Has the wake finished on the BBC yet over the closure of The Indy. If you ever wanted to hear what the worst of out of touch liberal metros sounds like you only had to hear the circle jerk over the closure of the Indy. Which bit of NOBODY READ IT don't they understand. Instead it was all about moaning over "race to the bottom, Daily Mail, Daily Mail, huff puff huff puff huff puff" and "where will we get our serious journalism from".
Remember the days when we used to look forward to polls as if they had some significance ?
Yeah but this could be the final ever IOS/ComRes poll. Sad face.
Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many.
Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many
that just makes PBers sound saddos.
We are saddos!
Speak for yourself I pride myself that unlike you I'm not one of those posters who would drone on and on about a single issue or politician and just not let it go.
*cough cough "
My sole obsession is winding up the Nats and Kippers AV
I thought it was Olivia Wilde ?
She is one of my many female obsessions. She made Tron 2 bearable.
If Sanders is at 8/1 for the presidency that is great value as he not only is neck and neck with Hillary for the nomination but has a 9% lead over Trump in the RCP poll average for the general election
Nobody has attacked Sanders yet. You'd have to believe that Americans will elect a socialist to the White House which is a stretch belief Particularly versus Trump who shares most moderate voters' beliefs, perhaps in an undignified way but still not a socialist
Trump will have the white male vote, Sanders the Hispanic, female and black vote. Against Rubio Sanders would probably lose, Rubio has a narrow lead over Bernie in the RCP poll average but against Trump anything could happen and it is Trump who is likely to be GOP nominee. He is certainly great value at 8/1
It was only among Republican voters in a not-very-representative state, but Trump won every meaningful demographic in New Hampshire: age, gender, education and so on. There weren't enough non-white voters to produce division by race but it won't be anything like that simple.
You also have to factor the risk of Bloomberg entering into a Sanders-Trump race.
If it is Clinton vs Trump vs Bloomberg, then it'll be:
A New York liberal Senator
vs
A New York liberal Jewish Mayor
vs
A New York liberal property developer
Trump is more "moderate" than "liberal" these days in the US scheme of politics don't you think ?
Trump was in favour of the Obama deal with Iran -> liberal Trump is in favour of gun control -> liberal Trump believes abortion should be legal -> liberal Trump believes in socialised medicine -> liberal
@georgeeaton: Labour have just sent an email asking for PMQs questions for "this Wednesday". Parliament is in recess.
Nearly as good as that "Bedroom Tax, Bedroom Tax, I can't move home when I retire because of Bedroom Tax"...Cameron..."Spare Room Subsidiary doesn't apply to retired people"..NEEEXTTT.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Remember the days when we used to look forward to polls as if they had some significance ?
Yeah but this could be the final ever IOS/ComRes poll. Sad face.
Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many.
Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many
that just makes PBers sound saddos.
We are saddos!
Speak for yourself I pride myself that unlike you I'm not one of those posters who would drone on and on about a single issue or politician and just not let it go.
*cough cough "
My sole obsession is winding up the Nats and Kippers AV
I thought it was Olivia Wilde ?
She is one of my many female obsessions. She made Tron 2 bearable.
Oborne on Osborne. "Let’s try a mental experiment. Let’s imagine that Britain was a public company and the finance director also ran human relations, marketing, PR and strategy — all the while intriguing to take over as chief executive. There would be an almighty row. Shareholders wouldn’t allow it. They would insist the finance director focused to the exclusion of all else on making certain that the accounts were properly maintained. Mr Osborne, of course, is not the finance director of a public company where he would be held to account by the other directors and the shareholders. He is responsible for the economy of a country with more than 30 million working people. One error of judgment by the Chancellor and hundreds of thousands lose their jobs." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3445135/PETER-OBORNE-Cameron-axe-George-doesn-t-stop-juggling-jobs.html
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
My understanding is that the Saudis and Turks are both are worried about the successes the Russian/Iranian backed Syrian forces are having and the lack of any effective opposition on the ground. The Saudis are considering putting ground forces into the conflict directly and assuming they would have Turkish and NATO air support. In this instance I am not sure that RT are exaggerating.
If it is Clinton vs Trump vs Bloomberg, then it'll be:
A New York liberal Senator
vs
A New York liberal Jewish Mayor
vs
A New York liberal property developer
Trump is more "moderate" than "liberal" these days in the US scheme of politics don't you think ?
Trump was in favour of the Obama deal with Iran -> liberal Trump is in favour of gun control -> liberal Trump believes abortion should be legal -> liberal Trump believes in socialised medicine -> liberal
Trump believes in building walls between the US and Mexico -> not quite so liberal
@georgeeaton: Labour have just sent an email asking for PMQs questions for "this Wednesday". Parliament is in recess.
Genuine LOL! They really are that incompetent, and if ever there were a time when the government could really do with a serious Opposition to focus their minds.
If it is Clinton vs Trump vs Bloomberg, then it'll be:
A New York liberal Senator
vs
A New York liberal Jewish Mayor
vs
A New York liberal property developer
Trump is more "moderate" than "liberal" these days in the US scheme of politics don't you think ?
Trump was in favour of the Obama deal with Iran -> liberal Trump is in favour of gun control -> liberal Trump believes abortion should be legal -> liberal Trump believes in socialised medicine -> liberal
Trump believes in building walls between the US and Mexico -> not quite so liberal
If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.
If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.
Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side
I am talking here about acting fair within his own party. Loyalty has to be earned to be given. After the referendum whoever wins Cameron has to go.
No! If Remain wins, he has beaten the main strand of opinion in his party that never really supported him. Why does he have to go because of sore losers - normally, sore losers on PB get told that those are the rules and that the other side won?
I would have thought that was obvious... because there will be enough sore losers writing letters to the 1922 to trigger a leadership challenge, and he is hardly likely to stand in a leadership contest only to step down 6-12 months later anyway.
Why wouldn't he? It would take a huge degree of self-sacrificial behaviour to step down, in the face of a challenge by the losing side, assuming that they get behind a Sceptic who would be the front-runner absent Cameron. Dare I say it would also be bad for the party to appoint a partisan from the losing side in the heat of its anger
That side wont lose from Conservative votes. Dave is leading the side supported by substantially less than half his party, and quite a lot of the supporters are supporting Dave, not the EU. He wont enter the contest if he can't win it, that will depend how pissed off his eurosceptics (and more so the waverers that trusted him to get something) get with the paucity of his renegotiation, and the level of lies and general bullshit between now and then.
If it is Clinton vs Trump vs Bloomberg, then it'll be:
A New York liberal Senator
vs
A New York liberal Jewish Mayor
vs
A New York liberal property developer
Trump is more "moderate" than "liberal" these days in the US scheme of politics don't you think ?
Trump was in favour of the Obama deal with Iran -> liberal Trump is in favour of gun control -> liberal Trump believes abortion should be legal -> liberal Trump believes in socialised medicine -> liberal
Trump believes in building walls between the US and Mexico -> not quite so liberal
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
My understanding is that the Saudis and Turks are both are worried about the successes the Russian/Iranian backed Syrian forces are having and the lack of any effective opposition on the ground. The Saudis are considering putting ground forces into the conflict directly and assuming they would have Turkish and NATO air support. In this instance I am not sure that RT are exaggerating.
That's a little, er, unnerving to read, currently being based not a million miles away from there. In fact, not a thousand miles from there!
Remember the days when we used to look forward to polls as if they had some significance ?
Yeah but this could be the final ever IOS/ComRes poll. Sad face.
Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many.
Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many
that just makes PBers sound saddos.
We are saddos!
Speak for yourself I pride myself that unlike you I'm not one of those posters who would drone on and on about a single issue or politician and just not let it go.
*cough cough "
My sole obsession is winding up the Nats and Kippers AV
I thought it was Olivia Wilde ?
She is one of my many female obsessions. She made Tron 2 bearable.
Thank you, as always, for the piece, David and an article with which I almost wholly and completely disagree (perhaps that's the aim).
What have British Conservatives got against Hillary Clinton? Once again, we have another Conservative member and activist who seems virulently anti-Clinton. Is it because the Conservatives backed the wrong horse in 1992 and we know relations between the Clinton White House and the Major Government were never that good or is it because Hillary had the temerity to say nice things about David Miliband rather than praising Hague to the skies ?
It's hard to see Clinton failing to win the Dem nomination - yes, Sanders did well in IA and NH as he should have done and it's always fun to see Eric Bolling spit out the words "democratic socialist" with real venom but Sanders won't cut it in other areas. He may well win 40% of the delegates given the proportional nature of the Dem contest.
On the GOP side, it may well be Trump as the anti-Trump forces bicker among themselves - were the Donald facing a single coherent GOP candidate, he'd struggle but he faces a plethora of selling platers who are tripping over each other to finish a poor second. As to the degree to which a reluctant GOP mainstream will rally round Trump, we'll see. I suspect their hatred of Hillary will overcome their dislike of the Donald.
