We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.
I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.
That is what is happening to the Labour party.
I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.
[Snipped]
I've seen it used so often in banking as a way of denying that the problem is more widespread and systemic than the speaker is willing to admit. Hence my dislike of it. I'm allergic to the state of denial it usually represents.
We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.
I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.
That is what is happening to the Labour party.
I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.
I've not looked at this case, but on the face of it I can't see why the hierarchy haven't realised the need to appear tough and go for zero-tolerance. Whilst the constant "terrorist sympathiser" slurs are wearing to say the least, it's a lot easier to make the case for a vaguely grown up dialogue with one's enemies when one can also point to a record of dealing with those whose views really are beyond acceptable. Although with the constant fear-mongering witch-hunting "man who hated Britain" shit it's a bit hard to know which ones are the bad apples and which ones are raising reasonable points.
The left has unpleasant friends (anti-semitism and refusal to condemn behaviour of some minorities however indefensible) just as the right does (racism, apartheid etc) but, to use exactly the wrong expression, the fact that all sides have their problems isn't an excuse for failing to be whiter than white.
More that it annoys fair-minded people. After all, there isn't anyone on this earth who honestly thinks it's reasonable for Scottish MPs to veto a 100% English-only measure, even more so when what they were torpedoing applies in Scotland!
I don't find it annoying. It's what the SNP will always do. Especially on GERS day.
It doesn't seem to annoy anyone in Scotland though, at least not in any way that will affect votes, so they can be as hypocritical as they like and not suffer any consequences.
Indeed: the more hypocritical and dishonest, the better.
Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?
We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.
I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.
That is what is happening to the Labour party.
I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.
I've not looked at this case, but on the face of it I can't see why the hierarchy haven't realised the need to appear tough and go for zero-tolerance. Whilst the constant "terrorist sympathiser" slurs are wearing to say the least, it's a lot easier to make the case for a vaguely grown up dialogue with one's enemies when one can also point to a record of dealing with those whose views really are beyond acceptable. Although with the constant fear-mongering witch-hunting "man who hated Britain" shit it's a bit hard to know which ones are the bad apples and which ones are raising reasonable points.
The left has unpleasant friends (anti-semitism and refusal to condemn behaviour of some minorities however indefensible) just as the right does (racism, apartheid etc) but, to use exactly the wrong expression, the fact that all sides have their problems isn't an excuse for failing to be whiter than white.
Look at who Corbyn surrounds himself with.
Look who Blair surrounded himself with.
GW and Rupert!!
Clearly voters were less fussed about them.
Left Wing MPs weren't constantly writing open letters
We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.
I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.
That is what is happening to the Labour party.
I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.
I've not looked at this case, but on the face of it I can't see why the hierarchy haven't realised the need to appear tough and go for zero-tolerance. Whilst the constant "terrorist sympathiser" slurs are wearing to say the least, it's a lot easier to make the case for a vaguely grown up dialogue with one's enemies when one can also point to a record of dealing with those whose views really are beyond acceptable. Although with the constant fear-mongering witch-hunting "man who hated Britain" shit it's a bit hard to know which ones are the bad apples and which ones are raising reasonable points.
The left has unpleasant friends (anti-semitism and refusal to condemn behaviour of some minorities however indefensible) just as the right does (racism, apartheid etc) but, to use exactly the wrong expression, the fact that all sides have their problems isn't an excuse for failing to be whiter than white.
Look at who Corbyn surrounds himself with. These are people with an active history of supporting terrorism. Corbyn himself refuses to share a platform with the PM during the referendum campaign. But look who has been happy to share platforms with in the past.
Sharing platforms with Tories works well.
Ask Scottish Lab.
Far better to share platforms with people who advocate and celebrate the killing of British soldiers, as well as with religious bigots who believe in the death penalty for homosexuals and the subjugation of women. That's much more progressive and hugely popular among voters.
@britainelects 27m27 minutes ago EU referendum poll: Remain: 40% (-1) Leave: 41% (-) (via ICM / 04 - 06 Mar)
Bum. Squeak. Number 10.
It is a little bit reassuring. Some welcome good news.
I'm hoping the moral fibre of the British people remains intact, and that they won't be "scared" into backing Remain by the combined forces of the establishment juggernaut.
Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?
I think the SNP would enjoy that.
(*could we?)
Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.
We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.
I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.
That is what is happening to the Labour party.
I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.
I've not looked at this case, but on the face of it I can't see why the hierarchy haven't realised the need to appear tough and go for zero-tolerance. Whilst the constant "terrorist sympathiser" slurs are wearing to say the least, it's a lot easier to make the case for a vaguely grown up dialogue with one's enemies when one can also point to a record of dealing with those whose views really are beyond acceptable. Although with the constant fear-mongering witch-hunting "man who hated Britain" shit it's a bit hard to know which ones are the bad apples and which ones are raising reasonable points.
The left has unpleasant friends (anti-semitism and refusal to condemn behaviour of some minorities however indefensible) just as the right does (racism, apartheid etc) but, to use exactly the wrong expression, the fact that all sides have their problems isn't an excuse for failing to be whiter than white.
Look at who Corbyn surrounds himself with.
Look who Blair surrounded himself with.
GW and Rupert!!
And you can't see the difference between these two and anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists? Really??
Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?
I think the SNP would enjoy that.
(*could we?)
Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.
Indeed, Westminster should follow the SNP's logic and reclaim this as a central reserved issue and let the Westminster Parliament pass one law that applies to the whole UK.
We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.
I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.
That is what is happening to the Labour party.
I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.
I've not looked at this case, but on the face of it I can't see why the hierarchy haven't realised the need to appear tough and go for zero-tolerance. Whilst the constant "terrorist sympathiser" slurs are wearing to say the least, it's a lot easier to make the case for a vaguely grown up dialogue with one's enemies when one can also point to a record of dealing with those whose views really are beyond acceptable. Although with the constant fear-mongering witch-hunting "man who hated Britain" shit it's a bit hard to know which ones are the bad apples and which ones are raising reasonable points.
The left has unpleasant friends (anti-semitism and refusal to condemn behaviour of some minorities however indefensible) just as the right does (racism, apartheid etc) but, to use exactly the wrong expression, the fact that all sides have their problems isn't an excuse for failing to be whiter than white.
Look at who Corbyn surrounds himself with. These are people with an active history of supporting terrorism. Corbyn himself refuses to share a platform with the PM during the referendum campaign. But look who has been happy to share platforms with in the past.
Come on, you're knowingly comparing (bad) apples with oranges there. To say that (e.g.) Corbyn would be willing to share a platform with Hamas but not an Israeli PM would be a fair and damning critique of his views on terror (I've no idea, btw, if this has or has not happened). To compare his behaviour in a specific political campaign which is driven by the electoral needs of his party and the Scottish experience in particular with his behaviour in totally different contexts kind of spills over into irrational hatred.
We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.
I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.
That is what is happening to the Labour party.
I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.
I've not looked at this case, but on the face of it I can't see why the hierarchy haven't realised the need to appear tough and go for zero-tolerance. Whilst the constant "terrorist sympathiser" slurs are wearing to say the least, it's a lot easier to make the case for a vaguely grown up dialogue with one's enemies when one can also point to a record of dealing with those whose views really are beyond acceptable. Although with the constant fear-mongering witch-hunting "man who hated Britain" shit it's a bit hard to know which ones are the bad apples and which ones are raising reasonable points.
The left has unpleasant friends (anti-semitism and refusal to condemn behaviour of some minorities however indefensible) just as the right does (racism, apartheid etc) but, to use exactly the wrong expression, the fact that all sides have their problems isn't an excuse for failing to be whiter than white.
Look at who Corbyn surrounds himself with. These are people with an active history of supporting terrorism. Corbyn himself refuses to share a platform with the PM during the referendum campaign. But look who has been happy to share platforms with in the past.
