My daughter came to tea last night and drank a fair bit of my wine. Will she need to declare this?
Best check with her Named Person.....assuming it hasn't already been reported.....
I was standing with my elderly parents outside a council building yesterday when my dad spotted a sign: "Parents will be held responsible for their children."
He looked at mum and said: "Bu**er. I thought we'd got rid of that responsibility. Josias, behave!"
Lol.
It is slightly sad that is has to be repeated in public. Its like suggesting that drivers will be held responsible for their cars. The idea that a not inconsiderable number of parents have that they are not responsible for their (minor) children is the cause of some of the more colourful parts of the UK living experience.
I have to be a bit careful as I'm still at the early stages of bringing up a child, but I agree. Bringing up a child is proving to be the hardest job I've ever had. It's not as physically hard as long-distance walking, or mentally difficult as programming, but it's wearying combination of the two. I can only hope we get it right.
As an aside, we got a report from the nursery that our little 'un attends one day a week and it contained lots of different ways of saying: "he makes lots of noise."
Some examples:
"He loves to experiment with the sounds he can make" "He has learned to talk!" "He is eager to share his expanding vocabulary" "He really loves experimenting with his voice and the effect it has on others."
Nice try but no cigar. You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party.
The dive to the left or right is besides the point. You cant win in *only* in the middle either as the LDs have proved. Winning is about keeping your core onboard AND appealing to the middle. Blair did it from the left and Thatcher from the right.
Ah, I've now seen your edit.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Aha, so your argument is go along with everything the party wants, no matter how stupid because the alternative is Corbyn, before that the alternative was Miliband, and all the Cameroons were saying the same thing about him, and before that I dare say about Kinnock. It's a slightly more grownup version of "be good or the boogieman will get you" and just about as convincing.
No, that isn't my argument. Disagree with the party, but don't actively go out to cause it harm. There are people - even on here - who call themselves Conservatives and are willing to damage Cameron and even the party just to get the result they want in the referendum. It's loony short-termism.
Your argument is also odd as many leavers are painting the EU as the boogieman.
And Corbyn is far more dangerous than Miliband ever would have been. Miliband was out of his depth and clueless. Corbyn is out of his depth and actively malign to the interests of the nation.
A leader who is out of his/her depth can listen and learn. Thatcher is the obvious example. JC needs a Whitelaw.
You trash what was a good gag by Maggie, when (being the first female Prime Minister and still facing a barrage of misogyny) she lampooned the prevailing sentiment that every Prime Minister needs a Willie....
The Labour Party stubbornly sticks to this line, nearly forty years later.
Yeah, Thatch was definitely deploying her legendary wit in that case..
A better example of her sense of humour was giving Scotland the poll tax first.....
Perhaps we could have another PB.com competition on the EU referendum, with supplementary questions, to determine whether there has been any discernible change in PBers' expectation of the result and, more importantly, the extent to which we collectively have changed our minds over recent weeks. There doesn't HAVE to be a prize on offer every time.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
No, that isn't my argument. Disagree with the party, but don't actively go out to cause it harm. There are people - even on here - who call themselves Conservatives and are willing to damage Cameron and even the party just to get the result they want in the referendum. It's loony short-termism.
Your argument is also odd as many leavers are painting the EU as the boogieman.
And Corbyn is far more dangerous than Miliband ever would have been. Miliband was out of his depth and clueless. Corbyn is out of his depth and actively malign to the interests of the nation.
There is another group of people - who are Conservatives - that worry about the direction the Cameron leadership has taken the party since February, and suggest that replacing at least part of this leadership might be in the long term interests of a Tory party.
Just as deposing Thatcher was in the long term party interest....
What's changed since February, aside from Cameron coming out for remain?
And the last line is irrelevant as Cameron's said he's going anyway.
Whoever takes over the party will want the party to be in as strong a position as possible. They should not want to take over a party at war with itself. Attempts to depose Cameron will cause such a war.
Apologies - the deposition line was at best leading. I think Cameron has had a dreadful couple of months, mostly caused by his forthright Remanianism in spite of a weak deal and massive division within his party, in turn distracting him from his normally polished demeanour. This does not make for easy governing when you have a small majority. That said, providing Osborne is removed from the levers of the Treasury, I'd be happy for him remaining for a couple of years.