Bloomberg won't enter if it's Trump vs Clinton - he probably would if it were Trump vs Sanders but even then I wonder which states he would win because getting 30% everywhere gets you zilch in the US system. Would Bloomberg win Ohio or Michigan or Florida in a Trump vs Sanders contest ?
The Trump vs Clinton debates will be great television (I hope). I wonder how the American public will view the choice between President Mother-In-Law and President Ranting Neighbour.
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Seems like a statement of the bleeding obvious. The main enemy of the Saudis in Syria is Assad. If the Saudis send in troops to fight against their enemy's troops, their enemy's troops will end up fighting their troops.
Oborne on Osborne. "Let’s try a mental experiment. Let’s imagine that Britain was a public company and the finance director also ran human relations, marketing, PR and strategy — all the while intriguing to take over as chief executive. There would be an almighty row. Shareholders wouldn’t allow it. They would insist the finance director focused to the exclusion of all else on making certain that the accounts were properly maintained. Mr Osborne, of course, is not the finance director of a public company where he would be held to account by the other directors and the shareholders. He is responsible for the economy of a country with more than 30 million working people. One error of judgment by the Chancellor and hundreds of thousands lose their jobs." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3445135/PETER-OBORNE-Cameron-axe-George-doesn-t-stop-juggling-jobs.html
And we have an Opposition tasked with holding to account the...oh, hang on - Labour decided to go with internecine warfare instead of protecting the interests of those 30 million working people. It is currently the (ironically named) Labour Party.....
The problem the Scottish government faces is that if they want to include the oil revenues going to them in the good times, they also have to accept the lack of them when the price falls. Any deal done now on the basis that oil revenues belong to Scotland will see them significantly worse off, which they will never be able to sell to the electorate. Hence the attempt to wriggle out of the deal they were all in favour of 18 months ago.
It would be good to see the forthcoming election run on the basis of what the government has the power to do (health, education, policing) rather than what they would or wouldn't have the power to do in future.
The problem is that Westminster want to cut the Scottish budget significantly , after vowing that they would not. They are a bunch of lying B********. They are holding most of the levers to run the country and expect the Scottish government to fix everything by varying only income tax. A complete cretin like Scottp could even work that one out.
Malcolm, the impression given to those in England (or further afield) is that the Scottish Government want to take all the credit for spending money without the inconvenience of needing to raise it through taxes.
Would they be happy, for example, to use a baseline of the year before the referendum (2013-14) as the basis for dividing expenditure from the UK to Scotland? Because that is what they were arguing for 18 months ago.
Now that tax revenues raised in Scotland have dropped off a cliff (as much to do with income tax at higher rates as direct o&g taxes) they want the UK government ("Westminster", "England", delete as appropriate) to increase the amount of money sent to Scotland, but for only Scotland to additionally benefit from any future increase in oil prices and related taxation.
Well guess what, the rest of the UK don't see this as a good deal, and are calling you out on your 180 degree turn inside the 18 months since the referendum.
It has nothing to do with that, we are talking about everything except income tax and it has to be at "No Detriment" to Scotland. Westminster want to transfer nothing and have Scotland take all the risks based on income tax alone. Try to at least understand the basics before commenting.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
That hot weather in the Gulf must be frying your brain. No there was no ceasefire agreement, just the intention for a ceasefire in the future that would not include Al Qaeda/Al Nusra and IS, the overwhelming majority of the rebels.
Turkey has tried to overtly invade Syria before but the still Kemalist Turkish high command refused, the question is where they stand now? The problem is Erdogan is a loon and who knows what he will do. Hopefully it is just bluster for a domestic audience as the Syrians, Russians, Iranians and Kurds will engage any invasion, the last thing anyone sane wants is for this conflict to spread.
Has the wake finished on the BBC yet over the closure of The Indy. If you ever wanted to hear what the worst of out of touch liberal metros sounds like you only had to hear the circle jerk over the closure of the Indy. Which bit of NOBODY READ IT don't they understand. Instead it was all about moaning over "race to the bottom, Daily Mail, Daily Mail, huff puff huff puff huff puff" and "where will we get our serious journalism from".
The Times is still in print and a more serious paper than the Independent and the Independent is continuing in digital firm and through the i
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
My understanding is that the Saudis and Turks are both are worried about the successes the Russian/Iranian backed Syrian forces are having and the lack of any effective opposition on the ground. The Saudis are considering putting ground forces into the conflict directly and assuming they would have Turkish and NATO air support. In this instance I am not sure that RT are exaggerating.
That's a little, er, unnerving to read, currently being based not a million miles away from there. In fact, not a thousand miles from there!
This comes via RAF military planning folks. Of course the point is that they have to plan for all these sorts of eventualities no matter how likely or unlikely. But this is certainly one they are considering quite seriously at the moment. I suspect Yokel may well have a better handle on the likelihood or otherwise.
If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.
If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.
Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side
Remember that fight at that school in Crewe? The one you said "didn't really happen". The one that was "made up by Breitbart". The one that was "just a couple of kids in a scrap, happens all the time". Remember that one? That school?
OFSTED have just been sent in to do an emergency inspection
Ofsted have carried out an unscheduled inspection of Sir William Stanier School, in Crewe, after a fight where police had to be called 11:26 p.m. - 12 Feb 2016
Whatever the truth therefore, that school is about to be labelled inadequate. OFSTED never bother with surprise inspections unless they've decided the result in advance.
How can that be, when, as foxinsox reported, the headmaster himself reassured everyone there was no problem at the school, and EPG told us the concerned parents on the Petition page were "actually Breitbart journalists making stuff up".
OFSTED must have made some mistake.
According to some reports, the school has now hired a PR agency to deal with inquiries. That's always a sign that things are going well.
The point being that whether or not the Head os telling the truth, he will now be sacked so OFSTED can say the problem has been dealt with and that they were the ones who sorted it all.
The reality of the situation is always a secondary consideration for them.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
That hot weather in the Gulf must be frying your brain. No there was no ceasefire agreement, just the intention for a ceasefire in the future that would not include Al Qaeda/Al Nusra and IS, the overwhelming majority of the rebels.
Has the wake finished on the BBC yet over the closure of The Indy. If you ever wanted to hear what the worst of out of touch liberal metros sounds like you only had to hear the circle jerk over the closure of the Indy. Which bit of NOBODY READ IT don't they understand. Instead it was all about moaning over "race to the bottom, Daily Mail, Daily Mail, huff puff huff puff huff puff" and "where will we get our serious journalism from".
Not everybody celebrates the demise of a newspaper.
The problem the Scottish government faces is that if they want to include the oil revenues going to them in the good times, they also have to accept the lack of them when the price falls. Any deal done now on the basis that oil revenues belong to Scotland will see them significantly worse off, which they will never be able to sell to the electorate. Hence the attempt to wriggle out of the deal they were all in favour of 18 months ago.
It would be good to see the forthcoming election run on the basis of what the government has the power to do (health, education, policing) rather than what they would or wouldn't have the power to do in future.
The problem is that Westminster want to cut the Scottish budget significantly , after vowing that they would not. They are a bunch of lying B********. They are holding most of the levers to run the country and expect the Scottish government to fix everything by varying only income tax. A complete cretin like Scottp could even work that one out.
Malcolm, the impression given to those in England (or further afield) is that the Scottish Government want to take all the credit for spending money without the inconvenience of needing to raise it through taxes.
Would they be happy, for example, to use a baseline of the year before the referendum (2013-14) as the basis for dividing expenditure from the UK to Scotland? Because that is what they were arguing for 18 months ago.
Now that tax revenues raised in Scotland have dropped off a cliff (as much to do with income tax at higher rates as direct o&g taxes) they want the UK government ("Westminster", "England", delete as appropriate) to increase the amount of money sent to Scotland, but for only Scotland to additionally benefit from any future increase in oil prices and related taxation.
Well guess what, the rest of the UK don't see this as a good deal, and are calling you out on your 180 degree turn inside the 18 months since the referendum.
It has nothing to do with that, we are talking about everything except income tax and it has to be at "No Detriment" to Scotland. Westminster want to transfer nothing and have Scotland take all the risks based on income tax alone. Try to at least understand the basics before commenting.
Sanpit , tried to edit this, I appreciate you will most likely only be seeing the Tory propaganda view on the topic and so your position would seem reasonable. They are lying toerags and will pay for their perfidy.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
I *think* it's bluster for a foreign audience, to be honest.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Putin gains from a great big war in the MidEast, as it is bound to jack up the price of oil, rescuing the Russian economy.
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
If it is Clinton vs Trump vs Bloomberg, then it'll be:
A New York liberal Senator
vs
A New York liberal Jewish Mayor
vs
A New York liberal property developer
Trump is more "moderate" than "liberal" these days in the US scheme of politics don't you think ?
Trump was in favour of the Obama deal with Iran -> liberal Trump is in favour of gun control -> liberal Trump believes abortion should be legal -> liberal Trump believes in socialised medicine -> liberal
Donald Trump on Iran nuclear deal: ‘We have a horrible contract, but we do have a contract’ -> Moderate
On guns, he's in favour of a ban on assault rifles, that's about it -> Moderate
“I'm pro-life, but with the caveats. It's: Life of the mother (very important), incest and rape,” Trump said. -> Moderate
On medicine, yes he is a "liberal" I'd agree with that.