Sharing platforms with Tories works well.
Ask Scottish Lab.
Far better to share platforms with people who advocate and celebrate the killing of British soldiers, as well as with religious bigots who believe in the death penalty for homosexuals and the subjugation of women. That's much more progressive and hugely popular among voters.
You always equate sharing platforms with agreeing with though and you would prefer a Tory Government to a Labour one so you should be happy.
@faisalislam: Government source suggest that #sundaytrading defeat proves "we were right to warn about Lab/SNP acting together against interests of UK"
We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.
I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.
That is what is happening to the Labour party.
I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.
The left has unpleasant friends (anti-semitism and refusal to condemn behaviour of some minorities however indefensible) just as the right does (racism, apartheid etc) but, to use exactly the wrong expression, the fact that all sides have their problems isn't an excuse for failing to be whiter than white.
Look at who Corbyn surrounds himself with. These are people with an active history of supporting terrorism. Corbyn himself refuses to share a platform with the PM during the referendum campaign. But look who has been happy to share platforms with in the past.
Come on, you're knowingly comparing (bad) apples with oranges there. To say that (e.g.) Corbyn would be willing to share a platform with Hamas but not an Israeli PM would be a fair and damning critique of his views on terror (I've no idea, btw, if this has or has not happened). To compare his behaviour in a specific political campaign which is driven by the electoral needs of his party and the Scottish experience in particular with his behaviour in totally different contexts kind of spills over into irrational hatred.
I look at Jezza in the round. Who he appoints, who he lets into the Labour party, who he will share platforms with and who he will not, the views he espouses. On that basis, the fact he is the leader of the party does sicken me, I admit.
We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.
I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.
That is what is happening to the Labour party.
I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.
The left has unpleasant friends (anti-semitism and refusal to condemn behaviour of some minorities however indefensible) just as the right does (racism, apartheid etc) but, to use exactly the wrong expression, the fact that all sides have their problems isn't an excuse for failing to be whiter than white.
Look at who Corbyn surrounds himself with. These are people with an active history of supporting terrorism. Corbyn himself refuses to share a platform with the PM during the referendum campaign. But look who has been happy to share platforms with in the past.
Sharing platforms with Tories works well.
Ask Scottish Lab.
Far better to share platforms with people who advocate and celebrate the killing of British soldiers, as well as with religious bigots who believe in the death penalty for homosexuals and the subjugation of women. That's much more progressive and hugely popular among voters.
You always equate sharing platforms with agreeing with though and you would prefer a Tory Government to a Labour one so you should be happy.
Blair ain't coming back
Point me to one speech in which Corbyn has directly and specifically criticised groups that advocate and celebrate the killing of British soldiers.
We are not talking about a few bad apples. Only a few weeks back did we hear of allegations that anti-Semitism is rife in the Oxford University's Labour Students club.
I've always thought the "one or two rotten apples" analogy to be, well, a really rotten one. As anyone who has ever put a rotten (or even rotting) apple in a basket of fresh apples knows, pretty soon the whole lot will be rotten.
That is what is happening to the Labour party.
I thought that was the point of the expression: in saying someone claims "that it's only one or two bad apples" the speaking is imputing doubt that it goes no further, for the real world reasons you mention. Also used to emphasise the need to get rid of the bad apples before more harm results.
The left has unpleasant friends (anti-semitism and refusal to condemn behaviour of some minorities however indefensible) just as the right does (racism, apartheid etc) but, to use exactly the wrong expression, the fact that all sides have their problems isn't an excuse for failing to be whiter than white.
Look at who Corbyn surrounds himself with. These are people with an active history of supporting terrorism. Corbyn himself refuses to share a platform with the PM during the referendum campaign. But look who has been happy to share platforms with in the past.
Come on, you're knowingly comparing (bad) apples with oranges there. To say that (e.g.) Corbyn would be willing to share a platform with Hamas but not an Israeli PM would be a fair and damning critique of his views on terror (I've no idea, btw, if this has or has not happened). To compare his behaviour in a specific political campaign which is driven by the electoral needs of his party and the Scottish experience in particular with his behaviour in totally different contexts kind of spills over into irrational hatred.
I look at Jezza in the round. Who he appoints, who he lets into the Labour party, who he will share platforms with and who he will not, the views he espouses. On that basis, the fact he is the leader of the party does sicken me, I admit.
I look at Jezza in the round. Who he appoints, who he lets into the Labour party, who he will share platforms with and who he will not, the views he espouses. On that basis, the fact he is the leader of the party does sicken me, I admit.
Obviously there are rather more shades of grey than definite black and white in international relations. Is it that you find his views distinctively more repugnant than those of politicians who manage to get comfortable with, say, supporting the Saudi regime or Israeli settlements, or more that you (probably correctly) see them as views which are electoral suicide?
I look at Jezza in the round. Who he appoints, who he lets into the Labour party, who he will share platforms with and who he will not, the views he espouses. On that basis, the fact he is the leader of the party does sicken me, I admit.
Obviously there are rather more shades of grey than definite black and white in international relations. Is it that you find his views distinctively more repugnant than those of politicians who manage to get comfortable with, say, supporting the Saudi regime or Israeli settlements, or more that you (probably correctly) see them as views which are electoral suicide?
I guess I draw the line at surrounding yourself with advisers and sharing platforms with people who celebrate the deaths of British soldiers. Am I happy with the UK sucking up to the Saudis? Absolutely not, Corbyn is right about them. But if your foreign policy is based on opposing everything the British government does at any time, then you are going to be right some of the time.
The SNP elite have now given up on independence, at least for a generation. They now want to exercise maximum, annoying, Scotland-benefiting influence at Westminster while ruling the roost in Holyrood, like many civic regionalist parties beforehand.
There's no shame in that. It's practical politics. The question is whether their fundamentalist indy wing will accept this.
I want to coin the phrase "pretendence" to describe this phenomenon: to pay lip service to the concept of independence whilst scrupulously avoiding the steps necessary to achieve it.
@britainelects 27m27 minutes ago EU referendum poll: Remain: 40% (-1) Leave: 41% (-) (via ICM / 04 - 06 Mar)
Bum. Squeak. Number 10.
It is a little bit reassuring. Some welcome good news.
I'm hoping the moral fibre of the British people remains intact, and that they won't be "scared" into backing Remain by the combined forces of the establishment juggernaut.
I told you to calm down! This referendum is going to be CLOSE. You have a good chance of winning. About 25-40% I'd say. And given the crapness of your campaign and the lying and bullying of the entire Establishment, all set against you, that is SOMETHING.
Night night from Bhutan.
Online polls are stacked with politically aware, what are skewed Leave. Project Blackmail will win, by about 61-39. But Leavers should be reassured they could win a fair referendum with their man in No 10. They just need to make sure whoever they pick don't go wobbly once in office.
I look at Jezza in the round. Who he appoints, who he lets into the Labour party, who he will share platforms with and who he will not, the views he espouses. On that basis, the fact he is the leader of the party does sicken me, I admit.
Obviously there are rather more shades of grey than definite black and white in international relations. Is it that you find his views distinctively more repugnant than those of politicians who manage to get comfortable with, say, supporting the Saudi regime or Israeli settlements, or more that you (probably correctly) see them as views which are electoral suicide?
Working with Saudi and Israel is not the same as supporting them or opposing them. Labour are actively ensuring that these people are able to be a part of them part of the very moulding and sculpture of what *is* Labour. We all of us ought to expect that political parties are a broad coalition, but there are limits as SO points out.
More that it annoys fair-minded people. After all, there isn't anyone on this earth who honestly thinks it's reasonable for Scottish MPs to veto a 100% English-only measure, even more so when what they were torpedoing applies in Scotland!
