Nick- I think it reflects the fact that McDonnell is incredibly likeable, charming and has a joie de vivre that is sadly lacking amongst politicians.
The Labour membership discussion is interesting- at the last leadership election if Abbot had stood as the left wing candidate, she would have secured fewer votes than Liz Kendell. Corbyn caught that wave of optimism for a new kind of politics after the terrible calamity of Miliband who really was quite unappealing and drove many of your swing voters in Broxtowe into the arms of Soubry.
I think if Labour can present an appealing candidate at the next election- obviously not Corbyn who is just too inflexible, and a little bit dim, but also charmless.
I might give McDonnell a better look you know. He strikes me as someone who could change to suit the electoral mood, unlike his current boss.
Sort of on topic, Labour List (which is quite a good bellwether for Labour - not noticeably attached to any strand of opinion) has surveyed its readers on what they think of shadow cabinet members. This isn't noticeably ideological - McDonnell is top, which I think reflects his fluency in a period where fluent speakers are in rather short supply, but the almost as high-profile and left-wing Abbott is bottom - and as I suggested downthread, Hilary Benn isn't unpopular either.
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
There are two types of undecideds on here; those who genuinely want to consider the options, and those who are going through the charade that Cameron may well campaign for Leave after all.
This isn't noticeably ideological - McDonnell is top, which I think reflects his fluency in a period where fluent speakers are in rather short supply.
Isn't it simply because he is Corbyn's man? His fluency and general performance has been poor IMO, typified by the little red book incident.
McDonnell's open support for IRA terrorism is always going to be a major negative for Labour while he occupies a position of responsibility in the party. The fact that people like Nick are prepared to overlook it is genuinely shocking IMO.
Whilst this is a big issue for people of my age and upwards (I'm 51), I can't help but think the IRA think may not be such a big deal for a growing segment of voters. You'd have to be at least 40 to have any serious memories of IRA activities (ceasefire in 1994). This is ancient history to someone in their early 20s.
Nick- I think it reflects the fact that McDonnell is incredibly likeable, charming and has a joie de vivre that is sadly lacking amongst politicians.
The Labour membership discussion is interesting- at the last leadership election if Abbot had stood as the left wing candidate, she would have secured fewer votes than Liz Kendell. Corbyn caught that wave of optimism for a new kind of politics after the terrible calamity of Miliband who really was quite unappealing and drove many of your swing voters in Broxtowe into the arms of Soubry.
I think if Labour can present an appealing candidate at the next election- obviously not Corbyn who is just too inflexible, and a little bit dim, but also charmless.
I might give McDonnell a better look you know. He strikes me as someone who could change to suit the electoral mood, unlike his current boss.
Sort of on topic, Labour List (which is quite a good bellwether for Labour - not noticeably attached to any strand of opinion) has surveyed its readers on what they think of shadow cabinet members. This isn't noticeably ideological - McDonnell is top, which I think reflects his fluency in a period where fluent speakers are in rather short supply, but the almost as high-profile and left-wing Abbott is bottom - and as I suggested downthread, Hilary Benn isn't unpopular either.
They weren't Palmer's swing voters as such, since he lost in 2010.
This isn't noticeably ideological - McDonnell is top, which I think reflects his fluency in a period where fluent speakers are in rather short supply.
Isn't it simply because he is Corbyn's man? His fluency and general performance has been poor IMO, typified by the little red book incident.
McDonnell's open support for IRA terrorism is always going to be a major negative for Labour while he occupies a position of responsibility in the party. The fact that people like Nick are prepared to overlook it is genuinely shocking IMO.
Whilst this is a big issue for people of my age and upwards (I'm 51), I can't help but think the IRA think may not be such a big deal for a growing segment of voters. You'd have to be at least 40 to have any serious memories of IRA activities (ceasefire in 1994). This is ancient history to someone in their early 20s.
Indeed, but you have to remember of those age groups which one votes?
Plus the IRA comments on their own might not be an issue, but when coupled with recent comments about Jihadi John, ISIS, The Falklands, you can see how their opponents can spin a pattern about Jez and McDonnell being a risk to national security.
Indigo- it so obvious that this is the way things are going to go. Future generations will not think of liberty or choice. They'll be much healthier and not quite understand how their predecessors made such poor choices with their health.
Preventative health is the way forward. A sugar tax is the start- in the future our dietary intake and movement will be entirely regulated and monitored through simple trackers- the technology is there, it is only a matter of time before it is implemented. Over the next forty years the health service will be transformed due to technology- and mostly will be shifted down into prevention.