If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.
If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.
Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side
Remember that fight at that school in Crewe? The one you said "didn't really happen". The one that was "made up by Breitbart". The one that was "just a couple of kids in a scrap, happens all the time". Remember that one? That school?
OFSTED have just been sent in to do an emergency inspection
Ofsted have carried out an unscheduled inspection of Sir William Stanier School, in Crewe, after a fight where police had to be called 11:26 p.m. - 12 Feb 2016
Whatever the truth therefore, that school is about to be labelled inadequate. OFSTED never bother with surprise inspections unless they've decided the result in advance.
How can that be, when, as foxinsox reported, the headmaster himself reassured everyone there was no problem at the school, and EPG told us the concerned parents on the Petition page were "actually Breitbart journalists making stuff up".
OFSTED must have made some mistake.
According to some reports, the school has now hired a PR agency to deal with inquiries. That's always a sign that things are going well.
The point being that whether or not the Head os telling the truth, he will now be sacked so OFSTED can say the problem has been dealt with and that they were the ones who sorted it all.
The reality of the situation is always a secondary consideration for them.
Will we be told that 'lessons have been learnt' ?
I wonder what the previous OFSTED report for that school said.
Has the wake finished on the BBC yet over the closure of The Indy. If you ever wanted to hear what the worst of out of touch liberal metros sounds like you only had to hear the circle jerk over the closure of the Indy. Which bit of NOBODY READ IT don't they understand. Instead it was all about moaning over "race to the bottom, Daily Mail, Daily Mail, huff puff huff puff huff puff" and "where will we get our serious journalism from".
The Times is still in print and a more serious paper than the Independent and the Independent is continuing in digital firm and through the i
You forget The Times is owned by the devil so doesn't count in the eyes of your average Beeboid. They actually said on R5 last night, Independent by name, Independent by nature, free from interference from outside interests or owners. Of course Lebedev had absolutely no say at all in his "investment". There seems some surprise that the Indy backed another coalition, when you only have to look at Lebedev's social network to get your answer.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Putin gains from a great big war in the MidEast, as it is bound to jack up the price of oil, rescuing the Russian economy.
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
I don't believe NATO would go to war with Russia to defend Turkey's borders. Just can't see it.
Turkey is a NATO member though - if NATO doesn't bother with enforcing art 5 on that, Putin knows it's basically all mouth and no trousers.
If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.
If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.
Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side
Remember that fight at that school in Crewe? The one you said "didn't really happen". The one that was "made up by Breitbart". The one that was "just a couple of kids in a scrap, happens all the time". Remember that one? That school?
OFSTED have just been sent in to do an emergency inspection
Ofsted have carried out an unscheduled inspection of Sir William Stanier School, in Crewe, after a fight where police had to be called 11:26 p.m. - 12 Feb 2016
Whatever the truth therefore, that school is about to be labelled inadequate. OFSTED never bother with surprise inspections unless they've decided the result in advance.
How can that be, when, as foxinsox reported, the headmaster himself reassured everyone there was no problem at the school, and EPG told us the concerned parents on the Petition page were "actually Breitbart journalists making stuff up".
OFSTED must have made some mistake.
According to some reports, the school has now hired a PR agency to deal with inquiries. That's always a sign that things are going well.
The point being that whether or not the Head os telling the truth, he will now be sacked so OFSTED can say the problem has been dealt with and that they were the ones who sorted it all.
The reality of the situation is always a secondary consideration for them.
Will we be told that 'lessons have been learnt' ?
I wonder what the previous OFSTED report for that school said.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Putin gains from a great big war in the MidEast, as it is bound to jack up the price of oil, rescuing the Russian economy.
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
There's certainly a rather hungry bear out there. Hungry bears have a habit of eating anything they can find, whether it's going to be good for them or otherwise.
The worry is that a big escalation in the region will quickly draw in Israel, and once that happens the US are not far behind and then all bets are off.
Oh well, the bars are still open here and the rugby will be on in an hour or two! Wadaeaan!
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Putin gains from a great big war in the MidEast, as it is bound to jack up the price of oil, rescuing the Russian economy.
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
I don't believe NATO would go to war with Russia to defend Turkey's borders. Just can't see it.
They would have no choice. To fail to do so would be in breach of the NATO treaty and would cause outrage in Poland and the Baltic States.
One of the things I have learnt about "Politics" in the UK is that it is very tactical with surprisingly long term plans and objectives by single people, parties, cliques within and between parties. (Yes, I am aware of the old adage: "Events Dear Boy, Events" but it is mostly short term planning that goes astray, not long term which may be adapted as required to the circumstances).
What I am at a loss, just now, is with the seemingly chaotic way the present government is proceeding. We have Cameron spouting rubbish about re-negotiating our partnership with Europe, Hunt being noxious with Health, IDS in deep doo doo with Universal Credit, Fallon continuing to cut and defenestrate our armed services without getting volunteers for the Reserve Forces, and even Osborne's budget plans are coming off the rails - all this before the major cuts are going to affect people as from April.
Although re-considering the last paragraph, the Cameron referendum BS does seem to be being used to deflect media interest from the other problems. How long that will last is debatable as with the newspapers collapsing circulations (as discussed PB passim) and a lot of people now getting the information they require on line and from multiple sources, incl. of course PB and other discussion blogs, and making their own decisions.
There are a lot of unhappy people out there, Labour supporters ok are always going to be not best pleased with the Tories but they seem to be trending to being very unhappy, but it also looks like a lot of the Tory natural supporters are becoming very unhappy as well. Why do I put it this way? Well a long time ago I had an acquaintance who had worked out in the Far East who had remarked that when the locals were smiling, everything was all right, when they stopped smiling, get out of the country. Too many people in the UK are (not) smiling in front of gritted teeth, and with fixed term government there is no way of changing things for another 4 years.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Putin gains from a great big war in the MidEast, as it is bound to jack up the price of oil, rescuing the Russian economy.
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
I don't believe NATO would go to war with Russia to defend Turkey's borders. Just can't see it.
Turkey is a NATO member though - if NATO doesn't bother with enforcing art 5 on that, Putin knows it's basically all mouth and no trousers.
Which is pretty much the case, at least with regards to Turkey.
It's too Asian and too Muslim and, increasingly, too Islamist. I find it hard to believe any western leader would sacrifice western lives to defend Erdogan's Turkey. But I could be wrong.
So this does appear to be unscheduled, and like I say, OFSTED usually decides the outcome of these inspections in advance for purely PR reasons.
If there was any justice they should have a hard time explaining their sudden volte-face - but they won't.
Oh, it was definitely unscheduled. That's been reported widely. OFSTED went in unannounced and uninvited.
Probably a parental complaint. However for safeguarding/security reasons they should not have turned up unannounced unless it was only a paperwork inspection, which seems unlikely.
Mr. Pulpstar, to defend Turkey's borders, I think it would.
But if it's to support Turkish forces in Syria, that might be different.
If NATO didn't defend Turkey's borders, one imagines the Baltic tigers would feel very exposed.
Quite correct. Though "defend Turkey's borders" is of course open to some interpretation. The odd aircraft accidentally/deliberately (delete as appropriate) straying into Turkish airspace isn't the same as a concerted assault and wouldn't be treated as such.
I'm certain the Syrian regime and its Iranian/Russian allies will be scrupulously correct in regard to the Turkish border and as long as they stay their side, that's fine. If the Saudis want to intervene, that's their business but it's not a NATO matter and nor is the current bombing campaign against IS.
It's hard to see Clinton failing to win the Dem nomination - yes, Sanders did well in IA and NH as he should have done and it's always fun to see Eric Bolling spit out the words "democratic socialist" with real venom but Sanders won't cut it in other areas. He may well win 40% of the delegates given the proportional nature of the Dem contest.
On the GOP side, it may well be Trump as the anti-Trump forces bicker among themselves - were the Donald facing a single coherent GOP candidate, he'd struggle but he faces a plethora of selling platers who are tripping over each other to finish a poor second. As to the degree to which a reluctant GOP mainstream will rally round Trump, we'll see. I suspect their hatred of Hillary will overcome their dislike of the Donald.
Bloomberg won't enter if it's Trump vs Clinton - he probably would if it were Trump vs Sanders but even then I wonder which states he would win because getting 30% everywhere gets you zilch in the US system. Would Bloomberg win Ohio or Michigan or Florida in a Trump vs Sanders contest ?
The Trump vs Clinton debates will be great television (I hope). I wonder how the American public will view the choice between President Mother-In-Law and President Ranting Neighbour.
I don't think we disagree that much. My point is that evens for Hillary is stupidly short - where would you put her odds?
I've tried not to let my feelings about Hillary affect the piece. FWIW, I don't like her: she's the epitome of entitlement. What has she actually done to deserve the nomination? She was an unremarkable senator, lost a nomination she seemed to have sown up, then did little as Sec of State. Before that, her career was riding off the back of her husband, interfering ineffectually in his healthcare plans and turning a Kennedyesque blind eye as necessary. I recognise the irony, having said all that, in the fact that had I a vote, my favoured candidate would be Bush, but then he was quite a good governor of Florida.