I'm an English lefty and it annoys me. But English laws has its own problems. A conundrum.
I look at Jezza in the round. Who he appoints, who he lets into the Labour party, who he will share platforms with and who he will not, the views he espouses. On that basis, the fact he is the leader of the party does sicken me, I admit.
Obviously there are rather more shades of grey than definite black and white in international relations. Is it that you find his views distinctively more repugnant than those of politicians who manage to get comfortable with, say, supporting the Saudi regime or Israeli settlements, or more that you (probably correctly) see them as views which are electoral suicide?
I guess I draw the line at surrounding yourself with advisers and sharing platforms with people who celebrate the deaths of British soldiers. Am I happy with the UK sucking up to the Saudis? Absolutely not, Corbyn is right about them. But if your foreign policy is based on opposing everything the British government does at any time, then you are going to be right some of the time.
[edit - too sensitive a subject for abstract debate]
@faisalislam: Government source suggest that #sundaytrading defeat proves "we were right to warn about Lab/SNP acting together against interests of UK"
The SNP elite have now given up on independence, at least for a generation. They now want to exercise maximum, annoying, Scotland-benefiting influence at Westminster while ruling the roost in Holyrood, like many civic regionalist parties beforehand.
There's no shame in that. It's practical politics. The question is whether their fundamentalist indy wing will accept this.
I want to coin the phrase "pretendence" to describe this phenomenon: to pay lip service to the concept of independence whilst scrupulously avoiding the steps necessary to achieve it.
The steps necessary to win a referendum evidently do not include merely holding the referendum; otherwise they would've won. They seem to be waiting for the right time to implement their agenda in full. Doesn't every party do that?
Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?
I think the SNP would enjoy that.
(*could we?)
Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.
Indeed, Westminster should follow the SNP's logic and reclaim this as a central reserved issue and let the Westminster Parliament pass one law that applies to the whole UK.
Yes that is a great idea, cuckoo. You think the Tories would have the bottle to try it.
Oh while I'm here I need to apologise: Saturday night I opined that Number 10 was not involved in the suspension of John Longworth. It now appears that (via an aide to Nora Senior) that this is entirely plausible. This will teach me not to mouth off about stuff for which I have no evidence. Apols.
The SNP elite have now given up on independence, at least for a generation. They now want to exercise maximum, annoying, Scotland-benefiting influence at Westminster while ruling the roost in Holyrood, like many civic regionalist parties beforehand.
There's no shame in that. It's practical politics. The question is whether their fundamentalist indy wing will accept this.
I want to coin the phrase "pretendence" to describe this phenomenon: to pay lip service to the concept of independence whilst scrupulously avoiding the steps necessary to achieve it.
"Pretendence"? Isn't that Britain's relationship with the EU?
Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?
I think the SNP would enjoy that.
(*could we?)
Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.
You really are a dunderheid. The Tories had the choice to protect Scottish workers and get their vote through but chose to be destructive and petty as ever. Got it right up them.
Oh while I'm here I need to apologise: Saturday night I opined that Number 10 was not involved in the suspension of John Longworth. It now appears that (via an aide to Nora Senior) that this is entirely plausible. This will teach me not to mouth off about stuff for which I have no evidence. Apols.
No, you were 100% right the first time:
However Ms Senior told The Telegraph that a Number 10 official had phoned her on Friday morning to ask about the row "about getting clarity on BCC's position on the referendum".
She added: "I think there might have been one Number 10 official. That would have been on Friday. All the media stuff started to come out and a lot of it had aligned John's comments to the BCC. Really it was about getting clarity."
Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?
I think the SNP would enjoy that.
(*could we?)
Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.
Indeed, Westminster should follow the SNP's logic and reclaim this as a central reserved issue and let the Westminster Parliament pass one law that applies to the whole UK.
I note your sarcasm and agree with it. On the one hand the SNP want independence from the rUK (but share the BoE and the £). But on the other they are afraid that English Sunday trading rules are somehow going to impact on Scotland. How then would life be if they really were independent? How would the hegemony of England affect an 'independent' Scotland. The SNP logic does not bode well for a brexited UK.
The SNP of course have just shown themselves up as being totally absurd,
Watching the Commons and seeing the Tory Party getting stuck into their Government AGAIN. Scot P should demand a paid break from his work at the Tory research Department (where he is forced to work Sunday's) and accept that the NATS have called it right again.
Osbourne's shilling was a PC ship for the NATS Deputy Leader. Rightly they turned it down and turned on the Government instead!
Englands Sunday trading has nothing to do with Scotland where Sunday trading is endemic .
''The Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 (c 18) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The aim of the Act was to close an anomaly in employment law in the United Kingdom, whereby shopworkers in England and Wales had the legal right to refuse to work on a Sunday, when shopworkers in Scotland did not enjoy this right. The anomaly arose from the different legislation in force in Scotland and the rest of the UK regarding Sunday trading. In Scotland, there was never any legislation preventing Sunday trading, and shops could choose their own opening hours.'' (wiki)
Sunday trading still does not take place in the Western Isles. Tonight's vote was as much a victory for the socially conservative, traditionalist right of the Tory Party and the Church as Scottish nationalists
Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?
I think the SNP would enjoy that.
(*could we?)
Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.
Indeed, Westminster should follow the SNP's logic and reclaim this as a central reserved issue and let the Westminster Parliament pass one law that applies to the whole UK.
I note your sarcasm and agree with it. On the one hand the SNP want independence from the rUK (but share the BoE and the £). But on the other they are afraid that English Sunday trading rules are somehow going to impact on Scotland. How then would life be if they really were independent? How would the hegemony of England affect an 'independent' Scotland. The SNP logic does not bode well for a brexited UK.
The SNP of course have just shown themselves up as being totally absurd,
Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?
I think the SNP would enjoy that.
(*could we?)
Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.
Indeed, Westminster should follow the SNP's logic and reclaim this as a central reserved issue and let the Westminster Parliament pass one law that applies to the whole UK.
I note your sarcasm and agree with it. On the one hand the SNP want independence from the rUK (but share the BoE and the £). But on the other they are afraid that English Sunday trading rules are somehow going to impact on Scotland. How then would life be if they really were independent? How would the hegemony of England affect an 'independent' Scotland. The SNP logic does not bode well for a brexited UK.
The SNP of course have just shown themselves up as being totally absurd,
The SNP elite have now given up on independence, at least for a generation. They now want to exercise maximum, annoying, Scotland-benefiting influence at Westminster while ruling the roost in Holyrood, like many civic regionalist parties beforehand.
There's no shame in that. It's practical politics. The question is whether their fundamentalist indy wing will accept this.
I want to coin the phrase "pretendence" to describe this phenomenon: to pay lip service to the concept of independence whilst scrupulously avoiding the steps necessary to achieve it.
Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?
I think the SNP would enjoy that.
(*could we?)
Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.
Indeed, Westminster should follow the SNP's logic and reclaim this as a central reserved issue and let the Westminster Parliament pass one law that applies to the whole UK.
I note your sarcasm and agree with it. On the one hand the SNP want independence from the rUK (but share the BoE and the £). But on the other they are afraid that English Sunday trading rules are somehow going to impact on Scotland. How then would life be if they really were independent? How would the hegemony of England affect an 'independent' Scotland. The SNP logic does not bode well for a brexited UK.
The SNP of course have just shown themselves up as being totally absurd,
They just stuffed the Tories, not at all bad.
They just bit the hand that feeds them.
LOL, nice one Monica, I might have bitten if you said finger
Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?
I have given details before: he lobbied the Home Secretary to let into the country Raed Salah, an anti-Semite, convicted of uttering the ancient and (and I would hope you would agree with this) disgusting blood libel against the Jews and said that he had a voice which needed to be heard. Why an anti-Semitic voice needs to be heard in Parliament, which is where Corbyn hoped to invite him to tea I don't know.