His replacement will, as you say, happen naturally if he survives this year.
But my main argument is that what looks for all the world like division can be difference of opinion about policy direction. This, as was seen in 1990, can be removed with a different style at the top. Moving away from a PM committed to Nabavi-Meeksism would sweep away a lot of discontent - whether under May, Gove or Hammond. Even Boris would probably be ok if he won and got a poll bounce. But Osborne - well, he is political toast...
A better example of her sense of humour was giving Scotland the poll tax first.....
In the 1850s the town of Rugeley in Staffordshire was the scene of a spate of grisly murders - poisonings. The police did their bit and eventually found the murderer, a man named Palmer. He was hanged. Rugeley had by then become a byword for horror and petitioned the PM (Palmerston) to have the town name changed to something else. The PM agreed - but only on the condition that they named it after him! A dude with a great sense of humour. Rugeley is still called Rugeley.
Guardiania? Where socialism is a paradise, and taxes pay for little Tarquin's piano lessons?
Touche! Perhaps we are all a bit foreign to other environments in our own land. But Prime Ministers need to recognise the problem, and although Cameron is willing, I think he has a bit of a blind spot and intuitively thinks that most families routinely wonder what to do with a spare couple of hundred thousand. It's not that investing in a foreign-based trust with an eye to tax is something that people would necessarily refuse to do out of virtue - more that the issue just never arises in normal life for most people.
In reply to PfP, I don't think we're seeing much shifting of referendum opinion here. What there has been is mostly reaction against the people on the preferred side. Some of the Remainers clearly aren't entirely happy with Project Fear, and some of the Leavers are uncomfortable with finding themselves allied to Boris+Farage+Trump+Galloway. But although the campaign seems to have been going on forever, it's really not started yet and most people will only get engaged, if at all, in June.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Aha, so your argument is go along with everything the party wants, no matter how stupid because the alternative is Corbyn, before that the alternative was Miliband, and all the Cameroons were saying the same thing about him, and before that I dare say about Kinnock. It's a slightly more grownup version of "be good or the boogieman will get you" and just about as convincing.
No, that isn't my argument. Disagree with the party, but don't actively go out to cause it harm. There are people - even on here - who call themselves Conservatives and are willing to damage Cameron and even the party just to get the result they want in the referendum. It's loony short-termism.
Your argument is also odd as many leavers are painting the EU as the boogieman.
And Corbyn is far more dangerous than Miliband ever would have been. Miliband was out of his depth and clueless. Corbyn is out of his depth and actively malign to the interests of the nation.
A leader who is out of his/her depth can listen and learn. Thatcher is the obvious example. JC needs a Whitelaw.
The test to apply to Peebie-Tories (or anyone else) who call him "actively malign to the interests of the nation" is to ask - do they think that of Attlee and the 1945 settlement?
I suspect that for mot of them the answer is "yes" - those who cannot learn from the past are condemned to repeat it, yet I suspect that for many Peebie-Tories the 1920s and 1930s are a fantastic Silver Age they would like to return.
Atlee was not "actively malign". He was a patriot who did his best for his country both personally and professionally. Corbyn is not fit to lick his shoes.
Jeff Rooker has the measure of Corbyn, as this statement in the House of Lords last autumn shows:-
"My party leader cannot be accused, like the prime minister, of misleading anyone. He has never, to my knowledge, agreed to protect the realm, the British way of life, or western liberal democracies – and he won't. We need to get rid of him before we face the electorate and have a leader fit and proper to offer themselves as our prime minister…."
Mr. Jessop, could be worse. If he was* having difficulty learning to talk, for example.
Edited extra bit: *were, not was.
We're actually very relieved, as I hardly spoke at all until I was nearly five. As my dad says; "We spent five years trying to get you to talk, and the rest of the time trying to get you to shut up!"
It's my dad's brand of humour. When I was fifteen I had an operation where metal was put into my ankle. When I woke up he was sitting my bedside. The first thing he said to me was: "Well son, you're worth something to me now. If you die I can scrap you." That was followed by him asking the (incompetent) doctor what alloy had been used, and then reciting the current scrap price per tonne ...