If we cannot take responsibility for our own care and health then the government will do it for us.
I didn't have you down as a totalitarian. You have just in effect made the argument for inserting an RFID chip into everyone at birth, the modern equivalent of tattooing a bar-code on their arm.
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
The lying unionist almost got what was coming to him , at least he will be a minimum £150K lighter in his pocket for his nastiness.
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
This isn't noticeably ideological - McDonnell is top, which I think reflects his fluency in a period where fluent speakers are in rather short supply.
Isn't it simply because he is Corbyn's man? His fluency and general performance has been poor IMO, typified by the little red book incident.
I agree he blew the red book thing, but in Parliamentary debating terms he's had a number of reasonable successes, and to my (naturally entirely unbiased) eye he always seems reasonable on TV. He's not as saintly and guileless as Jeremy, as he cheerfully admits ("I'm doing the niceness course from Jeremy but I'm only halfway through") but rather more grounded in realpolitik - in that, he reminds me of Ed Balls. Diane Abbott is just as closely associated with Jeremy, but got the opposite result in the same poll.
Opinions differ obviously, but my point is that members are not quite as ideologically committed as one might think. A poll showing Benn more popular than Abbott and McDonnell more popular than Benn, with the same audience, shows nuance in play.
This isn't noticeably ideological - McDonnell is top, which I think reflects his fluency in a period where fluent speakers are in rather short supply.
Isn't it simply because he is Corbyn's man? His fluency and general performance has been poor IMO, typified by the little red book incident.
McDonnell's open support for IRA terrorism is always going to be a major negative for Labour while he occupies a position of responsibility in the party. The fact that people like Nick are prepared to overlook it is genuinely shocking IMO.
Whilst this is a big issue for people of my age and upwards (I'm 51), I can't help but think the IRA think may not be such a big deal for a growing segment of voters. You'd have to be at least 40 to have any serious memories of IRA activities (ceasefire in 1994). This is ancient history to someone in their early 20s.
Indeed, but you have to remember of those age groups which one votes?
Plus the IRA comments on their own might not be an issue, but when coupled with recent comments about Jihadi John, ISIS, The Falklands, you can see how their opponents can spin a pattern about Jez and McDonnell being a risk to national security.
Ah yes, but don't forget the Corbynista will be bringing out the 20-something voters in a massive revolutionary wave at GE 2020. :-)
Second, tobacco usage. This link shows that as price has gone up in the UK, sales of full tax cigarettes have fallen from 99 billion in 1990 to just 35 billion in 2014 while sales of untaxed cigarettes have risen from 3.5bn in 1990 to 25.2bn in 2000 before falling back to 5.7bn in 2014 (presumably on the basis of efforts by HMG to cut down on smuggled cigarettes). Again, a very clear fall in consumption and - a tell-tale sign of price sensitivity - a switch to untaxed smuggled cigarettes once tax goes up. http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/uk-cigarette-consumption/
I take issue with this one. Firstly you cannot take price in isolation, at the same time as these price hikes there were huge efforts to make smoking socially unacceptable, most companies introduced no-smoking policies, then we had legal changes for no smoking in the workplace or other public areas, then we had attempts to make unlawful smoking in private vehicles in the presence of other people or children.
It is hardly a surprise that people started to use a cheaper version of a commodity when it became available, in the same way as people go on "booze cruises" to Calais. Hence my suggestion that a tax on sugary drinks will mostly cause people to obtain their sugar fix from candies, chocolate etc instead.
Politically I am more at the libertarian end of the spectrum, I don't particularly object to people being unhealthy if that is how they want to lead their lives, it is just unacceptable for them to impose the costs of that choice on other people.
PS. Of course, price is not the only thing that affects consumption - opportunity to consume and legislation both do too (all forms of positive and negative consequences play into behaviour). But your statement that 'it is hardly a surprise that people started to use a cheaper version' proves my point and disproves your original assertion that price has no affect. It does as you yourself point out.
That substitution happens does not undermine the logic of a sugar tax. It just means that if it is to be effective, the legislation should be expanded to cover substitutes, such as candies and chocolates.
Dead cat tactics only work when there isn't a connection between the dead cat and what you're distracting from. Problem for Cameron is that the dead cat and bad EU deal have common thread of Cameron obviously saying stuff he knows is untrue. It remind me of Gordon Brown saying polls didn't affect his election decision. We don't mind politicians bending the truth, but when its so blatant we don't like our intelligence being insulted.