He has said that we need to understand IS's good points. Whatever those might be. Their knife sharpening skills perhaps?
It's no use pointing at Blair all the time. Your current leader is a man who has shown and continues to show appalling moral judgment. He is dragging the reputation of your party into the swamp. The longer he remains your leader the longer it will take for the Labour party to rediscover what it used to have - a moral compass. It used to be a party that understood that you fight fascists not justify and appease them and invite them to tea and call them friends and that you don't overlook evil just because it comes garbed in a religious outfit and with a darker skin.
One day we might have a Labour party with some moral courage. But not with Corbyn and his friends in charge.
The SNP elite have now given up on independence, at least for a generation. They now want to exercise maximum, annoying, Scotland-benefiting influence at Westminster while ruling the roost in Holyrood, like many civic regionalist parties beforehand.
There's no shame in that. It's practical politics. The question is whether their fundamentalist indy wing will accept this.
I want to coin the phrase "pretendence" to describe this phenomenon: to pay lip service to the concept of independence whilst scrupulously avoiding the steps necessary to achieve it.
Pretendence,like.
A lot of Little Englander whining tonight over UK MP's voting in the UK parliament. Babies , blubber , sore losers , etc come to mind
@DAaronovitch: The very arguments that the SNP use to justify opposing English Sunday trading are the ones that render independence a fantasy. Or Brexit.
The SNP elite have now given up on independence, at least for a generation. They now want to exercise maximum, annoying, Scotland-benefiting influence at Westminster while ruling the roost in Holyrood, like many civic regionalist parties beforehand.
There's no shame in that. It's practical politics. The question is whether their fundamentalist indy wing will accept this.
What has English Sunday trading got to do with Scotland. How does getting into that 'benefit' Scotland?
It doesn't. It benefits the SNP, which to SNPers is the same thing
I repeat my anecdote from last week, when I flew out to Asia from LHR T5. I shared the Fast Lane and the BA Business Class lounge with a very prominent Scot Nat MP in Westminster. He was knocking back the free champagne and looking very pleased with himself. As well he might, on a fine MP's wage plus vast expenses plus travel perks plus the chance to live in maybe the greatest city in the world, London, rather than (sorry) cold provincial Edinburgh, which is a classy and truly handsome city, but it sure ain't London.
How many SNP MPs heads will be turned by the attractions of the English capital, and the juicy advantages of living at its heart? I reckon many will go native, and start to question the virtues of TRUE independence. Instead they will want the best of both worlds. Close to what they have now.
Well I take your point but it hardly really benefits the SNP to be exposed as charlatans. Being a totally pointless MP (as opposed to latent one as in other parties) does as you say have benefits. London is indeed what it is and is as such a great benefit to our nation including the northern element of it. However I like the nature of Edinburgh and indeed lots of other parts of Scotland; being different to London is no bad thing - it adds to the gaiety of our nation. It would be nice wouldn't it if the SNP spent its time on Scottish matters and stopped fiddling with England.
@faisalislam: Government source suggest that #sundaytrading defeat proves "we were right to warn about Lab/SNP acting together against interests of UK"
Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?
I have given details before: he lobbied the Home Secretary to let into the country Raed Salah, an anti-Semite, convicted of uttering the ancient and (and I would hope you would agree with this) disgusting blood libel against the Jews and said that he had a voice which needed to be heard. Why an anti-Semitic voice needs to be heard in Parliament, which is where Corbyn hoped to invite him to tea I don't know.
He has said that we need to understand IS's good points. Whatever those might be. Their knife sharpening skills perhaps?
It's no use pointing at Blair all the time. Your current leader is a man who has shown and continues to show appalling moral judgment. He is dragging the reputation of your party into the swamp. The longer he remains your leader the longer it will take for the Labour party to rediscover what it used to have - a moral compass. It used to be a party that understood that you fight fascists not justify and appease them and invite them to tea and call them friends and that you don't overlook evil just because it comes garbed in a religious outfit and with a darker skin.
One day we might have a Labour party with some moral courage. But not with Corbyn and his friends in charge.
It's astonishingly blunt for a Labour MP to send such an open letter to his leader.
It's a political suicide note. Corbyn is frequently slurred as an apologist for terrorists, so this open letter must close Woodcock's career in Corbyn's Labour.
At what point do moderates in Labour say "enough is enough". If they can't get their party back, when do they leave and form their own?
Can you imagine what would be happening if the Tory leadership had been taken over by the BNP?
Labour won't split. The moderates will bide their time and wait till the corbynistas have had a couple of drubbings at the polls. At the moment they can just sit back and enjoy watching the Tories fighting each other like ferrets in a sack over the EU.
So let's say Corbyn leaves in a couple of years' time. Do you honestly think the Tories won't keep reminding the country that sensible Labour tolerated terrorist sympathizing anti semites for such a long period of time?
I don't support Labour currently but that is just partisan nonsense. Most people recognise that the moderates have no power within Labour at the moment. If and when Labour switch back to a moderate leader all Corbyn's baggage will go with him. The public have very short political memories. Tories harboured all manner of nazi sympathisers and anti-semites before the last war and it didn't do them any permanent harm.
Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?
I think the SNP would enjoy that.
(*could we?)
Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.
Indeed, Westminster should follow the SNP's logic and reclaim this as a central reserved issue and let the Westminster Parliament pass one law that applies to the whole UK.
I note your sarcasm and agree with it. On the one hand the SNP want independence from the rUK (but share the BoE and the £). But on the other they are afraid that English Sunday trading rules are somehow going to impact on Scotland. How then would life be if they really were independent? How would the hegemony of England affect an 'independent' Scotland. The SNP logic does not bode well for a brexited UK.
The SNP of course have just shown themselves up as being totally absurd,
They just stuffed the Tories, not at all bad.
As 99% of the divisions during 2010 - 2015 were passed against Scottish MPs votes, the SNP still have many decades of strategic divisions to vote in to redress the balance !!
The SNP elite have now given up on independence, at least for a generation. They now want to exercise maximum, annoying, Scotland-benefiting influence at Westminster while ruling the roost in Holyrood, like many civic regionalist parties beforehand.
There's no shame in that. It's practical politics. The question is whether their fundamentalist indy wing will accept this.
I want to coin the phrase "pretendence" to describe this phenomenon: to pay lip service to the concept of independence whilst scrupulously avoiding the steps necessary to achieve it.
Pretendence,like.
A lot of Little Englander whining tonight over UK MP's voting in the UK parliament. Babies , blubber , sore losers , etc come to mind
Have you never heard of devolution? Your blubbering I know is confined to the parlous state of an independent Scotland's finances and its reliance on the strength of a United Kingdom. For which I am sure we are all grateful.
Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?
I think the SNP would enjoy that.
(*could we?)
Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.
You really are a dunderheid . The Tories had the choice to protect Scottish workers and get their vote through but chose to be destructive and petty as ever. Got it right up them.
In what way is protecting devolved Scottish workers an issue for English MPs?
Jezza Corbyn will never ever ever get the opportunity to inflict as much damage as Blair did to our country.
Thankfully.
I just listened to PMQ's.. Corbyn was embarrassingly poor, almost as though he wasn't interested.. but of course he is, he just portrays himself as weak and ineffective.. HM Opposition should be better than this. Dave is on easy street.
Clinton 51 .. Trump 38 Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45 Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46
.........................................
North Carolina SUSA :
Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11
Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34
.............................................
Florida CNN/ORC
Clinton 50 .. Trump 43 Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47 Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48
................................................
Via RCP.
The GOP should choose Cruz for the sake of the party and my book.
They won't.
Horrible numbers for Trump. Too late now.