This passage echoes some of the discussions we've had here:
"The sums in Cameron’s tax returns are relatively small for a product of a wealthy family that sent children to Eton. But to most voters they shine light on a metaphorical foreign land, as well as the real ones that house offshore trusts. In that distant land, a London house earns hundreds of thousands of pounds in rent, mothers have a spare £200,000 in cash to hand over to sons and the language of finance is spoken so fluently that investing cash is as straightforward as buying a loaf of bread."
It is the last one, I think, that Osborne trips over: that investing cash is as straightforward as buying a loaf of bread -- with the downgrading of National Savings products (and even the recent reductions in bank deposit protection, if we must bring in a Euro angle). Most people want their savings account and pension to work, their local schools and hospitals to be good. They neither want nor expect to have to jump through hoops to secure a good deal, and in any case have neither the information nor contacts to do so.
Tony Blair realised he was not on the same plane as working class voters -- one reason John Prescott and other ministers were so valuable. David Cameron and George Osborne do not seem to realise that most Conservatives do not inhabit their world. Hence the omnishambles budget and whatever we are calling the last one.
Dear me, another nosey parker day in prospect and tax policy announcements. Yawn.
Still treasure your opinion that the Panama story was a non-event the day it broke. A lady with her finger on the political pulse.
In the way that absent another major development it not going to change anything. The systems will continue exactly as they do now except for people taking slightly more interest in the operation security of their lawyers and accountants. In much the same way as the Ashley Madison hack didn't stop people having affairs. Politically it's going to be very old dry chip-wrappings come the next time anyone votes.
This is a very good piece from Alastair (which I have just seen). It pretty much sums up the case for laying Con Maj (or backing NOM), which are obvious bets, imo, if you don't mind tying up your money.
"You are wasting your time with me, being out of the EU is more important to our country's future than the short term benefit to either party."
Then you are mad. Barking mad. Stupidly, hilariously, barking mad. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Whatever powers the EU has taken off us, ten years of a Corbynite-sryle government would be far worse.
Aha, so your argument is go along with everything the party wants, no matter how stupid because the alternative is Corbyn, before that the alternative was Miliband, and all the Cameroons were saying the same thing about him, and before that I dare say about Kinnock. It's a slightly more grownup version of "be good or the boogieman will get you" and just about as convincing.
No, that isn't my argument. Disagree with the party, but don't actively go out to cause it harm. There are people - even on here - who call themselves Conservatives and are willing to damage Cameron and even the party just to get the result they want in the referendum. It's loony short-termism.
Your argument is also odd as many leavers are painting the EU as the boogieman.
And Corbyn is far more dangerous than Miliband ever would have been. Miliband was out of his depth and clueless. Corbyn is out of his depth and actively malign to the interests of the nation.
A leader who is out of his/her depth can listen and learn. Thatcher is the obvious example. JC needs a Whitelaw.
The test to apply to Peebie-Tories (or anyone else) who call him "actively malign to the interests of the nation" is to ask - do they think that of Attlee and the 1945 settlement?
I suspect that for mot of them the answer is "yes" - those who cannot learn from the past are condemned to repeat it, yet I suspect that for many Peebie-Tories the 1920s and 1930s are a fantastic Silver Age they would like to return.
Atlee was not "actively malign". He was a patriot who did his best for his country both personally and professionally. Corbyn is not fit to lick his shoes.
Jeff Rooker has the measure of Corbyn, as this statement in the House of Lords last autumn shows:-
"My party leader cannot be accused, like the prime minister, of misleading anyone. He has never, to my knowledge, agreed to protect the realm, the British way of life, or western liberal democracies – and he won't. We need to get rid of him before we face the electorate and have a leader fit and proper to offer themselves as our prime minister…."
Attlee would have kicked Corbyn out of the party as he did with the other hard left fellow travellers.
"He loves to experiment with the sounds he can make" "He has learned to talk!" "He is eager to share his expanding vocabulary" "He really loves experimenting with his voice and the effect it has on others."
I'm not sure all of these are meant positively.