I thought much the same about Sanders - that his appeal was limited - but the way his ratings continue to rise and particularly the Nevada poll have made me reassess that. If he does win there then he stands a genuine chance of taking the nomination. Sure, Hillary should win SC and do better out of Super Tuesday but a reasonable showing for him will keep the show on the road. The following weekend, I have thought that Kansas and Nebraska might offer opportunities (they're not quoted on Nate Silver's list), and the Tuesday after, Maine and Michigan should also.
Hillary should still win but the risk she doesn't, or that Trump, Cruz or whoever beats her in in a head-to-head in November, or that the FBI force her out, or that Bloomberg intervenes if the FBI does something and she doesn't withdraw, have to come collectively to more than 50%?
Mr. Pulpstar, to defend Turkey's borders, I think it would.
But if it's to support Turkish forces in Syria, that might be different.
If NATO didn't defend Turkey's borders, one imagines the Baltic tigers would feel very exposed.
I think that strikes the balance that Western leaders will think appropriate. When the Turks shot down a Russian plane around the border area, the reluctance of the West to rush to endorse it was palpable, and if something messy happens on Syrian soil I can't see us sending in the troops, especially if it seemed to have started with a Turkish incursion to "set up a safe zone" or the like. By contrast, a Russian invasion of Turkey would be rightly seen as reckless adventurism and would call for a NATO intervention.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Putin gains from a great big war in the MidEast, as it is bound to jack up the price of oil, rescuing the Russian economy.
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
I don't believe NATO would go to war with Russia to defend Turkey's borders. Just can't see it.
They would have no choice. To fail to do so would be in breach of the NATO treaty and would cause outrage in Poland and the Baltic States.
Of course I see your logic. Legally, we would be obliged to defend Turkey, but politically, would we actually do it?
Perhaps a few planes to save face. But I can't see any western state committing troops on the ground to defend the Erdogan regime.
I'm not claiming this is right or wrong, just analysing the politics.
If Putin and Assad tried to gain Turkish territory in the same way as Crimea, then I imagine NATO would respond. But as you say probably doing just enough to push them back over the border with a fleet of warplanes, rather than risking the much more dangerous ground forces.
Has the wake finished on the BBC yet over the closure of The Indy. If you ever wanted to hear what the worst of out of touch liberal metros sounds like you only had to hear the circle jerk over the closure of the Indy. Which bit of NOBODY READ IT don't they understand. Instead it was all about moaning over "race to the bottom, Daily Mail, Daily Mail, huff puff huff puff huff puff" and "where will we get our serious journalism from".
Not everybody celebrates the demise of a newspaper.
The BBC seemed happy enough to celebrate the end of the NotW.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Putin gains from a great big war in the MidEast, as it is bound to jack up the price of oil, rescuing the Russian economy.
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
I don't believe NATO would go to war with Russia to defend Turkey's borders. Just can't see it.
They would have no choice. To fail to do so would be in breach of the NATO treaty and would cause outrage in Poland and the Baltic States.
That would depend on the circumstances. NATO is bound by collective defence, not the need to support the adventurism of any member.
You're right that the Baltic States would get twitchy in those circumstances but that would have to be handled.
@KennyFarq: Interesting that Swinney said yesterday that Scot Gov's £16bn of taxes was "50% of our funding". SNP has spent 15 months denying that figure
Has the wake finished on the BBC yet over the closure of The Indy. If you ever wanted to hear what the worst of out of touch liberal metros sounds like you only had to hear the circle jerk over the closure of the Indy. Which bit of NOBODY READ IT don't they understand. Instead it was all about moaning over "race to the bottom, Daily Mail, Daily Mail, huff puff huff puff huff puff" and "where will we get our serious journalism from".
Not everybody celebrates the demise of a newspaper.
The BBC seemed happy enough to celebrate the end of the NotW.
The irony of the BBC's tears for the indy is that the BBC, of course, greatly assisted the indy's demise.
The existence of a massive free UK news website - the Beeb on the net - is one of the principal reasons UK papers struggle to make money online. BBC journos can dry their hypocritical tears.
They were really also shedding tears over the demise of regional papers and them providing a unique offering. When they had on somebody on from I believe the Brighton Argus, who said well unlike you [the BBC] we can't afford to send multiple people to even small regional events, so we pool the information from a number of sources. That didn't go down well.
Afternoon Nicola, or is it Michelle? Actually, based on her Twitter feed this morning, dumb enough to be Mhairi...
The SNP have been caught red-handed with their fingers in the rUK till.
True, this will help the SNP win the election in Scotland, to no end. The Zoomers will agitate ever more strongly for another referendum that Nicola can't ever have because now everyone knows exactly how much worse off they would be.
One of the things I have learnt about "Politics" in the UK is that it is very tactical with surprisingly long term plans and objectives by single people, parties, cliques within and between parties. (Yes, I am aware of the old adage: "Events Dear Boy, Events" but it is mostly short term planning that goes astray, not long term which may be adapted as required to the circumstances).
What I am at a loss, just now, is with the seemingly chaotic way the present government is proceeding. We have Cameron spouting rubbish about re-negotiating our partnership with Europe, Hunt being noxious with Health, IDS in deep doo doo with Universal Credit, Fallon continuing to cut and defenestrate our armed services without getting volunteers for the Reserve Forces, and even Osborne's budget plans are coming off the rails - all this before the major cuts are going to affect people as from April.
Although re-considering the last paragraph, the Cameron referendum BS does seem to be being used to deflect media interest from the other problems. How long that will last is debatable as with the newspapers collapsing circulations (as discussed PB passim) and a lot of people now getting the information they require on line and from multiple sources, incl. of course PB and other discussion blogs, and making their own decisions.
There are a lot of unhappy people out there, Labour supporters ok are always going to be not best pleased with the Tories but they seem to be trending to being very unhappy, but it also looks like a lot of the Tory natural supporters are becoming very unhappy as well. Why do I put it this way? Well a long time ago I had an acquaintance who had worked out in the Far East who had remarked that when the locals were smiling, everything was all right, when they stopped smiling, get out of the country. Too many people in the UK are (not) smiling in front of gritted teeth, and with fixed term government there is no way of changing things for another 4 years.
Given where we are in the electoral cycle the govt is doing remarkably well in the polling. Don't you understand politics?
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
That hot weather in the Gulf must be frying your brain. No there was no ceasefire agreement, just the intention for a ceasefire in the future that would not include Al Qaeda/Al Nusra and IS, the overwhelming majority of the rebels.
Newspapers being willfully misleading again, no change there. The more interesting question is why they are?
You are aware that the agreement is actually published. UNSC resolution 2254 excludes Nusra, IS and all associated forces from any ceasefire and demands that these are confronted by all parties.
Has the wake finished on the BBC yet over the closure of The Indy. If you ever wanted to hear what the worst of out of touch liberal metros sounds like you only had to hear the circle jerk over the closure of the Indy. Which bit of NOBODY READ IT don't they understand. Instead it was all about moaning over "race to the bottom, Daily Mail, Daily Mail, huff puff huff puff huff puff" and "where will we get our serious journalism from".
Not everybody celebrates the demise of a newspaper.
The BBC seemed happy enough to celebrate the end of the NotW.
Malcolm, the impression given to those in England (or further afield) is that the Scottish Government want to take all the credit for spending money without the inconvenience of needing to raise it through taxes.
Would they be happy, for example, to use a baseline of the year before the referendum (2013-14) as the basis for dividing expenditure from the UK to Scotland? Because that is what they were arguing for 18 months ago.
Now that tax revenues raised in Scotland have dropped off a cliff (as much to do with income tax at higher rates as direct o&g taxes) they want the UK government ("Westminster", "England", delete as appropriate) to increase the amount of money sent to Scotland, but for only Scotland to additionally benefit from any future increase in oil prices and related taxation.
Well guess what, the rest of the UK don't see this as a good deal, and are calling you out on your 180 degree turn inside the 18 months since the referendum.
It has nothing to do with that, we are talking about everything except income tax and it has to be at "No Detriment" to Scotland. Westminster want to transfer nothing and have Scotland take all the risks based on income tax alone. Try to at least understand the basics before commenting.
Sanpit , tried to edit this, I appreciate you will most likely only be seeing the Tory propaganda view on the topic and so your position would seem reasonable. They are lying toerags and will pay for their perfidy.
I think I fixed the quote tags.
Honest question, what perfidy?
In the aftermath of the referendum the SNP were over the moon with the promise of new powers, but now they seem not to want them.
It is a reasonable assumption income that taxes raised in Scotland are falling as the O&G sector make redundancies of higher rate taxpayers. Yet rather than deal with the fact that this means spending cuts or tax rises are needed, they prefer to critisise British politicians for offering them pretty much the deal they wanted a little over a year ago.