Those numbers don't tell the whole story. This is the position after months of everyone being told that reasonable people ought to think that Trump is the next Hitler and must be stopped at all costs. In that context those numbers are amazingly good for Trump. He has a long time to correct that perception and has the communication skills to do it.
Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?
The ones he is happy to let join the Labour party?
That's a bit of a leap, you don't even need to look beyond the PLP to see plenty of Labour members Corbyn doesn't agree with.
There's not agreeing and there's not agreeing. Should a Labour leader not worry about anti-semites being allowed to join the party? Shouldn't he do all he can to prevent it happening and to speak out clearly in opposition if he cannot prevent it?
I would have thought almost straight away. He could reasonably take a few weeks for immediate discussions with the rest of the EU and with his own Government to prepare things but I certainly don't think that the plan suggested by some Leavers that he could do any real negotiating prior to formally invoking Article 50 really has any strength.
That's my feeling too, but the counter-argument is that to do so would pre-empt a decision which really should be taken by the team set up to handle Brexit - in reality, by Cameron's successor.
I still have a feeling Cameron will stay at least until those negotiations are done. I am not sure who he would trust to do it otherwise.
Yeah, I agree. The possible successors in that scenario are those who (in Cameron's eyes) would make a bad situation for the Cameron legacy considerably worse. Hence the idea that he'd cling on and try and engineer a GE so he could have his increase in the majority as a consolation prize (and ideally get clear before the next Indyref).
I don't know him personally, but I get the impression that he's not far off an "oh, sod it" point, and if the vote was Leave I can't see him wanting to have a year or two haggling over the consequences. I think he'd shrug, say "OK, someone else sort it out", and quit within 3 months. Fighting a new General Election would be far from his thoughts, though I agree with those on the previous thread who said Labour would agree to it if proposed - for the Opposition to say oo-er, no, thanks would be ridiculous.
I disagree with your comment re- Labour having to agree to an election. I think they would feel justified in seeking to force the Government face the indignity of passing a Vote of No Confidence in itself in order to obtain an early Dissolution.The public would probably not be impressed by the Tories doing that, and anyway what is the point of a Fixed Term Parliament Act if the Government can ignore it at will for party advantage!
Jezza Corbyn will never ever ever get the opportunity to inflict as much damage as Blair did to our country.
Thankfully.
I just listened to PMQ's.. Corbyn was embarrassingly poor, almost as though he wasn't interested.. but of course he is, he just portrays himself as weak and ineffective.. HM Opposition should be better than this. Dave is on easy street.
Yes, agree, I watched PMQ's and Dave as usual nowadays, had an easy ride. I think JC regards it as a weekly chore, and pays little attention to its value, he may be right.
Clinton 51 .. Trump 38 Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45 Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46
.........................................
North Carolina SUSA :
Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11
Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34
.............................................
Florida CNN/ORC
Clinton 50 .. Trump 43 Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47 Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48
................................................
Via RCP.
The GOP should choose Cruz for the sake of the party and my book.
They won't.
Horrible numbers for Trump. Too late now.
Those numbers don't tell the whole story. This is the position after months of everyone being told that reasonable people ought to think that Trump is the next Hitler and must be stopped at all costs. In that context those numbers are amazingly good for Trump. He has a long time to correct that perception and has the communication skills to do it.
Communication skills? Ha ha ha. No really... thats funny really funny.
Clinton 51 .. Trump 38 Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45 Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46
.........................................
North Carolina SUSA :
Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11
Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34
.............................................
Florida CNN/ORC
Clinton 50 .. Trump 43 Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47 Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48
................................................
Via RCP.
Landslide territory for HRC vs Trump?
Whoever is the republican nominee will lose to whoever the democratic nominee is by a wide margin. That's my feeling after the GOP primary has transformed into the Syrian Civil War.
In the past I gave Trump a 40% chance of beating Hillary without Bloomberg, but after the events over the last 10 days I say 0% now. And that's 0% for any republican nominee.
Jezza Corbyn will never ever ever get the opportunity to inflict as much damage as Blair did to our country.
Thankfully.
I just listened to PMQ's.. Corbyn was embarrassingly poor, almost as though he wasn't interested.. but of course he is, he just portrays himself as weak and ineffective.. HM Opposition should be better than this. Dave is on easy street.
Yes, agree, I watched PMQ's and Dave as usual nowadays, had an easy ride. I think JC regards it as a weekly chore, and pays little attention to its value, he may be right.
'Richard Burgon (Lab, Leeds East), asked whether, in the event of a Leave vote in the referendum, the Prime Minister will resign – “Yes or No”? “No,” Cameron answered, with admirable brevity.' (Con Home)
Clinton 51 .. Trump 38 Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45 Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46
.........................................
North Carolina SUSA :
Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11
Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34
.............................................
Florida CNN/ORC
Clinton 50 .. Trump 43 Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47 Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48
................................................
Via RCP.
The GOP should choose Cruz for the sake of the party and my book.
They won't.
Horrible numbers for Trump. Too late now.
Those numbers don't tell the whole story. This is the position after months of everyone being told that reasonable people ought to think that Trump is the next Hitler and must be stopped at all costs. In that context those numbers are amazingly good for Trump. He has a long time to correct that perception and has the communication skills to do it.
One of the funnier Trump fantasy posts today and there have been several chuckle inducing contenders.
Donald Trump becomes Mother Theresa in a "communication skills" extravaganza. Priceless.
Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?
I think the SNP would enjoy that.
(*could we?)
Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.
You really are a dunderheid . The Tories had the choice to protect Scottish workers and get their vote through but chose to be destructive and petty as ever. Got it right up them.
In what way is protecting devolved Scottish workers an issue for English MPs?
It's not, malcomg is spinning faster than my Tumble Drier.
Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?
The ones he is happy to let join the Labour party?
That's a bit of a leap, you don't even need to look beyond the PLP to see plenty of Labour members Corbyn doesn't agree with.
There's not agreeing and there's not agreeing. Should a Labour leader not worry about anti-semites being allowed to join the party? Shouldn't he do all he can to prevent it happening and to speak out clearly in opposition if he cannot prevent it?
Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racist members as a priority over all other initiatives that might make the party electable would be a correct allocation of resources. Sounds a bit like ideological purity over pragmatism to me. Should they speak out against all racist views? Yeah, definitely.
I You think Labour MPs would agree to an election if the polls, as now, pointed to absolute destruction under Corbyn? Why the F would they do that?
Far better to let the Tories stew in their euro-juice, let their phile-v-sceptic recriminations continue, and in the meantime try and topple Corbyn and get someone sane in, for 2020.
I agree Cameron is the type to walk away. He's a family man, he's got a hinterland, he's already been doing the leader job for ten years. AND he's announced he's quitting anyhow.
What on earth would compel him to stand there in the Commons, for another pointless year, when he's just the butt of ridicule from sceptics, the object of hatred for europhiles?
And in the meantime he'd have to try and negotiate a decent Brexit which he told us was impossible, thus proving he's a liar, to boot.
Just bonkers. He'd go.
I remember having this same argument pre-indyref, when I said Cameron would resign if he lost the Union. Plenty of pb-ers pooh-poohed me, especially the loyalist Tories.
A few weeks after the vote, it was revealed that Yes, he'd have quit almost immediately. I was right then and I'm right now.
3 reasons the GE would happen
1) you can't be seen as afraid of a GE when you're the opposition. You just can't. It's over for a LOTO who turns down the chance to go to the country. Deselection stops being a fairly abstract concept for MPs who rebel against Corbyn's opportunity to push for the Glorious New Dawn.
2) In addition Labour right wingers would correctly see the possibility of defenestrating Corbyn in favour of a unity candidate ("Seriously? You expect us to follow him into a GE?")
3) as (I think) Robert pointed out, any law requiring two thirds of the house is a nullity as it can be repealed with a simple majority. So a majority government can call an early GE. Labour know this so why take the risk of looking like cowards by refusing to vote for an early election, then having one anyway when the first Tory attack line will be "even Labour don't think they should win"?