Very nice I am not an expert, but having brought up four of my own and one of someone else's, I am learning the basics! My sister once got a school report reading:
"Miss X loves to participate in class discussion, even when class discussion isn't being held!"
For those fans of Michael Gove wishing to back him to succeed David Cameron as Prime Minister, those nice folk at betway are offering stand-out odds of 16/1 against such an eventuality. This compares with the much leaner prices on offer from other major bookies including 15/2 from Paddy Power, 9/1 from Corals, and 8/1 from Hills. The only snag is that they would only allow me at least to stake £3.87. Others may have more luck. Even so, the prospect of a £62 profit for the cost of a pint of beer is quite tasty I reckon. DYOR.
There is only one conclusion to be drawn from the kerfuffle over David Cameron’s tax affairs. What was all the fuss about?
The prime minister has done nothing wrong. There is something sickening about the pseudo indignation whipped up by newspapers whose proprietors are rich beyond the fantasies of avarice, with wealth protected by skilful lawyers and accountants in several continents. What is a strong word for hypocrisy?
Mr Cameron does have one problem. I have been observing British politics for more than 40 years and the current Downing Street press operation is much the worst that I can recall. At the very least, the failure to grip this story has extended its lifespan and damage has been done.
Christ on a bike, there is about four billion political miles between where Cameron is now and the "hard right", he is barely "right" at all, someone could be as right wing as Hannan as still not be close to being as leftwing as Corbyn and McDonnell. Even John Redwood is only about halfway between Cameron and the "hard right".
Elections won since ....
Views from the leftie Conservatives... "The Conservative party is too right-wing to win a general election, " Ken Clarke 3 weeks before GE2015
Many Conservatives were saying that the Conservatives would not win the election, yet alone get a majority. It was a common theme, even on such a knowledgeable forum as this. Most probably projected their own prejudices as to why they would lose.
There was too much smugness, projection and groupthink and not enough genuine knowledge on this forum in the months ahead of the GE.
The trouble with the double taxation point is that much of today's bequests are from unearned house price inflation. So the money hasn't been already taxed.
Politically though, no voters will care about this technicality. I think IHT is a mess, with only middle-ranking actually paying it, which seems unfair. However, I think Labour have walked into a trap, even if the Tories didn't exactly plan this one.
And house price inflation is caused by government failure. There's a conflict of interest right there for government.
Taxing gifts is - and will be seen by the public - as an attack on families, on what parents do for their children. We try and help our children and the idea that if we are successful and seek to assist our children this should be seen as a bad thing, as something to be penalised really sticks in the craw.
Labour can go down that road if they want but they will simply show themselves to be even more out of touch with what most people feel about their families and children.
The lifetime pension limit is one of Osborne's more stupid policies, not something to be imitated. It penalises those who do the right thing and those whose saving/investment has turned out well.
Yes the Tory infighting is unnecessary and wholly self inflicted. Way to go Dave! He's made a fundamentally wrong call, one that those who do not understand national identity and self determination find incomprehensible.
Tory voters and MPs are pretty evenly split, if he'd made the opposite call there'd still be trouble. It's his tactics in advancing his cause which have made things worse.
I am not convinced. They are pretty evenly split after a lot of arm twisting. If arms were being twisted the other way it might look very one sided.... and we would be treated to the unusual sight of Mr Nabavi supporting Leave
Remind me when a majority of Tory MPs have ever been in favour of leaving the EU?
Yes the Tory infighting is unnecessary and wholly self inflicted. Way to go Dave! He's made a fundamentally wrong call, one that those who do not understand national identity and self determination find incomprehensible.
Tory voters and MPs are pretty evenly split, if he'd made the opposite call there'd still be trouble. It's his tactics in advancing his cause which have made things worse.
I am not convinced. They are pretty evenly split after a lot of arm twisting. If arms were being twisted the other way it might look very one sided.... and we would be treated to the unusual sight of Mr Nabavi supporting Leave
Remind me when a majority of Tory MPs have ever been in favour of leaving the EU?
Well right now after a lot of threats from Osborne and arm-twisting from Cameron and the whips, its about 140 IN, and 110 OUT. How do you think those figures would look without the browbeating, never mind if Cameron was leaning in the other direction ?