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
The lying unionist almost got what was coming to him , at least he will be a minimum £150K lighter in his pocket for his nastiness.
No fan of Carmichael but what is to stop this happing at the next GE in every seat ?
Raise enough money and you can effectively fine the winning MP £150k for having the temerity to win.
This isn't noticeably ideological - McDonnell is top, which I think reflects his fluency in a period where fluent speakers are in rather short supply.
Isn't it simply because he is Corbyn's man? His fluency and general performance has been poor IMO, typified by the little red book incident.
McDonnell's open support for IRA terrorism is always going to be a major negative for Labour while he occupies a position of responsibility in the party. The fact that people like Nick are prepared to overlook it is genuinely shocking IMO.
Whilst this is a big issue for people of my age and upwards (I'm 51), I can't help but think the IRA think may not be such a big deal for a growing segment of voters. You'd have to be at least 40 to have any serious memories of IRA activities (ceasefire in 1994). This is ancient history to someone in their early 20s.
Most of the actually voting electorate is over 40.
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
The lying unionist almost got what was coming to him , at least he will be a minimum £150K lighter in his pocket for his nastiness.
No fan of Carmichael but what is to stop this happing at the next GE in every seat ?
Raise enough money and you can effectively fine the winning MP £150k for having the temerity to win.
Sinister.
I think this is a unique case, because the original court found he had told a clear and palpable lie, but it wasn't about his opponent in his seat.
This isn't noticeably ideological - McDonnell is top, which I think reflects his fluency in a period where fluent speakers are in rather short supply.
Isn't it simply because he is Corbyn's man? His fluency and general performance has been poor IMO, typified by the little red book incident.
I agree he blew the red book thing, but in Parliamentary debating terms he's had a number of reasonable successes, and to my (naturally entirely unbiased) eye he always seems reasonable on TV. He's not as saintly and guileless as Jeremy, as he cheerfully admits ("I'm doing the niceness course from Jeremy but I'm only halfway through") but rather more grounded in realpolitik - in that, he reminds me of Ed Balls. Diane Abbott is just as closely associated with Jeremy, but got the opposite result in the same poll.
Opinions differ obviously, but my point is that members are not quite as ideologically committed as one might think. A poll showing Benn more popular than Abbott and McDonnell more popular than Benn, with the same audience, shows nuance in play.
"this video allows you to perceive john mcdonnell from the point of view of someone who wants a labour government ever again"
But if you demand a National Health Service on the taxpayers' bill, then you have no moral or logical ground against the taxpayer, as represented by HMG, demanding things of you to reduce the cost of said national health service. Otherwise moral hazard will make the service unaffordable.
Strangely I don't ;-) Having watched the NHS misdiagnose, mishandle, and miss-care for my father in his final months of cancer "care", including the whole Liverpool Care Pathway idiocy, we then had to go through a disgraceful charade in which they attempted to avoid the complaints we made after his death, culminating in "losing" his records so we were unable to take matters further. I have very little time for the NHS.
Well, as libertarians both, on that we agree. And then your objections to a sugar tax, like mine, are ideologically consistent.
Indigo- it so obvious that this is the way things are going to go. Future generations will not think of liberty or choice. They'll be much healthier and not quite understand how their predecessors made such poor choices with their health.
Preventative health is the way forward. A sugar tax is the start- in the future our dietary intake and movement will be entirely regulated and monitored through simple trackers- the technology is there, it is only a matter of time before it is implemented. Over the next forty years the health service will be transformed due to technology- and mostly will be shifted down into prevention.
If we cannot take responsibility for our own care and health then the government will do it for us.
I didn't have you down as a totalitarian. You have just in effect made the argument for inserting an RFID chip into everyone at birth, the modern equivalent of tattooing a bar-code on their arm.
Perhaps. OTOH, if you take responsibility for their choices away from people, the likelihood that they will make bad choices increases.
Indigo- it so obvious that this is the way things are going to go. Future generations will not think of liberty or choice. They'll be much healthier and not quite understand how their predecessors made such poor choices with their health.
Preventative health is the way forward. A sugar tax is the start- in the future our dietary intake and movement will be entirely regulated and monitored through simple trackers- the technology is there, it is only a matter of time before it is implemented. Over the next forty years the health service will be transformed due to technology- and mostly will be shifted down into prevention.