That's why.
This is wishful thinking and largely bonkers. Labour would not meekly allow legislation to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act to be rushed through for Tory Party advantage. In the unlikely event of the Government trying to go down that road the relevant Bill would be subject to the normal Parliamentary stages. I think it unlikely that a Government so obviously seeking to play 'fast & loose' with the Constitution for potential electoral gain in such a way would impress the electorate.It will not happen.
This is wishful thinking and largely bonkers. Labour would not meekly allow legislation to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act to be rushed through for Tory Party advantage. In the unlikely event of the Government trying to go down that road the relevant Bill would be subject to the normal Parliamentary stages. I think it unlikely that a Government so obviously seeking to play 'fast & loose' with the Constitution for potential electoral gain in such a way would impress the electorate.It will not happen.
In the past I gave Trump a 40% chance of beating Hillary without Bloomberg, but after the events over the last 10 days I say 0% now.
You said he was finished after the last Fox debate and he's bounced back.
To put in another way, I simply don't believe that Cruz would be (more) competitive in a national election and so those polls can't be reflective of how things would play out in the real world but simply show that it is politically correct to be #nevertrump.
Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?
I have given details before: he lobbied the Home Secretary to let into the country Raed Salah, an anti-Semite, convicted of uttering the ancient and (and I would hope you would agree with this) disgusting blood libel against the Jews and said that he had a voice which needed to be heard. Why an anti-Semitic voice needs to be heard in Parliament, which is where Corbyn hoped to invite him to tea I don't know.
He has said that we need to understand IS's good points. Whatever those might be. Their knife sharpening skills perhaps?
It's no use pointing at Blair all the time. Your current leader is a man who has shown and continues to show appalling moral judgment. He is dragging the reputation of your party into the swamp. The longer he remains your leader the longer it will take for the Labour party to rediscover what it used to have - a moral compass. It used to be a party that understood that you fight fascists not justify and appease them and invite them to tea and call them friends and that you don't overlook evil just because it comes garbed in a religious outfit and with a darker skin.
One day we might have a Labour party with some moral courage. But not with Corbyn and his friends in charge.
Cyclefree are you still a Lib Dem?
I am not and never have been a member of any political party. Maajid Nawaz was the Lib Dem candidate in my constituency in the last election: a good candidate standing in exactly the wrong year to be a Lib Dem. A shame. Someone like him in Parliament would be a good thing.
I certainly could never vote for a Labour party with Corbyn in charge. I thought Blair was a narcissistic weasel who, ultimately, lacked courage on important matters, though he was - for a while - an effective, electorally effective politician. Labour's slide into authoritarianism under him really turned me off Labour. How a party which claimed to be on the side of human rights could seriously propose ID cards and 90-day detention without charge utterly appalled and repelled me.
Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?
The ones he is happy to let join the Labour party?
That's a bit of a leap, you don't even need to look beyond the PLP to see plenty of Labour members Corbyn doesn't agree with.
There's not agreeing and there's not agreeing. Should a Labour leader not worry about anti-semites being allowed to join the party? Shouldn't he do all he can to prevent it happening and to speak out clearly in opposition if he cannot prevent it?
Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racist members as a priority over all other initiatives that might make the party electable would be a correct allocation of resources. Sounds a bit like ideological purity over pragmatism to me. Should they speak out against all racist views? Yeah, definitely.
Well, it seems that's where you and I differ. An anti-semitic apologist for 9/11 has been allowed to join the Labour party. My view is the party's leader has a responsibility to do all he can to see that decision is reversed. But I guess that's why Labour has lost my vote.
I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%
That's only half the picture, though.
Florida has a very large Hispanic population. It's very possible that Hispanics will swing further to the Democrats than in 2012 due to Trump's comments, at the same time as there's a large swing to Trump among the white working class.
IMO, it's possible that Clinton could win Florida and Virginia, at the same time as Trump gains the likes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Perhaps English Conservative MPs should vote to impose the right* of English Hunts to conduct full-throated, full-blooded foxhunts when pursuing their quarry across the border *into* Scotland?
I think the SNP would enjoy that.
(*could we?)
Actually, I think what we should do is follow the SNP's argument. Clearly Sunday trading shouldn't be a devolved matter, by their 'logic'.
You really are a dunderheid . The Tories had the choice to protect Scottish workers and get their vote through but chose to be destructive and petty as ever. Got it right up them.
In what way is protecting devolved Scottish workers an issue for English MPs?
It's not, malcomg is spinning faster than my Tumble Drier.
This is wishful thinking and largely bonkers. Labour would not meekly allow legislation to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act to be rushed through for Tory Party advantage. In the unlikely event of the Government trying to go down that road the relevant Bill would be subject to the normal Parliamentary stages. I think it unlikely that a Government so obviously seeking to play 'fast & loose' with the Constitution for potential electoral gain in such a way would impress the electorate.It will not happen.
Not sure. A lot of Labour people (not unreasonably) hold the view that the FTPA was rushed through for Tory party advantage and would welcome its repeal. And considerations of playing fast and loose with the constitution being an electoral risk really don't seem to have bothered the Tories recently with various other legislative priorities they've pursued. To be fair, the electorate doesn't really seem to care so they've called that one right.
Pretty appalling. Why were they not arrested on the spot. Sad to think it will only cost them £30 do demonstrate they are knob ends next season.
Actually it will only be £26 as Arsenal are continuing to subsidize away tickets by £4. I'm against this for a number of reasons. This is the end of history - that is, those fans on the Away Scheme or with enough credits (that includes me) will be able dominate away tickets at a much reduced cost. Twitter is awash with people flogging away tickets and this will only make it worse.
What this means is Arsenal season ticket holders are denied the chance of getting away tickets through the club. I don't like to be snobbish but the blackmarket of away tickets allows idiots to get tickets who wouldn't otherwise be able to do so. I've queried Arsenal's efforts to stamp out the blackmarket and quite frankly they don't care.
This is wishful thinking and largely bonkers. Labour would not meekly allow legislation to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act to be rushed through for Tory Party advantage. In the unlikely event of the Government trying to go down that road the relevant Bill would be subject to the normal Parliamentary stages. I think it unlikely that a Government so obviously seeking to play 'fast & loose' with the Constitution for potential electoral gain in such a way would impress the electorate.It will not happen.
You're deeply misunderstanding the Fixed Term Parliament Act and seemingly ignorant of how early elections work across the continent in nations with similar acts.
The act never needs to be repealed. Never. All the government needs to do is put forward a motion calling for an early election and whip its own party into voting for the motion. It needs to pass by two-thirds but would almost inevitably pass all-but unanimously no matter what..
If the opposition votes for the election then the election is on like the government wanted, win for them. Any opposition that was too frit to go ahead with an election would be absolutely humiliated in public opinion, an even bigger win for the government. The only time when the vote would fail is if the government couldn't carry its own MPs forwards, ie if there's a coalition government and one party with enough MPs says no. Which is why it was designed as it was, for a coalition government (though the Lib Dems never had enough to block anyway).
Brown was humiliated for running away from "the election that never was" and never recovered from that, with that being from being in government. Any opposition that voted against an early election and a chance to grab power (effectively opting to say that they'd rather the government continues than get elected themselves) could never recover from that.
Which is why a vote for an early election will always pass.
Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?
The ones he is happy to let join the Labour party?
That's a bit of a leap, you don't even need to look beyond the PLP to see plenty of Labour members Corbyn doesn't agree with.
There's not agreeing and there's not agreeing. Should a Labour leader not worry about anti-semites being allowed to join the party? Shouldn't he do all he can to prevent it happening and to speak out clearly in opposition if he cannot prevent it?
Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racist members as a priority over all other initiatives that might make the party electable would be a correct allocation of resources. Sounds a bit like ideological purity over pragmatism to me. Should they speak out against all racist views? Yeah, definitely.
Well, it seems that's where you and I differ. An anti-semitic apologist for 9/11 has been allowed to join the Labour party. My view is the party's leader has a responsibility to do all he can to see that decision is reversed. But I guess that's why Labour has lost my vote.
Oh come off it SO, when it comes to the election you'll still vote Labour like you did last time.
This is wishful thinking and largely bonkers. Labour would not meekly allow legislation to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act to be rushed through for Tory Party advantage. In the unlikely event of the Government trying to go down that road the relevant Bill would be subject to the normal Parliamentary stages. I think it unlikely that a Government so obviously seeking to play 'fast & loose' with the Constitution for potential electoral gain in such a way would impress the electorate.It will not happen.
Not sure. A lot of Labour people (not unreasonably) hold the view that the FTPA was rushed through for Tory party advantage and would welcome its repeal. And considerations of playing fast and loose with the constitution being an electoral risk really don't seem to have bothered the Tories recently with various other legislative priorities they've pursued. To be fair, the electorate doesn't really seem to care so they've called that one right.
Bollocks if Labour were in the place where a bit of dicking about with the consititution gave them a short term advantage they'd go for it like a shot
Clinton 51 .. Trump 38 Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45 Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46
.........................................
North Carolina SUSA :
Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11
Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34
.............................................
Florida CNN/ORC
Clinton 50 .. Trump 43 Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47 Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48
................................................
Via RCP.
Landslide territory for HRC vs Trump?
Indeed. A repeat of those numbers in November and Trump will likely pull down the house with him.
Senate too?
A Dem President, The House and Senate too.
Trump really is a secret Dem.
I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%
Says it all
A few other polls have had Trump beating Hillary in Florida, personally I think he will win it and it will be very tight nationally but Hillary just about wins it overall
The GOP will still hold the House regardless even if the Dems have an outside chance of taking the Senate
Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?
The ones he is happy to let join the Labour party?
That's a bit of a leap, you don't even need to look beyond the PLP to see plenty of Labour members Corbyn doesn't agree with.
There's not agreeing and there's not agreeing. Should a Labour leader not worry about anti-semites being allowed to join the party? Shouldn't he do all he can to prevent it happening and to speak out clearly in opposition if he cannot prevent it?
Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racist members as a priority over all other initiatives that might make the party electable would be a correct allocation of resources. Sounds a bit like ideological purity over pragmatism to me. Should they speak out against all racist views? Yeah, definitely.
Well, it seems that's where you and I differ. An anti-semitic apologist for 9/11 has been allowed to join the Labour party. My view is the party's leader has a responsibility to do all he can to see that decision is reversed. But I guess that's why Labour has lost my vote.
Fair enough, I respect your principles. I just don't know where this one would end. I'm sure it would be straightforward to find members of all main parties expressing seriously unsavoury views, were one to make the effort. I'm not at all sure that those parties' respective leaders would immediately expel those members if the views were brought to their attentions. And then you get left with nobody to vote for. It feels like a desirable but unachievable ideal. (I'd be delighted to discover I'm being too cynical btw)
Which anti-Semites / Holocaust deniers / IS apologists does Corbyn agree with?
The ones he is happy to let join the Labour party?
That's a bit of a leap, you don't even need to look beyond the PLP to see plenty of Labour members Corbyn doesn't agree with.
There's not agreeing and there's not agreeing. Should a Labour leader not worry about anti-semites being allowed to join the party? Shouldn't he do all he can to prevent it happening and to speak out clearly in opposition if he cannot prevent it?
Any political leader should worry about racists of any flavour joining their party. Is it something that can be eradicated? Not sure, there are a lot of racists about. Should they do all they can to prevent it happening? Again, not sure. It should be a consideration, but I'm not sure that devoting itself to the eradication of racist members as a priority over all other initiatives that might make the party electable would be a correct allocation of resources. Sounds a bit like ideological purity over pragmatism to me. Should they speak out against all racist views? Yeah, definitely.
It is about what your expectations of behaviour are. The tone is set from the top. A leader should be able to say: this is who we are, this is how we behave, this is where we're going to and this is how we're getting there.
And the actions need to fit the words.
It is no use wittering about racism when your own actions and words (and lack of) show that you are not willing to take any effective action against one of the oldest and most pernicious and brutal racisms of all. You may say that you have other priorities or you don't have the resources (though these sound like excuses for inaction to me) but then don't be surprised if others look at you, what you do and don't do and the company you keep and form their own view as to the sort of party you are and the values you really espouse.
In Labour - now - I see a party led by people who I do not believe are able to distinguish between good and evil, who are unwilling to confront some of the forms of evil we currently face in the world, who have a moral blindness, a lack of moral courage. This does not apply to all its members, of course, but the leaders set the tone - and in Corbyn and McDonnell and Milne - the tone which has been set is a wrong one. IMO.
That others in the party may not share these views is neither here nor there. They are not in charge. They may be biding their time. But as a great man once said: "For evil to flourish, all it takes is for good men to do nothing."
This is wishful thinking and largely bonkers. Labour would not meekly allow legislation to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act to be rushed through for Tory Party advantage. In the unlikely event of the Government trying to go down that road the relevant Bill would be subject to the normal Parliamentary stages. I think it unlikely that a Government so obviously seeking to play 'fast & loose' with the Constitution for potential electoral gain in such a way would impress the electorate.It will not happen.
Not sure. A lot of Labour people (not unreasonably) hold the view that the FTPA was rushed through for Tory party advantage and would welcome its repeal. And considerations of playing fast and loose with the constitution being an electoral risk really don't seem to have bothered the Tories recently with various other legislative priorities they've pursued. To be fair, the electorate doesn't really seem to care so they've called that one right.
Bollocks if Labour were in the place where a bit of dicking about with the consititution gave them a short term advantage they'd go for it like a shot
see 1997-2010
Sorry, which bit of that is Djanoglys? I completely agree with you on Labour's attitude. Blair's use of guillotine motions etc was disgraceful. I'm only saying a) lots of Labour don't like FTPA and b) the Tories are the ones in power at the moment and they're playing the game.
The ICM poll should be a reality check for Remain. High-fiving each other about the brilliance of their campaign, and the ineptitude of Leave is no substitute for actually persuading the voters.
I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%
That's only half the picture, though.
Florida has a very large Hispanic population. It's very possible that Hispanics will swing further to the Democrats than in 2012 due to Trump's comments, at the same time as there's a large swing to Trump among the white working class.
IMO, it's possible that Clinton could win Florida and Virginia, at the same time as Trump gains the likes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
I'm just fascinated to know who'll win the battle between @RodCrosby and @JackW to be honest.
Clinton 51 .. Trump 38 Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45 Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46
.........................................
North Carolina SUSA :
Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11
Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34
.............................................
Florida CNN/ORC
Clinton 50 .. Trump 43 Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47 Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48
................................................
Via RCP.
Landslide territory for HRC vs Trump?
Indeed. A repeat of those numbers in November and Trump will likely pull down the house with him.
Senate too?
A Dem President, The House and Senate too.
Trump really is a secret Dem.
I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%
Says it all
A few other polls have had Trump beating Hillary in Florida, personally I think he will win it and it will be very tight nationally but Hillary just about wins it overall
The GOP will still hold the House regardless even if the Dems have an outside chance of taking the Senate
The chances of the Democrats winning the House are very remote. They pile up huge, but useless, majorities in safe seats.
The ICM poll should be a reality check for Remain. High-fiving each other about the brilliance of their campaign, and the ineptitude of Leave is no substitute for actually persuading the voters.