Yes the Tory infighting is unnecessary and wholly self inflicted. Way to go Dave! He's made a fundamentally wrong call, one that those who do not understand national identity and self determination find incomprehensible.
Tory voters and MPs are pretty evenly split, if he'd made the opposite call there'd still be trouble. It's his tactics in advancing his cause which have made things worse.
I am not convinced. They are pretty evenly split after a lot of arm twisting. If arms were being twisted the other way it might look very one sided.... and we would be treated to the unusual sight of Mr Nabavi supporting Leave
Remind me when a majority of Tory MPs have ever been in favour of leaving the EU?
Well right now after a lot of threats from Osborne and arm-twisting from Cameron and the whips, its about 140 IN, and 110 OUT. How do you think those figures would look without the browbeating, never mind if Cameron was leaning in the other direction ?
Dear me, another nosey parker day in prospect and tax policy announcements. Yawn.
Still treasure your opinion that the Panama story was a non-event the day it broke. A lady with her finger on the political pulse.
In the way that absent another major development it not going to change anything. The systems will continue exactly as they do now except for people taking slightly more interest in the operation security of their lawyers and accountants. In much the same way as the Ashley Madison hack didn't stop people having affairs. Politically it's going to be very old dry chip-wrappings come the next time anyone votes.
I am not naive enough to believe that anything will really change . Fair enough but it is difficult to argue that there has been no political fallout from the story. Dave has had a very bad week, justifiably or not, because of the Panama story. It reinforces the "Tories favour the wealthy" meme and although that is ridiculed on PB , in the real world it hurts the Tories and will continue to do so.
Yes the Tory infighting is unnecessary and wholly self inflicted. Way to go Dave! He's made a fundamentally wrong call, one that those who do not understand national identity and self determination find incomprehensible.
Tory voters and MPs are pretty evenly split, if he'd made the opposite call there'd still be trouble. It's his tactics in advancing his cause which have made things worse.
I am not convinced. They are pretty evenly split after a lot of arm twisting. If arms were being twisted the other way it might look very one sided.... and we would be treated to the unusual sight of Mr Nabavi supporting Leave
Remind me when a majority of Tory MPs have ever been in favour of leaving the EU?
Well right now after a lot of threats from Osborne and arm-twisting from Cameron and the whips, its about 140 IN, and 110 OUT. How do you think those figures would look without the browbeating, never mind if Cameron was leaning in the other direction ?
I don't know and nor do you. As you have implicitly confirmed a majority of Tory MPs have never been in favour of leaving the EU. Hypothetical majorities conjured out of your imagination don't count.
The trouble with the double taxation point is that much of today's bequests are from unearned house price inflation. So the money hasn't been already taxed.
Politically though, no voters will care about this technicality. I think IHT is a mess, with only middle-ranking actually paying it, which seems unfair. However, I think Labour have walked into a trap, even if the Tories didn't exactly plan this one.
And house price inflation is caused by government failure. There's a conflict of interest right there for government.
Taxing gifts is - and will be seen by the public - as an attack on families, on what parents do for their children. We try and help our children and the idea that if we are successful and seek to assist our children this should be seen as a bad thing, as something to be penalised really sticks in the craw.
Labour can go down that road if they want but they will simply show themselves to be even more out of touch with what most people feel about their families and children.
The lifetime pension limit is one of Osborne's more stupid policies, not something to be imitated. It penalises those who do the right thing and those whose saving/investment has turned out well.
Why is the lifetime pension limit stupid? It simply limits the amount of tax relief the government ends up paying to the very well off.
With George raising the yearly ISA limits to £15k, those with money to invest are hardly doing badly.
In 'the scandal we're not supposed to talk about' which is now online (no, not the 'celebrity'(sic) threesome), is it just me, or is what a single middle aged politician gets up to in his own time really no one's business but his own?
He's not pontificated on the "sanctity of marriage" or the "evils of prostitution" so all this 'but he could be blackmailed' hysteria feels like its got up by journalists with axes to grind......pissed off that editors have nixed publication......either that or a bunch of maiden aunts.......I take that back, maiden aunts were usually pretty unflappable.....
