mp-1-3968206
Nats ‘must probe’ MP Phil Boswell over tax
NICOLA Sturgeon faced fresh questions about her control over the SNP last night after one of her MPs admitted cashing in on a tax avoidance scheme.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/624673/SMP-SNP-MP-Phil-Boswell-tax-probe
SNP tax critic ‘used avoidance loan’
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article4634237.ece
56
55
54
53?
San Bernadino Syndrome?
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/reports-isis-attacks-ayash-base-following-us-led-airstrikes/
Looks like the US coalition has bombed the people fighting IS, I sincerely hope this wasn't our aircraft.
The fact that there are "headlines" in the unionist press doesn't change anything not least because you are just about the only person who reads them. The story is complete and utter nonsense and your hopes of another MP falling by the wayside shall be dashed.
I still do not understand why the First Minister removed the Thomson person. No other party would have under the circumstances of not even a police investigation into her affairs never mind criminal charges. The McGarrie (Is that her name) I do not know enough about. However this one is nothing and not even the SNP's "holier than thou" type code will remove this one.
It is a nothing story.
Asserting isn't the same as arguing.
In his previous employment an SNP MP used a scheme to avoid tax.
Nicola says there should be 'zero tolerance' of tax avoidance.
The MP stood up in the HoC and criticised HMG for failure to limit tax avoidance without declaring his own interest
Why is it Nats cant spot
H Y P O C R I S Y
when its one of their own?
It is nonsense as a story or "scandal" because a) it is legal and b) relates to his previous employment. Parliamentary declarations whether on the register or in the Commons itself relate to current income or interest while an MP not before becoming an MP.
If you do not know that fairly basic information then you should still be wearing L plates on your posts. On the basis of what we know from these "stories" from journalists (some who do not even know the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance) any Revenue investigation would clear him and any standards complaint would be dismissed out of hand.
The fact that you are excited by this nonsense it is just your political hopes overcoming whatever critical faculties you have left after 13,000 foaming at the mouth posts.
And thank you for demonstrating that Nat's cant spot
H Y P O C R I S Y
When its one of their own.
And while you're at it, as the loan is still outstanding (and has been declared in his register of interests - so you're wrong on that too) it would have been wise for him to declare it when he was busy attending to the mote in HMG's eye.....otherwise people might think he's a - what's the word?
But nice to see Nicola's 'Zero Tolerance' doesn't extend to SNP MPs.......
Already claims and counter-claims are being made as to how the closure of the bridge has come about, but two things are certain and neither of them absolve the SNP. The first is that the Forth Road Bridge is the sole responsibility of the Scottish Government that has been in power since 2007 and which received a report in 2009 detailing the structural faults that required maintenance.
These were costed at £10m but were then shelved indefinitely. Whatever the reason for the delay in attending to the impending failure of the bridge it is not good enough to pass the blame on to the government’s agency, Transport Scotland......
The second difficulty for ministers is that it was the SNP which introduced the abolition of the tolls on the Forth Road Bridge and was made aware of the impact on public finances when it passed the legislation to do so.
The Forth Road Bridge tolls generated an annual income of £12m that could have gone towards the maintenance of the bridge. This was an important consideration, some £60m has been foregone over the past five years that could have gone towards contracts of £10m to replace those bearings and joints as well as the suspended span painting costing £65m. Blaming Westminster’s austerity economics will not wash when such key decisions are made in Edinburgh
http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-monteith-is-forth-fiasco-bridge-too-far-for-snp-1-3968160
Mr Boswell’s register of interest in the House of Commons discloses that he has benefited from an “interest-free” loan £18,308.82, made by Hyrax Resourcing and “now repayable on demand”.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/investigation-urged-into-tax-claims-against-snp-mp-1-3968206
Who should be wearing the 'L-Plates'?
now may be a good time to back stoke to finish as top midlands club
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/top-midlands-club
(NB this post may be subject to bias and wishful thinking, so DYOR!)