If we cannot take responsibility for our own care and health then the government will do it for us.
I didn't have you down as a totalitarian. You have just in effect made the argument for inserting an RFID chip into everyone at birth, the modern equivalent of tattooing a bar-code on their arm.
Sounds like the future world in Demolition Man. There will probably be automatic fines for bad language as well... anyone know how to use the shells ?
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
The lying unionist almost got what was coming to him , at least he will be a minimum £150K lighter in his pocket for his nastiness.
No fan of Carmichael but what is to stop this happing at the next GE in every seat ?
Raise enough money and you can effectively fine the winning MP £150k for having the temerity to win.
Sinister.
I think this is a unique case, because the original court found he had told a clear and palpable lie, but it wasn't about his opponent in his seat.
But all candidates can now be threatened before the election not to mention anything that may turn out not to be true in the future otherwise their money machine will come after them.
I'd have found the Orkney 4 to be vexatious litigants and ordered them to pay the entire costs.
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
The lying unionist almost got what was coming to him , at least he will be a minimum £150K lighter in his pocket for his nastiness.
No fan of Carmichael but what is to stop this happing at the next GE in every seat ?
Raise enough money and you can effectively fine the winning MP £150k for having the temerity to win.
Sinister.
Costs are a means by which the court can express its views on the morals of the case being brought and defended. It was apparent from the judgment that the court was unimpressed with Alistair Carmichael, even if he won on the point of law. This costs order presumably flows from that.
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
The lying unionist almost got what was coming to him , at least he will be a minimum £150K lighter in his pocket for his nastiness.
No fan of Carmichael but what is to stop this happing at the next GE in every seat ?
Raise enough money and you can effectively fine the winning MP £150k for having the temerity to win.
Sinister.
Costs are a means by which the court can express its views on the morals of the case being brought and defended. It was apparent from the judgment that the court was unimpressed with Alistair Carmichael, even if he won on the point of law. This costs order presumably flows from that.
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
The lying unionist almost got what was coming to him , at least he will be a minimum £150K lighter in his pocket for his nastiness.
No fan of Carmichael but what is to stop this happing at the next GE in every seat ?
Raise enough money and you can effectively fine the winning MP £150k for having the temerity to win.
Sinister.
I think this is a unique case, because the original court found he had told a clear and palpable lie, but it wasn't about his opponent in his seat.
But all candidates can now be threatened before the election not to mention anything that may turn out not to be true in the future otherwise their money machine will come after them.
I'd have found the Orkney 4 to be vexatious litigants and ordered them to pay the entire costs.
I'd be extremely worried about our legal system if the Orkney 4 had been found to be 'vexatious' in their litigation. Look up SISU / Coventry council / Ricoh stadium if you want to see an example of 'vexatious' litigation.
The Tories obviously cant be trusted on the economy either so we might as well be nice to people ?
Tory campaign slogan - 'Labour are only nice to Irish terrorists, Argentinian fascists, Islamists and Holocaust deniers. They want to put you at risk to help their friends by scrapping trident and hamstringing the police.'
Xenophobic, hypocritical, somewhat accurate and likely to have considerable traction outside the big conurbations.
Those of us living in large conurbations, which are at risk from varieties of terrorists are not at all enamoured with Labour's direction of travel.
Never mind Labour councils scuttling round in taxis delivering redundancy notices. We now have Labour leaders scuttling round having their photos taken with terrorist appeasers and their friends and praising terrorists. That's where this brand of left-wing dogma gets you.
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
The lying unionist almost got what was coming to him , at least he will be a minimum £150K lighter in his pocket for his nastiness.
No fan of Carmichael but what is to stop this happing at the next GE in every seat ?
Raise enough money and you can effectively fine the winning MP £150k for having the temerity to win.
Sinister.
Costs are a means by which the court can express its views on the morals of the case being brought and defended. It was apparent from the judgment that the court was unimpressed with Alistair Carmichael, even if he won on the point of law. This costs order presumably flows from that.
As I said - politicised judgements...
There's nothing especially political about deciding that a proven liar should feel some of the pain.
Speaking to an Irish lady who's living in France who seems to think the consenus is that Europe would be better off without the UK. My feeling is that no one outside of the UK even knows about the vote and those that do couldn't care less. What a pathetic whiny country England is!
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
The lying unionist almost got what was coming to him , at least he will be a minimum £150K lighter in his pocket for his nastiness.