Yes the Tory infighting is unnecessary and wholly self inflicted. Way to go Dave! He's made a fundamentally wrong call, one that those who do not understand national identity and self determination find incomprehensible.
Tory voters and MPs are pretty evenly split, if he'd made the opposite call there'd still be trouble. It's his tactics in advancing his cause which have made things worse.
I am not convinced. They are pretty evenly split after a lot of arm twisting. If arms were being twisted the other way it might look very one sided.... and we would be treated to the unusual sight of Mr Nabavi supporting Leave
Remind me when a majority of Tory MPs have ever been in favour of leaving the EU?
Well right now after a lot of threats from Osborne and arm-twisting from Cameron and the whips, its about 140 IN, and 110 OUT. How do you think those figures would look without the browbeating, never mind if Cameron was leaning in the other direction ?
I don't know and nor do you. As you have implicitly confirmed a majority of Tory MPs have never been in favour of leaving the EU. Hypothetical majorities conjured out of your imagination don't count.
An interesting use of the word "never" I hadn't encountered before.
This passage echoes some of the discussions we've had here:
"The sums in Cameron’s tax returns are relatively small for a product of a wealthy family that sent children to Eton. But to most voters they shine light on a metaphorical foreign land, as well as the real ones that house offshore trusts. In that distant land, a London house earns hundreds of thousands of pounds in rent, mothers have a spare £200,000 in cash to hand over to sons and the language of finance is spoken so fluently that investing cash is as straightforward as buying a loaf of bread."
And the same articles and claims were posted on the Guardian four years ago and in the end proved to be the product of the writers imagination.
The Tories may well lose the next election but it will be because of their in-fighting, euro obsession and resultant loss of focus on the proper governance of the country, and not that some of them have a bit of money.
Yes the Tory infighting is unnecessary and wholly self inflicted. Way to go Dave! He's made a fundamentally wrong call, one that those who do not understand national identity and self determination find incomprehensible.
Tory voters and MPs are pretty evenly split, if he'd made the opposite call there'd still be trouble. It's his tactics in advancing his cause which have made things worse.
I am not convinced. They are pretty evenly split after a lot of arm twisting. If arms were being twisted the other way it might look very one sided.... and we would be treated to the unusual sight of Mr Nabavi supporting Leave
Remind me when a majority of Tory MPs have ever been in favour of leaving the EU?
Well right now after a lot of threats from Osborne and arm-twisting from Cameron and the whips, its about 140 IN, and 110 OUT. How do you think those figures would look without the browbeating, never mind if Cameron was leaning in the other direction ?
I don't know and nor do you. As you have implicitly confirmed a majority of Tory MPs have never been in favour of leaving the EU. Hypothetical majorities conjured out of your imagination don't count.
An interesting use of the word "never" I hadn't encountered before.
I said that a majority of Tory MPs have "never been in favour or leaving the EU?" If there ever have been could you enlighten me as to when rather than making fatuous comments.
This passage echoes some of the discussions we've had here:
"The sums in Cameron’s tax returns are relatively small for a product of a wealthy family that sent children to Eton. But to most voters they shine light on a metaphorical foreign land, as well as the real ones that house offshore trusts. In that distant land, a London house earns hundreds of thousands of pounds in rent, mothers have a spare £200,000 in cash to hand over to sons and the language of finance is spoken so fluently that investing cash is as straightforward as buying a loaf of bread."
And the same articles and claims were posted on the Guardian four years ago and in the end proved to be the product of the writers imagination.
The Tories may well lose the next election but it will be because of their in-fighting, euro obsession and resultant loss of focus on the proper governance of the country, and not that some of them have a bit of money.
It's hard to imagine anyone working for the Guardian having the faintest insight into the 'popular mood'.
On topic, The Tories are screwed if Labour ditch Corbyn for Dan Jarvis or anyone vaguely electable, basically anyone the Tories cannot characterise as a 'terrorist sympathiser'
Wrong. It depends on who they pick as Cameron's replacement and when. If it is a LEAVER then the trouble goes away.
the hard leavers in the Conservative Party care more about disrupting the party than winning elections. That is why I shall continue to call them loons
If that covers the insane 'doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results' I'm with you. They really should just grow up!