What additional powers would you wish to see devolved, given that the central question of independence decided for the short term future?
rather than deal with the fact that this means spending cuts or tax rises are needed, they prefer to critisise British politicians for offering them pretty much the deal they wanted a little over a year ago.
The next 5 years are going to be entertaining to observe
"So Nicola, what are you going to do?"
"Umm, mumble, Westminster, mumble, winnae let me..."
I don't think we disagree that much. My point is that evens for Hillary is stupidly short - where would you put her odds?
I've tried not to let my feelings about Hillary affect the piece. FWIW, I don't like her: she's the epitome of entitlement. What has she actually done to deserve the nomination? She was an unremarkable senator, lost a nomination she seemed to have sown up, then did little as Sec of State. Before that, her career was riding off the back of her husband, interfering ineffectually in his healthcare plans and turning a Kennedyesque blind eye as necessary. I recognise the irony, having said all that, in the fact that had I a vote, my favoured candidate would be Bush, but then he was quite a good governor of Florida.
Once again we disagree - I don't think Evens is a bad price. I think the Dem nomination is hers and I think she would comfortably beat any of Trump, Cruz or Rubio in a match-up (what the polls say now is irrelevant, it's what they say after Labor Day that matters). I do agree that were she facing Jeb Bush it might be tougher. The problem might be the FBI investigation but at present there's nothing coming forward that is a deal-breaker.
I think you could ask "what has he done to deserve the nomination ?" of the likes of Trump, Obama and George W.Bush and a host of others. She has more experience in Government than Trump and in foreign affairs she's light years ahead of the Donald and his simplistic populism.
I accept the defeat to Obama was a surprise but he was a different kind of candidate running in a different way at a different time - oddly enough, Trump is more like a Republican version of Obama in some ways.
Your view of Hillary contradicts mine in that I think in many ways she's the more intelligent of the Clinton marriage but he had (and still has) the political gift. Being the First Lady probably wasn't easy for her and I think she handled the entire Monica business with dignity and that certainly wasn't easy for her. I would be happy with her as President - she seems to act in a considered and methodical way and I fear for the world with Trump as POTUS - he's a businessman who will try to act as a CEO in the White House where he can command and cajole whereas she would be a politician having to persuade and argue.
Where I would concede to you is that among the GOP claimers, Bush is the pick. Oddly enough, of the Bush dynasty, he seems more like George HW Bush who I thought was a decent man although always in Reagan's shadow.
Quickly, on NV, I wouldn't be surprised by a good Sanders performance. The big Democrat area in NV is Clark County which includes Las Vegas - young, unionised and liberal-minded.
So this does appear to be unscheduled, and like I say, OFSTED usually decides the outcome of these inspections in advance for purely PR reasons.
If there was any justice they should have a hard time explaining their sudden volte-face - but they won't.
Oh, it was definitely unscheduled. That's been reported widely. OFSTED went in unannounced and uninvited.
Probably a parental complaint. However for safeguarding/security reasons they should not have turned up unannounced unless it was only a paperwork inspection, which seems unlikely.
That's silly. Ofsted should, on production of appropriate documentation, be able to carry out genuinely unannounced inspections - as in "we're here and it starts within ten minutes." They can have time to validate that the inspectors are who they are but that's all.
I'm not saying that all inspections should be like that but it should be a tool in the box to be used if necessary, for example in cases where it's suspected that previous inspections have involved serious cover-ups.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Putin gains from a great big war in the MidEast, as it is bound to jack up the price of oil, rescuing the Russian economy.
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
I don't believe NATO would go to war with Russia to defend Turkey's borders. Just can't see it.
They would have no choice. To fail to do so would be in breach of the NATO treaty and would cause outrage in Poland and the Baltic States.
That would depend on the circumstances. NATO is bound by collective defence, not the need to support the adventurism of any member.
You're right that the Baltic States would get twitchy in those circumstances but that would have to be handled.
Which is why the Turkish border matters. Turkish troops in Syria are fair game for Russia, Russian troops in Turkey would be a declaration of war.
So this does appear to be unscheduled, and like I say, OFSTED usually decides the outcome of these inspections in advance for purely PR reasons.
If there was any justice they should have a hard time explaining their sudden volte-face - but they won't.
Oh, it was definitely unscheduled. That's been reported widely. OFSTED went in unannounced and uninvited.
Probably a parental complaint. However for safeguarding/security reasons they should not have turned up unannounced unless it was only a paperwork inspection, which seems unlikely.
That's silly. Ofsted should, on production of appropriate documentation, be able to carry out genuinely unannounced inspections - as in "we're here and it starts within ten minutes." They can have time to validate that the inspectors are who they are but that's all.
I'm not saying that all inspections should be like that but it should be a tool in the box to be used if necessary, for example in cases where it's suspected that previous inspections have involved serious cover-ups.
An inspection that is pre-announced is all but meaningless. All it demonstrates is that the site being inspected knows what to do when the inspectors are there.
Given where we are in the electoral cycle the govt is doing remarkably well in the polling. Don't you understand politics?
I think that's entirely due to Labour's ructions - regardless of who is to blame, it's obvious that Labour has to sort itself out before floating voters will consider them. However, it is dangerous for the Tories to assume that that will never happen over the next 4 years, and if they've got used to thinking that they can get away with anything, it will be tricky to recover credibility if it does.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Putin gains from a great big war in the MidEast, as it is bound to jack up the price of oil, rescuing the Russian economy.
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
I don't believe NATO would go to war with Russia to defend Turkey's borders. Just can't see it.
They would have no choice. To fail to do so would be in breach of the NATO treaty and would cause outrage in Poland and the Baltic States.
That would depend on the circumstances. NATO is bound by collective defence, not the need to support the adventurism of any member.
You're right that the Baltic States would get twitchy in those circumstances but that would have to be handled.
Which is why the Turkish border matters. Turkish troops in Syria are fair game for Russia, Russian troops in Turkey would be a declaration of war.
It would be no concern of mine, and I have no doubt I speak for the overwhelming majority of people in this country.
So this does appear to be unscheduled, and like I say, OFSTED usually decides the outcome of these inspections in advance for purely PR reasons.
If there was any justice they should have a hard time explaining their sudden volte-face - but they won't.
Oh, it was definitely unscheduled. That's been reported widely. OFSTED went in unannounced and uninvited.
Probably a parental complaint. However for safeguarding/security reasons they should not have turned up unannounced unless it was only a paperwork inspection, which seems unlikely.
That's silly. Ofsted should, on production of appropriate documentation, be able to carry out genuinely unannounced inspections - as in "we're here and it starts within ten minutes." They can have time to validate that the inspectors are who they are but that's all.
I'm not saying that all inspections should be like that but it should be a tool in the box to be used if necessary, for example in cases where it's suspected that previous inspections have involved serious cover-ups.
An inspection that is pre-announced is all but meaningless. All it demonstrates is that the site being inspected knows what to do when the inspectors are there.
I started my working life at one of the big banks. When an inspection happened, the first you knew was when they swarmed through the front door.
Once again we disagree - I don't think Evens is a bad price. I think the Dem nomination is hers and I think she would comfortably beat any of Trump, Cruz or Rubio in a match-up (what the polls say now is irrelevant, it's what they say after Labor Day that matters).
I accept the defeat to Obama was a surprise but he was a different kind of candidate running in a different way at a different time - oddly enough, Trump is more like a Republican version of Obama in some ways.
Your view of Hillary contradicts mine in that I think in many ways she's the more intelligent of the Clinton marriage but he had (and still has) the political gift. Being the First Lady probably wasn't easy for her and I think she handled the entire Monica business with dignity and that certainly wasn't easy for her. I would be happy with her as President - she seems to act in a considered and methodical way and I fear for the world with Trump as POTUS - he's a businessman who will try to act as a CEO in the White House where he can command and cajole whereas she would be a politician having to persuade and argue.
Where I would concede to you is that among the GOP claimers, Bush is the pick. Oddly enough, of the Bush dynasty, he seems more like George HW Bush who I thought was a decent man although always in Reagan's shadow.
Quickly, on NV, I wouldn't be surprised by a good Sanders performance. The big Democrat area in NV is Clark County which includes Las Vegas - young, unionised and liberal-minded.
There's a lot there I agree with, not least that it's the post-Labor Day polls that matter. I suspect should would beat Cruz, who's just too conservative. Trump or Rubio will give her a strong run for her money. As you say, there is an element of Obama (and Bill Clinton and Reagan) about Trump. But Americans might get cold feet about going *so* far out of the ordinary.
In terms of service, yes, she's far more experienced than Obama or GW Bush - but then neither had successful presidencies. The idea of a Cruz or Trump presidency is far from something I relish. I agree that Trump as president could get very frustrated very quickly once he finds how soggy the levers of power really are.