No fan of Carmichael but what is to stop this happing at the next GE in every seat ?
Raise enough money and you can effectively fine the winning MP £150k for having the temerity to win.
Sinister.
Costs are a means by which the court can express its views on the morals of the case being brought and defended. It was apparent from the judgment that the court was unimpressed with Alistair Carmichael, even if he won on the point of law. This costs order presumably flows from that.
As I said - politicised judgements...
Don’t think it’s politicised – more like a libel case where the plaintiff is awarded a shilling.
Speaking to an Irish lady who's living in France who seems to think the consenus is that Europe would be better off without the UK. My feeling is that no one outside of the UK even knows about the vote and those that do couldn't care less. What a pathetic whiny country England is!
Perhaps you would be better off without the UK too.
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
The lying unionist almost got what was coming to him , at least he will be a minimum £150K lighter in his pocket for his nastiness.
No fan of Carmichael but what is to stop this happing at the next GE in every seat ?
Raise enough money and you can effectively fine the winning MP £150k for having the temerity to win.
Sinister.
I think this is a unique case, because the original court found he had told a clear and palpable lie, but it wasn't about his opponent in his seat.
But all candidates can now be threatened before the election not to mention anything that may turn out not to be true in the future otherwise their money machine will come after them.
I'd have found the Orkney 4 to be vexatious litigants and ordered them to pay the entire costs.
I'd be extremely worried about our legal system if the Orkney 4 had been found to be 'vexatious' in their litigation. Look up SISU / Coventry council / Ricoh stadium if you want to see an example of 'vexatious' litigation.
Oh come on - if he did fib it didn't shift a single vote and definitely didn't hurt nor harm the good people of Orkney. He wasn't the first or last MP or minister to do so. Nor would any of the Orkney 4 brought the case if he had been an SNP MP.
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
The lying unionist almost got what was coming to him , at least he will be a minimum £150K lighter in his pocket for his nastiness.
No fan of Carmichael but what is to stop this happing at the next GE in every seat ?
Raise enough money and you can effectively fine the winning MP £150k for having the temerity to win.
Sinister.
I think this is a unique case, because the original court found he had told a clear and palpable lie, but it wasn't about his opponent in his seat.
It's a difficult one. I remember during the Rochester by-election, some election literature was posted for Mark Reckless that said he'd been the Chief Economist at a large investment banks in his mid 20s, a claim that was clearly untrue. He'd worked in the economics department, yes, but I suspect that subsequent edits by people in his campaign team kept bumping his title (without realising that this had already happened...)
Was it a deliberate lie? Probably not. Did it affect the result? Almost certainly not.
I'm sure that if you hunted through all the literature and every speech of every MP, you would be able to find something untrue in every case. What should the hurdle be for prosecution?
Indigo- it so obvious that this is the way things are going to go. Future generations will not think of liberty or choice. They'll be much healthier and not quite understand how their predecessors made such poor choices with their health.
Preventative health is the way forward. A sugar tax is the start- in the future our dietary intake and movement will be entirely regulated and monitored through simple trackers- the technology is there, it is only a matter of time before it is implemented. Over the next forty years the health service will be transformed due to technology- and mostly will be shifted down into prevention.
If we cannot take responsibility for our own care and health then the government will do it for us.
I didn't have you down as a totalitarian. You have just in effect made the argument for inserting an RFID chip into everyone at birth, the modern equivalent of tattooing a bar-code on their arm.
Sounds like the future world in Demolition Man. There will probably be automatic fines for bad language as well... anyone know how to use the shells ?
Indeed. First you tax food and activities according to what Nanny Government thinks is good and bad. Then you regulate, then you criminalize.
We start with clearly 'bad' things, such as cigarettes, drugs and booze. The arguments made are both health and public good (the cost of treating, the economic argument). At some point mission creep gets to deciding for us whether we are allowed to rock climb, scuba dive, sky dive.
This is stultifying. All skills acquisition and progress is based on experimentation and risk-taking. If, in the name of health, we prohibit risk-taking 'for our own good' or 'to reduce the economic burden to the state', then it is the end of our modern concept of a technology-based society, let alone the end of democratic freedoms and civil liberties.
Speaking to an Irish lady who's living in France who seems to think the consenus is that Europe would be better off without the UK. My feeling is that no one outside of the UK even knows about the vote and those that do couldn't care less. What a pathetic whiny country England is!
Perhaps you would be better off without the UK too.
Feel free to leave.