Yet they have all pulled together when feeling that Cameron is being attacked unfairly.
Comments
As an aside, we got a report from the nursery that our little 'un attends one day a week and it contained lots of different ways of saying: "he makes lots of noise."
Some examples:
"He loves to experiment with the sounds he can make"
"He has learned to talk!"
"He is eager to share his expanding vocabulary"
"He really loves experimenting with his voice and the effect it has on others."
I'm not sure all of these are meant positively.
Edited extra bit: *were, not was.
1 day
His replacement will, as you say, happen naturally if he survives this year.
But my main argument is that what looks for all the world like division can be difference of opinion about policy direction. This, as was seen in 1990, can be removed with a different style at the top. Moving away from a PM committed to Nabavi-Meeksism would sweep away a lot of discontent - whether under May, Gove or Hammond. Even Boris would probably be ok if he won and got a poll bounce. But Osborne - well, he is political toast...
In reply to PfP, I don't think we're seeing much shifting of referendum opinion here. What there has been is mostly reaction against the people on the preferred side. Some of the Remainers clearly aren't entirely happy with Project Fear, and some of the Leavers are uncomfortable with finding themselves allied to Boris+Farage+Trump+Galloway. But although the campaign seems to have been going on forever, it's really not started yet and most people will only get engaged, if at all, in June.
Jeff Rooker has the measure of Corbyn, as this statement in the House of Lords last autumn shows:-
"My party leader cannot be accused, like the prime minister, of misleading anyone. He has never, to my knowledge, agreed to protect the realm, the British way of life, or western liberal democracies – and he won't. We need to get rid of him before we face the electorate and have a leader fit and proper to offer themselves as our prime minister…."
It's my dad's brand of humour. When I was fifteen I had an operation where metal was put into my ankle. When I woke up he was sitting my bedside. The first thing he said to me was: "Well son, you're worth something to me now. If you die I can scrap you." That was followed by him asking the (incompetent) doctor what alloy had been used, and then reciting the current scrap price per tonne ...
Can you divorce your parents?
Tony Blair realised he was not on the same plane as working class voters -- one reason John Prescott and other ministers were so valuable. David Cameron and George Osborne do not seem to realise that most Conservatives do not inhabit their world. Hence the omnishambles budget and whatever we are calling the last one.
"Miss X loves to participate in class discussion, even when class discussion isn't being held!"
For those fans of Michael Gove wishing to back him to succeed David Cameron as Prime Minister, those nice folk at betway are offering stand-out odds of 16/1 against such an eventuality.
This compares with the much leaner prices on offer from other major bookies including 15/2 from Paddy Power, 9/1 from Corals, and 8/1 from Hills.
The only snag is that they would only allow me at least to stake £3.87. Others may have more luck. Even so, the prospect of a £62 profit for the cost of a pint of beer is quite tasty I reckon.
DYOR.
For the leave team.
Are there many of either stripe around? Perhaps there are and I have not really noticed?
Taxing gifts is - and will be seen by the public - as an attack on families, on what parents do for their children. We try and help our children and the idea that if we are successful and seek to assist our children this should be seen as a bad thing, as something to be penalised really sticks in the craw.
Labour can go down that road if they want but they will simply show themselves to be even more out of touch with what most people feel about their families and children.
The lifetime pension limit is one of Osborne's more stupid policies, not something to be imitated. It penalises those who do the right thing and those whose saving/investment has turned out well.
With George raising the yearly ISA limits to £15k, those with money to invest are hardly doing badly.
He's not pontificated on the "sanctity of marriage" or the "evils of prostitution" so all this 'but he could be blackmailed' hysteria feels like its got up by journalists with axes to grind......pissed off that editors have nixed publication......either that or a bunch of maiden aunts.......I take that back, maiden aunts were usually pretty unflappable.....
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
And the same articles and claims were posted on the Guardian four years ago and in the end proved to be the product of the writers imagination.
The Tories may well lose the next election but it will be because of their in-fighting, euro obsession and resultant loss of focus on the proper governance of the country, and not that some of them have a bit of money.
Anyway at 26 and not being an SNP MP I don't think she qualifies.