I'm quite glad I'm in politics in Britain as there's an easy niche for me. Were I in the States, I'd fall right between the parties and would find it difficult in either. My presidential preferences over the years (since 18) have been
1992 - Bush 1996 - Clinton 2000 - Bush (regretted that one but bought into the Compassionate Conservative at the time) 2004 - Kerry (better of a bad choice) 2008 - Obama 2012 - Romney
If it is Trump-Hillary, I'd probably go for her as less unreliable and then hope the Republicans come to their senses for 2020.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Putin gains from a great big war in the MidEast, as it is bound to jack up the price of oil, rescuing the Russian economy.
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
I don't believe NATO would go to war with Russia to defend Turkey's borders. Just can't see it.
They would have no choice. To fail to do so would be in breach of the NATO treaty and would cause outrage in Poland and the Baltic States.
That would depend on the circumstances. NATO is bound by collective defence, not the need to support the adventurism of any member.
You're right that the Baltic States would get twitchy in those circumstances but that would have to be handled.
Which is why the Turkish border matters. Turkish troops in Syria are fair game for Russia, Russian troops in Turkey would be a declaration of war.
It would be no concern of mine, and I have no doubt I speak for the overwhelming majority of people in this country.
We are members of NATO, as is Turkey.
I have little doubt that - should Russian troops enter Turkey - they would invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Putin gains from a great big war in the MidEast, as it is bound to jack up the price of oil, rescuing the Russian economy.
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
I don't believe NATO would go to war with Russia to defend Turkey's borders. Just can't see it.
They would have no choice. To fail to do so would be in breach of the NATO treaty and would cause outrage in Poland and the Baltic States.
That would depend on the circumstances. NATO is bound by collective defence, not the need to support the adventurism of any member.
You're right that the Baltic States would get twitchy in those circumstances but that would have to be handled.
Which is why the Turkish border matters. Turkish troops in Syria are fair game for Russia, Russian troops in Turkey would be a declaration of war.
It would be no concern of mine, and I have no doubt I speak for the overwhelming majority of people in this country.
Unless our NATO alliance is meaningless then it will be a concern of ours.
If Turkey chooses unilaterally to send troops into Syria, that's their business and nothing to do with NATO. Even less if it is the Saudis who aren't NATO members.
What they cannot expect is NATO to support them logistically - an international coalition which may or may not contain NATO countries might but Syria is not in NATO and not part of NATO's theatre of operations.
I doubt the Turks will do more than defend their borders to which they have every right and the odd accident notwithstanding, short of a concerted attack on Turkish territory (and Assad has given no indication he wants to do that), it's nothing for NATO to be concerned about.
The Saudis may wish to get involved more actively (the Yemeni business notwithstanding) but again though they may be allies they are not part of NATO and not bound by that collective defence treaty.
Good article as usual David. As you say Hilary at evens for the Presidency is bonkers, there's so many paths to cross between now and November and she could come unstuck at any one of them.
Personally I dislike her immensely, she stands for nothing at all except gaining power, has a massive sense of entitlement and goes on about taking on the Establishment while being the absolute epitome of that very Establishment she criticises - to the point of taking cash from Goldman Sachs.
The one point I disagree with the header is the emails scandal. Any other Tom, Dick, Petraeus or Manning in the same situation would be in prison now, I can't see how she can survive having a computer full of classified material in her own house. With my IT guy rather than lawyer hat on she's completely bang to rights and a Presidential Pardon would make it look even worse in the eyes of the little people. Trump or Cruz will portray her as completely untrustworthy and a threat to security in the same way as the Conservatives here have managed to pin the security label on Corbyn in the UK.
How far does it fly with the public? Is it linked to her poll decline or is that mostly just her being a poor candidate?
If the FBI choose to indict then things certainly become very difficult for a while and if she's in the middle of a battle for the nomination or the White House at the time then could prove decisive. But if the Feds were going to indict, wouldn't they have done so by now?
Her support in the Democratic party is a mile wide but not very deep. Personal Anecdote alert - various friends and relatives in New York would normally be massive donors/campaigners (real activists) for a Clinton candidacy are sitting this one out. They will vote for her vs any Republican, of course.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Putin gains from a great big war in the MidEast, as it is bound to jack up the price of oil, rescuing the Russian economy.
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
I don't believe NATO would go to war with Russia to defend Turkey's borders. Just can't see it.
They would have no choice. To fail to do so would be in breach of the NATO treaty and would cause outrage in Poland and the Baltic States.
That would depend on the circumstances. NATO is bound by collective defence, not the need to support the adventurism of any member.
You're right that the Baltic States would get twitchy in those circumstances but that would have to be handled.
Which is why the Turkish border matters. Turkish troops in Syria are fair game for Russia, Russian troops in Turkey would be a declaration of war.
It would be no concern of mine, and I have no doubt I speak for the overwhelming majority of people in this country.
It doesn't matter, Turkey is a NATO member. Art 5 is completely paramount. NATO is dead if it is not reacted to.
So this does appear to be unscheduled, and like I say, OFSTED usually decides the outcome of these inspections in advance for purely PR reasons.
If there was any justice they should have a hard time explaining their sudden volte-face - but they won't.
Oh, it was definitely unscheduled. That's been reported widely. OFSTED went in unannounced and uninvited.
Probably a parental complaint. However for safeguarding/security reasons they should not have turned up unannounced unless it was only a paperwork inspection, which seems unlikely.
That's silly. Ofsted should, on production of appropriate documentation, be able to carry out genuinely unannounced inspections - as in "we're here and it starts within ten minutes." They can have time to validate that the inspectors are who they are but that's all.
I'm not saying that all inspections should be like that but it should be a tool in the box to be used if necessary, for example in cases where it's suspected that previous inspections have involved serious cover-ups.
An inspection that is pre-announced is all but meaningless. All it demonstrates is that the site being inspected knows what to do when the inspectors are there.
I started my working life at one of the big banks. When an inspection happened, the first you knew was when they swarmed through the front door.
As it should be! I've never had a pre-announced inspection in my life. The entire notion is an oxymoron.
we are talking about everything except income tax and it has to be at "No Detriment" to Scotland.
And at no detriment to the rest of the UK. I can understand the SNP trying to have it both ways - no detriment to Scotland but detriment to the rest of the UK is just fine - and that might, I suppose, get them some votes in Scotland.
But what it won't do is get them an agreement with HMG.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Putin gains from a great big war in the MidEast, as it is bound to jack up the price of oil, rescuing the Russian economy.
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
I don't believe NATO would go to war with Russia to defend Turkey's borders. Just can't see it.
They would have no choice. To fail to do so would be in breach of the NATO treaty and would cause outrage in Poland and the Baltic States.
That would depend on the circumstances. NATO is bound by collective defence, not the need to support the adventurism of any member.
You're right that the Baltic States would get twitchy in those circumstances but that would have to be handled.
Which is why the Turkish border matters. Turkish troops in Syria are fair game for Russia, Russian troops in Turkey would be a declaration of war.
If Turkish troops have already attacked Russian troops in Syria, *that* is an act of war.
We need to be very careful about Sarajevo scenarios here.
Now, I know this is RT but I'm quoting them precisely because it is them. I'd read the article as meaning that the Kremlin is touting the possibility of direct conflict between Syrian govt forces and Saudi / Turkish forces, or even between Turkey and Russia within Syria.
Is it serious in putting forward that possibility or is it using it to try to scare the Turks out of Syria? Who knows but it's dangerous talk.
The other part worth commenting on is the 'regaining control over the whole of Syria' aspect, which is presumably aimed at any Kurdish aspirations.
Was it really only 24 hours ago that there was talk of a ceasefire in Syria?
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Putin gains from a great big war in the MidEast, as it is bound to jack up the price of oil, rescuing the Russian economy.
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
I don't believe NATO would go to war with Russia to defend Turkey's borders. Just can't see it.
They would have no choice. To fail to do so would be in breach of the NATO treaty and would cause outrage in Poland and the Baltic States.
That would depend on the circumstances. NATO is bound by collective defence, not the need to support the adventurism of any member.
You're right that the Baltic States would get twitchy in those circumstances but that would have to be handled.
Which is why the Turkish border matters. Turkish troops in Syria are fair game for Russia, Russian troops in Turkey would be a declaration of war.
If Turkish troops have already attacked Russian troops in Syria, *that* is an act of war.
We need to be very careful about Sarajevo scenarios here.
I suppose the way to avoid article 5 is to say that Turkey was the aggressor so Article 5 is void. Can't see it coming to that though.
Pub landlord Jason Mawer has twice been asked in public to remove his treasured Union Jack jacket - for risk of it being 'offensive'.
He was told to take off his valuable Mod-style Barbour jacket - designed in honour of legendary rock band The Who - by officials who appeared to be council enforcement officers.
On the second occasion the female official warned him: 'Would you mind removing your coat it might offend somebody.'
Seems improbable that they are council officials acting in an official capacity, especially if he didn't see any ID. Moreover of course council officials have no special legal authority in public places. So if they asked him to do something, especially if he was breaking no law, they might themselves be guilty of harassment, or at the very least an offence under the Public Order Act - behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.
I was wondering if it might be some busybody organisation or other, possibly including members of the council's staff, akin to the old London Public Morality Council, and emboldened by Corbyn's apparent success. If so, Labour are losing touch with reality even faster than I had thought possible.