Unlikely. He doesn't want to pay M. Hollande's higher taxes.
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
The lying unionist almost got what was coming to him , at least he will be a minimum £150K lighter in his pocket for his nastiness.
No fan of Carmichael but what is to stop this happing at the next GE in every seat ?
Raise enough money and you can effectively fine the winning MP £150k for having the temerity to win.
Sinister.
I think this is a unique case, because the original court found he had told a clear and palpable lie, but it wasn't about his opponent in his seat.
But all candidates can now be threatened before the election not to mention anything that may turn out not to be true in the future otherwise their money machine will come after them.
I'd have found the Orkney 4 to be vexatious litigants and ordered them to pay the entire costs.
I'd be extremely worried about our legal system if the Orkney 4 had been found to be 'vexatious' in their litigation. Look up SISU / Coventry council / Ricoh stadium if you want to see an example of 'vexatious' litigation.
Oh come on - if he did fib it didn't shift a single vote and definitely didn't hurt nor harm the good people of Orkney. He wasn't the first or last MP or minister to do so. Nor would any of the Orkney 4 brought the case if he had been an SNP MP.
It was a purely political case.
Don't you need to litigate repeatedly and to no purpose to be declared vexatious. My understanding was that the courts were very reluctant to do it.
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
The lying unionist almost got what was coming to him , at least he will be a minimum £150K lighter in his pocket for his nastiness.
No fan of Carmichael but what is to stop this happing at the next GE in every seat ?
Raise enough money and you can effectively fine the winning MP £150k for having the temerity to win.
Sinister.
If MP's do not lie and smear to try and gain advantage then it will happen to no-one. Judge said it was due to him having lied through his teeth.
Comments
The Labour membership discussion is interesting- at the last leadership election if Abbot had stood as the left wing candidate, she would have secured fewer votes than Liz Kendell. Corbyn caught that wave of optimism for a new kind of politics after the terrible calamity of Miliband who really was quite unappealing and drove many of your swing voters in Broxtowe into the arms of Soubry.
I think if Labour can present an appealing candidate at the next election- obviously not Corbyn who is just too inflexible, and a little bit dim, but also charmless.
I might give McDonnell a better look you know. He strikes me as someone who could change to suit the electoral mood, unlike his current boss.
I think its obvious to all which is which.
Do you share McDonnell's views on terrorism too?
Plus the IRA comments on their own might not be an issue, but when coupled with recent comments about Jihadi John, ISIS, The Falklands, you can see how their opponents can spin a pattern about Jez and McDonnell being a risk to national security.
Opinions differ obviously, but my point is that members are not quite as ideologically committed as one might think. A poll showing Benn more popular than Abbott and McDonnell more popular than Benn, with the same audience, shows nuance in play.
PS. Of course, price is not the only thing that affects consumption - opportunity to consume and legislation both do too (all forms of positive and negative consequences play into behaviour). But your statement that 'it is hardly a surprise that people started to use a cheaper version' proves my point and disproves your original assertion that price has no affect. It does as you yourself point out.
That substitution happens does not undermine the logic of a sugar tax. It just means that if it is to be effective, the legislation should be expanded to cover substitutes, such as candies and chocolates.
Raise enough money and you can effectively fine the winning MP £150k for having the temerity to win.
Sinister.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRWYoAAMVq0
I'd have found the Orkney 4 to be vexatious litigants and ordered them to pay the entire costs.
Never mind Labour councils scuttling round in taxis delivering redundancy notices. We now have Labour leaders scuttling round having their photos taken with terrorist appeasers and their friends and praising terrorists. That's where this brand of left-wing dogma gets you.
New Thread New Thread
Feel free to leave.
It was a purely political case.
Was it a deliberate lie? Probably not.
Did it affect the result? Almost certainly not.
I'm sure that if you hunted through all the literature and every speech of every MP, you would be able to find something untrue in every case. What should the hurdle be for prosecution?
We start with clearly 'bad' things, such as cigarettes, drugs and booze. The arguments made are both health and public good (the cost of treating, the economic argument). At some point mission creep gets to deciding for us whether we are allowed to rock climb, scuba dive, sky dive.
This is stultifying. All skills acquisition and progress is based on experimentation and risk-taking. If, in the name of health, we prohibit risk-taking 'for our own good' or 'to reduce the economic burden to the state', then it is the end of our modern concept of a technology-based society, let alone the end of democratic freedoms and civil liberties.