People don't defer to the establishment in the way they once did. They are all too aware of being bullied, lied to and manipulated. These tactics will backfire on REMAIN if they are not careful.
Comments
I think the SNP would enjoy that.
(*could we?)
I'm hoping the moral fibre of the British people remains intact, and that they won't be "scared" into backing Remain by the combined forces of the establishment juggernaut.
Blair ain't coming back
Strange
Corbyn and Osama bin Laden famously agreed that Arsenal were the greatest football team ever. Damning, really.
Give me a West Aston Ham Villa supporter anytime.
Least bad option anyday
Labour are actively ensuring that these people are able to be a part of them part of the very moulding and sculpture of what *is* Labour. We all of us ought to expect that political parties are a broad coalition, but there are limits as SO points out.
However Ms Senior told The Telegraph that a Number 10 official had phoned her on Friday morning to ask about the row "about getting clarity on BCC's position on the referendum".
She added: "I think there might have been one Number 10 official. That would have been on Friday. All the media stuff started to come out and a lot of it had aligned John's comments to the BCC. Really it was about getting clarity."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12186850/Exclusive-David-Cameron-aide-complained-about-John-Longworth-to-British-Chambers-of-Commerce-hours-before-he-was-suspended.html
On the one hand the SNP want independence from the rUK (but share the BoE and the £). But on the other they are afraid that English Sunday trading rules are somehow going to impact on Scotland.
How then would life be if they really were independent? How would the hegemony of England affect an 'independent' Scotland.
The SNP logic does not bode well for a brexited UK.
The SNP of course have just shown themselves up as being totally absurd,
He has said that we need to understand IS's good points. Whatever those might be. Their knife sharpening skills perhaps?
It's no use pointing at Blair all the time. Your current leader is a man who has shown and continues to show appalling moral judgment. He is dragging the reputation of your party into the swamp. The longer he remains your leader the longer it will take for the Labour party to rediscover what it used to have - a moral compass. It used to be a party that understood that you fight fascists not justify and appease them and invite them to tea and call them friends and that you don't overlook evil just because it comes garbed in a religious outfit and with a darker skin.
One day we might have a Labour party with some moral courage. But not with Corbyn and his friends in charge.
Being a totally pointless MP (as opposed to latent one as in other parties) does as you say have benefits.
London is indeed what it is and is as such a great benefit to our nation including the northern element of it. However I like the nature of Edinburgh and indeed lots of other parts of Scotland; being different to London is no bad thing - it adds to the gaiety of our nation.
It would be nice wouldn't it if the SNP spent its time on Scottish matters and stopped fiddling with England.
ARSENAL fans appear to have been caught on camera singing sick anti-semitic songs on the London underground.
Footage has emerged of the group, who are wearing Arsenal scarves, chanting: "I've got foreskin, how about you? F***ing Jew."
The football supporters are believed to be travelling to White Hart Lane for Saturday's North London derby, which ended in a thrilling 2-2 draw.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/6986786/Fing-Jew-Footage-appears-to-show-Arsenal-fans-chanting-vile-anti-semitic-songs-on-London-Underground.html?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-TheSunNewspaper-_-20160309-_-Sport-_-390299315-_-Imageandlink
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN07048
Your blubbering I know is confined to the parlous state of an independent Scotland's finances and its reliance on the strength of a United Kingdom. For which I am sure we are all grateful.
Clinton 51 .. Trump 38
Clinton 47 .. Cruz 45
Clinton 46 .. Rubio 46
.........................................
North Carolina SUSA :
Trump 41.. Cruz 27 .. Rubio 14 .. Kasich 11
Clinton 57 .. Sanders 34
.............................................
Florida CNN/ORC
Clinton 50 .. Trump 43
Clinton 46 .. Cruz 47
Clinton 44 .. Rubio 48
................................................
Via RCP.
Thankfully.
They won't.
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/706988754448285696
Or alternatively Hillary is like Obama in 2008 without white voters.
http://sabotagetimes.com/football/arsenal-vs-spurs-should-the-north-london-derby-be-a-jewish-holiday
That's my feeling after the GOP primary has transformed into the Syrian Civil War.
In the past I gave Trump a 40% chance of beating Hillary without Bloomberg, but after the events over the last 10 days I say 0% now.
And that's 0% for any republican nominee.
A Dem President, The House and Senate too.
Trump really is a secret Dem.
I mean Obama won Florida by less than 1% and Clinton is winning it by 7%
Says it all
GOP
Trump 41
Kasich 35
Cruz 15
Rubio 7
Dems
Clinton 63
Sanders 33
General Election
Clinton 50
Trump 43
Clinton 51
Cruz 42
Clinton 48
Rubio 46
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/trump-clinton-lead-florida-ohio/index.html
“No,” Cameron answered, with admirable brevity.'
(Con Home)
Donald Trump becomes Mother Theresa in a "communication skills" extravaganza. Priceless.
To put in another way, I simply don't believe that Cruz would be (more) competitive in a national election and so those polls can't be reflective of how things would play out in the real world but simply show that it is politically correct to be #nevertrump.
I certainly could never vote for a Labour party with Corbyn in charge. I thought Blair was a narcissistic weasel who, ultimately, lacked courage on important matters, though he was - for a while - an effective, electorally effective politician. Labour's slide into authoritarianism under him really turned me off Labour. How a party which claimed to be on the side of human rights could seriously propose ID cards and 90-day detention without charge utterly appalled and repelled me.
Florida has a very large Hispanic population. It's very possible that Hispanics will swing further to the Democrats than in 2012 due to Trump's comments, at the same time as there's a large swing to Trump among the white working class.
IMO, it's possible that Clinton could win Florida and Virginia, at the same time as Trump gains the likes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
What this means is Arsenal season ticket holders are denied the chance of getting away tickets through the club. I don't like to be snobbish but the blackmarket of away tickets allows idiots to get tickets who wouldn't otherwise be able to do so. I've queried Arsenal's efforts to stamp out the blackmarket and quite frankly they don't care.
The act never needs to be repealed. Never. All the government needs to do is put forward a motion calling for an early election and whip its own party into voting for the motion. It needs to pass by two-thirds but would almost inevitably pass all-but unanimously no matter what..
If the opposition votes for the election then the election is on like the government wanted, win for them. Any opposition that was too frit to go ahead with an election would be absolutely humiliated in public opinion, an even bigger win for the government. The only time when the vote would fail is if the government couldn't carry its own MPs forwards, ie if there's a coalition government and one party with enough MPs says no. Which is why it was designed as it was, for a coalition government (though the Lib Dems never had enough to block anyway).
Brown was humiliated for running away from "the election that never was" and never recovered from that, with that being from being in government. Any opposition that voted against an early election and a chance to grab power (effectively opting to say that they'd rather the government continues than get elected themselves) could never recover from that.
Which is why a vote for an early election will always pass.
see 1997-2010
The GOP will still hold the House regardless even if the Dems have an outside chance of taking the Senate
And the actions need to fit the words.
It is no use wittering about racism when your own actions and words (and lack of) show that you are not willing to take any effective action against one of the oldest and most pernicious and brutal racisms of all. You may say that you have other priorities or you don't have the resources (though these sound like excuses for inaction to me) but then don't be surprised if others look at you, what you do and don't do and the company you keep and form their own view as to the sort of party you are and the values you really espouse.
In Labour - now - I see a party led by people who I do not believe are able to distinguish between good and evil, who are unwilling to confront some of the forms of evil we currently face in the world, who have a moral blindness, a lack of moral courage. This does not apply to all its members, of course, but the leaders set the tone - and in Corbyn and McDonnell and Milne - the tone which has been set is a wrong one. IMO.
That others in the party may not share these views is neither here nor there. They are not in charge. They may be biding their time. But as a great man once said: "For evil to flourish, all it takes is for good men to do nothing."