Classic jobsworth attack. When pushed back at - the Council will issue a statement, saying that an employee had taken an unathourised action etc. Lessons will be learned....
My favourite was the one where a prison officer was told off for speaking disparagingly. Concerning Osama Bin Ladin. Because it might offend Muslims....
we are talking about everything except income tax and it has to be at "No Detriment" to Scotland.
And at no detriment to the rest of the UK. I can understand the SNP trying to have it both ways - no detriment to Scotland but detriment to the rest of the UK is just fine - and that might, I suppose, get them some votes in Scotland.
But what it won't do is get them an agreement with HMG.
The Nats clearly don't want an agreement. They don't want any more fiscal powers as further autonomy would expose the perilous state of the Scottish economy, now that oil has tanked.
This stance will work quite well in the short term, but in the medium term it must bring grave problems for Sturgeon. I reckon this next Scottish parliament will see Peak SNP, then decline (unless we vote LEAVE, then all bets are off).
The stupidity of the Nats position is that oil tanking was inevitable. Not so quickly it wasn't but with the North Sea reserves drying out (and becoming more expensive and harder to reach) they couldn't be relied upon indefinitely.
But the Nats knew that. Like Corbyn, their design is that they only have to get lucky once.
Once again we disagree - I don't think Evens is a bad price. I think the Dem nomination is hers and I think she would comfortably beat any of Trump, Cruz or Rubio in a match-up (what the polls say now is irrelevant, it's what they say after Labor Day that matters).
I accept the defeat to Obama was a surprise but he was a different kind of candidate running in a different way at a different time - oddly enough, Trump is more like a Republican version of Obama in some ways.
Your view of Hillary contradicts mine in that I think in many ways she's the more intelligent of the Clinton marriage but he had (and still has) the political gift. Being the First Lady probably wasn't easy for her and I think she handled the entire Monica business with dignity and that certainly wasn't easy for her. I would be happy with her as President - she seems to act in a considered and methodical way and I fear for the world with Trump as POTUS - he's a businessman who will try to act as a CEO in the White House where he can command and cajole whereas she would be a politician having to persuade and argue.
Where I would concede to you is that among the GOP claimers, Bush is the pick. Oddly enough, of the Bush dynasty, he seems more like George HW Bush who I thought was a decent man although always in Reagan's shadow.
Quickly, on NV, I wouldn't be surprised by a good Sanders performance. The big Democrat area in NV is Clark County which includes Las Vegas - young, unionised and liberal-minded.
snip
In terms of service, yes, she's far more experienced than Obama or GW Bush - but then neither had successful presidencies. The idea of a Cruz or Trump presidency is far from something I relish. I agree that Trump as president could get very frustrated very quickly once he finds how soggy the levers of power really are.
I'm quite glad I'm in politics in Britain as there's an easy niche for me. Were I in the States, I'd fall right between the parties and would find it difficult in either. My presidential preferences over the years (since 18) have been
1992 - Bush 1996 - Clinton 2000 - Bush (regretted that one but bought into the Compassionate Conservative at the time) 2004 - Kerry (better of a bad choice) 2008 - Obama 2012 - Romney
If it is Trump-Hillary, I'd probably go for her as less unreliable and then hope the Republicans come to their senses for 2020.
Afternoon all,
One thing his fans seem to ignore is that Trump wouldn't be able to get much done at all IMHO. Usually presidents have to work with Congress and do all sorts of backstairs deals to get their ideas taken up. Trump would have absolutely no idea where to even start on that kind of working.
Putin gains from a great big war in the MidEast, as it is bound to jack up the price of oil, rescuing the Russian economy.
Dangerous times.
On the other hand it would to diverting to watch Erdogan, Assad, the Saudis, Iran and ISIS all beating each other to death. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As long as the Russians and Assad are sensible and don't attack across the Turkish border in any way. If they do then Turkey can call on NATO and an attack on a member is a pretty big red line to let them cross without response.
I don't believe NATO would go to war with Russia to defend Turkey's borders. Just can't see it.
They would have no choice. To fail to do so would be in breach of the NATO treaty and would cause outrage in Poland and the Baltic States.
That would depend on the circumstances. NATO is bound by collective defence, not the need to support the adventurism of any member.
You're right that the Baltic States would get twitchy in those circumstances but that would have to be handled.
Which is why the Turkish border matters. Turkish troops in Syria are fair game for Russia, Russian troops in Turkey would be a declaration of war.
It would be no concern of mine, and I have no doubt I speak for the overwhelming majority of people in this country.
It doesn't matter, Turkey is a NATO member. Art 5 is completely paramount. NATO is dead if it is not reacted to.
Strictly speaking, a Russian attack against Turkey from Syria isn't covered by Article 5. From the NATO website:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Comments
You also have to factor the risk of Bloomberg entering into a Sanders-Trump race.
Trump is in favour of gun control -> liberal
Trump believes abortion should be legal -> liberal
Trump believes in socialised medicine -> liberal
From that report (RT I know) it looks awfully like Putin is trying to engineer WWIII in the region.
Hopefully it's mainly bluster for a domestic Russian audience.
Putin's probably still pissed at Turkey over their shooting down Russian planes.
Prepare for The Promise
Was she in Tron 2? I didn't notice.
Mind you, I slept through it.
"Let’s try a mental experiment. Let’s imagine that Britain was a public company and the finance director also ran human relations, marketing, PR and strategy — all the while intriguing to take over as chief executive.
There would be an almighty row. Shareholders wouldn’t allow it. They would insist the finance director focused to the exclusion of all else on making certain that the accounts were properly maintained.
Mr Osborne, of course, is not the finance director of a public company where he would be held to account by the other directors and the shareholders.
He is responsible for the economy of a country with more than 30 million working people. One error of judgment by the Chancellor and hundreds of thousands lose their jobs."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3445135/PETER-OBORNE-Cameron-axe-George-doesn-t-stop-juggling-jobs.html
Are the brits that much better ?
Thank you, as always, for the piece, David and an article with which I almost wholly and completely disagree (perhaps that's the aim).
What have British Conservatives got against Hillary Clinton? Once again, we have another Conservative member and activist who seems virulently anti-Clinton. Is it because the Conservatives backed the wrong horse in 1992 and we know relations between the Clinton White House and the Major Government were never that good or is it because Hillary had the temerity to say nice things about David Miliband rather than praising Hague to the skies ?
It's hard to see Clinton failing to win the Dem nomination - yes, Sanders did well in IA and NH as he should have done and it's always fun to see Eric Bolling spit out the words "democratic socialist" with real venom but Sanders won't cut it in other areas. He may well win 40% of the delegates given the proportional nature of the Dem contest.
On the GOP side, it may well be Trump as the anti-Trump forces bicker among themselves - were the Donald facing a single coherent GOP candidate, he'd struggle but he faces a plethora of selling platers who are tripping over each other to finish a poor second. As to the degree to which a reluctant GOP mainstream will rally round Trump, we'll see. I suspect their hatred of Hillary will overcome their dislike of the Donald.
Bloomberg won't enter if it's Trump vs Clinton - he probably would if it were Trump vs Sanders but even then I wonder which states he would win because getting 30% everywhere gets you zilch in the US system. Would Bloomberg win Ohio or Michigan or Florida in a Trump vs Sanders contest ?
The Trump vs Clinton debates will be great television (I hope). I wonder how the American public will view the choice between President Mother-In-Law and President Ranting Neighbour.
Would they be happy, for example, to use a baseline of the year before the referendum (2013-14) as the basis for dividing expenditure from the UK to Scotland? Because that is what they were arguing for 18 months ago.
Now that tax revenues raised in Scotland have dropped off a cliff (as much to do with income tax at higher rates as direct o&g taxes) they want the UK government ("Westminster", "England", delete as appropriate) to increase the amount of money sent to Scotland, but for only Scotland to additionally benefit from any future increase in oil prices and related taxation.
Well guess what, the rest of the UK don't see this as a good deal, and are calling you out on your 180 degree turn inside the 18 months since the referendum.
It has nothing to do with that, we are talking about everything except income tax and it has to be at "No Detriment" to Scotland. Westminster want to transfer nothing and have Scotland take all the risks based on income tax alone. Try to at least understand the basics before commenting.
Turkey has tried to overtly invade Syria before but the still Kemalist Turkish high command refused, the question is where they stand now? The problem is Erdogan is a loon and who knows what he will do. Hopefully it is just bluster for a domestic audience as the Syrians, Russians, Iranians and Kurds will engage any invasion, the last thing anyone sane wants is for this conflict to spread.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/02/the-syria-deal-whatever-it-is.html
The reality of the situation is always a secondary consideration for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing
Syria ceasefire agreed: world powers announce nationwide cessation of hostilities
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12153296/Syria-ceasefire-agreed-civil-war-peace-talks-live.html
Sanpit , tried to edit this, I appreciate you will most likely only be seeing the Tory propaganda view on the topic and so your position would seem reasonable. They are lying toerags and will pay for their perfidy.
On guns, he's in favour of a ban on assault rifles, that's about it -> Moderate
“I'm pro-life, but with the caveats. It's: Life of the mother (very important), incest and rape,” Trump said. -> Moderate
On medicine, yes he is a "liberal" I'd agree with that.
I wonder what the previous OFSTED report for that school said.
So actually, looking at dates and outcome, this inspection was if anything rather overdue.
But if it's to support Turkish forces in Syria, that might be different.
If NATO didn't defend Turkey's borders, one imagines the Baltic tigers would feel very exposed.
The worry is that a big escalation in the region will quickly draw in Israel, and once that happens the US are not far behind and then all bets are off.
Oh well, the bars are still open here and the rugby will be on in an hour or two! Wadaeaan!
http://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/index.php?q=filedownloading/&id=2473996&type=1&refer=0
So this does appear to be unscheduled, and like I say, OFSTED usually decides the outcome of these inspections in advance for purely PR reasons.
If there was any justice they should have a hard time explaining their sudden volte-face - but they won't.
What I am at a loss, just now, is with the seemingly chaotic way the present government is proceeding. We have Cameron spouting rubbish about re-negotiating our partnership with Europe, Hunt being noxious with Health, IDS in deep doo doo with Universal Credit, Fallon continuing to cut and defenestrate our armed services without getting volunteers for the Reserve Forces, and even Osborne's budget plans are coming off the rails - all this before the major cuts are going to affect people as from April.
Although re-considering the last paragraph, the Cameron referendum BS does seem to be being used to deflect media interest from the other problems. How long that will last is debatable as with the newspapers collapsing circulations (as discussed PB passim) and a lot of people now getting the information they require on line and from multiple sources, incl. of course PB and other discussion blogs, and making their own decisions.
There are a lot of unhappy people out there, Labour supporters ok are always going to be not best pleased with the Tories but they seem to be trending to being very unhappy, but it also looks like a lot of the Tory natural supporters are becoming very unhappy as well. Why do I put it this way? Well a long time ago I had an acquaintance who had worked out in the Far East who had remarked that when the locals were smiling, everything was all right, when they stopped smiling, get out of the country. Too many people in the UK are (not) smiling in front of gritted teeth, and with fixed term government there is no way of changing things for another 4 years.
I'm certain the Syrian regime and its Iranian/Russian allies will be scrupulously correct in regard to the Turkish border and as long as they stay their side, that's fine. If the Saudis want to intervene, that's their business but it's not a NATO matter and nor is the current bombing campaign against IS.
I've tried not to let my feelings about Hillary affect the piece. FWIW, I don't like her: she's the epitome of entitlement. What has she actually done to deserve the nomination? She was an unremarkable senator, lost a nomination she seemed to have sown up, then did little as Sec of State. Before that, her career was riding off the back of her husband, interfering ineffectually in his healthcare plans and turning a Kennedyesque blind eye as necessary. I recognise the irony, having said all that, in the fact that had I a vote, my favoured candidate would be Bush, but then he was quite a good governor of Florida.
I thought much the same about Sanders - that his appeal was limited - but the way his ratings continue to rise and particularly the Nevada poll have made me reassess that. If he does win there then he stands a genuine chance of taking the nomination. Sure, Hillary should win SC and do better out of Super Tuesday but a reasonable showing for him will keep the show on the road. The following weekend, I have thought that Kansas and Nebraska might offer opportunities (they're not quoted on Nate Silver's list), and the Tuesday after, Maine and Michigan should also.
Hillary should still win but the risk she doesn't, or that Trump, Cruz or whoever beats her in in a head-to-head in November, or that the FBI force her out, or that Bloomberg intervenes if the FBI does something and she doesn't withdraw, have to come collectively to more than 50%?
You're right that the Baltic States would get twitchy in those circumstances but that would have to be handled.
The SNP have been caught red-handed with their fingers in the rUK till.
True, this will help the SNP win the election in Scotland, to no end. The Zoomers will agitate ever more strongly for another referendum that Nicola can't ever have because now everyone knows exactly how much worse off they would be.
All the Unionists have to do is sit tight...
You are aware that the agreement is actually published. UNSC resolution 2254 excludes Nusra, IS and all associated forces from any ceasefire and demands that these are confronted by all parties.
http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=4369
http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:00d5144e36354e058477ca62b8e8cf88
Honest question, what perfidy?
In the aftermath of the referendum the SNP were over the moon with the promise of new powers, but now they seem not to want them.
It is a reasonable assumption income that taxes raised in Scotland are falling as the O&G sector make redundancies of higher rate taxpayers. Yet rather than deal with the fact that this means spending cuts or tax rises are needed, they prefer to critisise British politicians for offering them pretty much the deal they wanted a little over a year ago.
What additional powers would you wish to see devolved, given that the central question of independence decided for the short term future?
"So Nicola, what are you going to do?"
"Umm, mumble, Westminster, mumble, winnae let me..."
"OK, Indyref2 then! Free us from the yoke!"
"Err, naw."
I think you could ask "what has he done to deserve the nomination ?" of the likes of Trump, Obama and George W.Bush and a host of others. She has more experience in Government than Trump and in foreign affairs she's light years ahead of the Donald and his simplistic populism.
I accept the defeat to Obama was a surprise but he was a different kind of candidate running in a different way at a different time - oddly enough, Trump is more like a Republican version of Obama in some ways.
Your view of Hillary contradicts mine in that I think in many ways she's the more intelligent of the Clinton marriage but he had (and still has) the political gift. Being the First Lady probably wasn't easy for her and I think she handled the entire Monica business with dignity and that certainly wasn't easy for her. I would be happy with her as President - she seems to act in a considered and methodical way and I fear for the world with Trump as POTUS - he's a businessman who will try to act as a CEO in the White House where he can command and cajole whereas she would be a politician having to persuade and argue.
Where I would concede to you is that among the GOP claimers, Bush is the pick. Oddly enough, of the Bush dynasty, he seems more like George HW Bush who I thought was a decent man although always in Reagan's shadow.
Quickly, on NV, I wouldn't be surprised by a good Sanders performance. The big Democrat area in NV is Clark County which includes Las Vegas - young, unionised and liberal-minded.
I'm not saying that all inspections should be like that but it should be a tool in the box to be used if necessary, for example in cases where it's suspected that previous inspections have involved serious cover-ups.
@GuidoFawkes: Check out @GeorgeOsborne's locks in this 80s picture from "Home & Garden" via @thetimes https://t.co/0oCGE7ZJ5D https://t.co/a0rlVnc86p
Which would be ironic given Polish pride at saving Europe from the Turks at the battle of Vienna.
When an inspection happened, the first you knew was when they swarmed through the front door.
In terms of service, yes, she's far more experienced than Obama or GW Bush - but then neither had successful presidencies. The idea of a Cruz or Trump presidency is far from something I relish. I agree that Trump as president could get very frustrated very quickly once he finds how soggy the levers of power really are.
I'm quite glad I'm in politics in Britain as there's an easy niche for me. Were I in the States, I'd fall right between the parties and would find it difficult in either. My presidential preferences over the years (since 18) have been
1992 - Bush
1996 - Clinton
2000 - Bush (regretted that one but bought into the Compassionate Conservative at the time)
2004 - Kerry (better of a bad choice)
2008 - Obama
2012 - Romney
If it is Trump-Hillary, I'd probably go for her as less unreliable and then hope the Republicans come to their senses for 2020.
I have little doubt that - should Russian troops enter Turkey - they would invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
What would you do then?
What they cannot expect is NATO to support them logistically - an international coalition which may or may not contain NATO countries might but Syria is not in NATO and not part of NATO's theatre of operations.
I doubt the Turks will do more than defend their borders to which they have every right and the odd accident notwithstanding, short of a concerted attack on Turkish territory (and Assad has given no indication he wants to do that), it's nothing for NATO to be concerned about.
The Saudis may wish to get involved more actively (the Yemeni business notwithstanding) but again though they may be allies they are not part of NATO and not bound by that collective defence treaty.
But what it won't do is get them an agreement with HMG.
We need to be very careful about Sarajevo scenarios here.
I was wondering if it might be some busybody organisation or other, possibly including members of the council's staff, akin to the old London Public Morality Council, and emboldened by Corbyn's apparent success. If so, Labour are losing touch with reality even faster than I had thought possible.
Classic jobsworth attack. When pushed back at - the Council will issue a statement, saying that an employee had taken an unathourised action etc. Lessons will be learned....
My favourite was the one where a prison officer was told off for speaking disparagingly. Concerning Osama Bin Ladin. Because it might offend Muslims....
But the Nats knew that. Like Corbyn, their design is that they only have to get lucky once.
If we vote leave, she would have no excuse not to rerun Indyref2 and instant penury. Not sure she wants that as her legacy
One thing his fans seem to ignore is that Trump wouldn't be able to get much done at all IMHO. Usually presidents have to work with Congress and do all sorts of backstairs deals to get their ideas taken up. Trump would have absolutely no idea where to even start on that kind of working.
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Asia Minor is not "in Europe or North America".