What a nasty, unpleasant remark. Sunil is one of the most intelligent contributors on this site and he can do that r squared thingy standing on his head.
Last time Labour had a majority they had a majority of English MPs. Yup in 2005.
But in 2005 Tories got more votes in England!
Yup sunil,tories even had micheal howard as leader and he got more votes than labour in England,now that's funny ;-)
Getting more votes in the wrong places doesn't matter under FPTP. And Tories reluctance to vote tactically in seats they can't win makes it even more amusing.
Amusing like this?
2010 England:
Tories 298 seats Labour 191 seats
Surprising, Dr. Prasannan. You only quote English figures when it suits you. However, when you want to talk about Murray, all on a sudden you become British.
Surprising, Dr. Prasannan. You only quote English figures when it suits you. However, when you want to talk about Murray, all on a sudden you become British.
I expect that's because party political seat distribution and Wimbledon winners are exactly the same thing.
What a nasty, unpleasant remark. Sunil is one of the most intelligent contributors on this site
Completely agree with @old_labour, @redcliffe62, @fitalass, @john_zims, @Tykejohnno and others who have called out IOS for that puerile comment. There's a place on PB for making a point aggressively and often a justification for getting frustrated with each other, but that was just premeditated malice.
Great timing for the government, approving the sale of Royal Mail by saying we can't afford to run a company that size, just after it posts record £400 million profits.
Very interesting and informative programme on Channel 4 covering the trial of Nat Fraser. I do not remember being aware of the case before, and when I noticed the listing in the Radio Times, I looked it up on the internet. My initial impression from doing so was to be concerned about the safety of the conviction, the pattern of circumstantial evidence, and the amount of supposition and speculation involved.
Now, having watched the programme (albeit only a 2-hour summary rather than all 5 weeks), I am of the opinion that it is overwhelmingly likely that Nat Fraser committed the murder as charged (probably in conspiracy with Hector Dick), but that I would have voted for "Not Guilty" on the grounds that there is a small element of doubt which is big enough to be "reasonable".
In general, it would seem to be a good advert for allowing trials to be televised more widely.
I am a bit concerned about the TV news coverage yesterday of the ruling from the ECHR on the review of whole-life tariff sentences. The case heard was brought by three convicted prisoners, but the TV news (on both BBC and ITV) focussed exclusively on the case of Jeremy Bamber, and hardly even mentioned the other two.
I have always believed that Jeremy Bamber is innocent, but why so much fuss about him, even if he isn't? Why not even mention what the other two did?
but that I would have voted for "Not Guilty" on the grounds that there is a small element of doubt which is big enough to be "reasonable"
And that can be the perversity of jury trials. We've both got the same familiarity with the cases thanks to the televising etc and we have different views on Guilt in the two. When I lived in the UK I was foreman of a jury dealing with a particularly vile sex case. The crass, stupid and in two instances downright scary reasons why certain jurors made their decisions has given me a horror of ever trusting my liberty to my peers.
but the TV news (on both BBC and ITV) focussed exclusively on the case of Jeremy Bamber, and hardly even mentioned the other two.
Of course. The whole tone of the debate would have been different if the broadcasters had focused on Peter Moore who stabbed four gay men for sexual kicks. Then we'd be rightly outraged that the ECHR is creating an entirely new precedent whilst preventing us enforcing our own laws against an evil man.
Bamber, who it should be remembered killed five members of his own family for an inheritance, refuses to take responsibility for what he did and therefore is used to introduce some 'doubt' into the equation. The BBC wants us to wonder whether there is a miscarriage of justice in one case, which isn't the issue at stake. Classic misdirection technique. We are being deliberately distracted from the primary issue which is the need to repatriate our justice system.
I am a bit concerned about the TV news coverage yesterday of the ruling from the ECHR on the review of whole-life tariff sentences. The case heard was brought by three convicted prisoners, but the TV news (on both BBC and ITV) focussed exclusively on the case of Jeremy Bamber, and hardly even mentioned the other two.
I have always believed that Jeremy Bamber is innocent, but why so much fuss about him, even if he isn't? Why not even mention what the other two did?
For the media, Bamber is a 'sexy' case. You have multiple murders of a wealthy family, including two children, a large inheritance as a motive, a mentally ill sister-victim, and a jailed man who maintains innocence. Even better, the convicted man was attractive, and he nearly got away with the crime.
It is catnip to the media. The Bamber case could come straight from a P.D. James novel, which again grants it extra interest.
In comparison, the Vinter case is relatively uninteresting to the media (commits murder, goes to jail, is released, then murders his wife). Moore's case is more interesting (kills four gay men), but the nature of the crime sadly makes it less interesting to the media.
The other murders were hideous as well, but none have the same 'star' quality as the Bamber case. Which is a fairly hideous reflection on the media and society.
Good in a crisis: +26 Natural leader: +25 Charismatic: +22 Strong: +20 Decisive: +17 Sticks to what he believes in: +17 Honest: +4 In touch with concerns of ordinary people: -28
EvanD R4 paper review leads on the Indie WLQ scoop - but isn't clear whether its Tory or government policy - hasn't read this bit:
"The plans – to solve what is known as the West Lothian Question – have been devised by the Conservative Cabinet Office Minister, Oliver Letwin, and the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander."
Comments
http://www2.tv-ark.org.uk/news/ukelections.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359131/English-MPs-veto-laws-England-Proposals-politicians-given-power-stop-legislation-passed-majority.html
"Best Ward Name: South East England, 1st Round, 4th Quarter".
The options are as follows:
"Pair A: Fleet Pondtail
Pair A: Wishing Tree
Pair B: Hartley Wintney
Pair B: Conquest
Pair C: Cold Ash
Pair C: Owslebury & Curdridge
Pair
Pair
Pair E: Terriers & Amersham Hill
Pair E: Normandy
Pair F: Speen
Pair F: Halstead, Knockholt & Badgers Mount
Pair G: Lovelace
Pair G: Saxon Shore
Pair H: Blue Bell Hill & Walderslade":
http://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/2905/best-south-england-round-quarter?page=1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10170223/Royal-Mail-float-has-the-Fallon-stamp-of-approval.html
Now, having watched the programme (albeit only a 2-hour summary rather than all 5 weeks), I am of the opinion that it is overwhelmingly likely that Nat Fraser committed the murder as charged (probably in conspiracy with Hector Dick), but that I would have voted for "Not Guilty" on the grounds that there is a small element of doubt which is big enough to be "reasonable".
In general, it would seem to be a good advert for allowing trials to be televised more widely.
I have always believed that Jeremy Bamber is innocent, but why so much fuss about him, even if he isn't? Why not even mention what the other two did?
Bamber, who it should be remembered killed five members of his own family for an inheritance, refuses to take responsibility for what he did and therefore is used to introduce some 'doubt' into the equation. The BBC wants us to wonder whether there is a miscarriage of justice in one case, which isn't the issue at stake. Classic misdirection technique. We are being deliberately distracted from the primary issue which is the need to repatriate our justice system.
Edited: Fixed the blockquotes
It is catnip to the media. The Bamber case could come straight from a P.D. James novel, which again grants it extra interest.
In comparison, the Vinter case is relatively uninteresting to the media (commits murder, goes to jail, is released, then murders his wife). Moore's case is more interesting (kills four gay men), but the nature of the crime sadly makes it less interesting to the media.
The other murders were hideous as well, but none have the same 'star' quality as the Bamber case. Which is a fairly hideous reflection on the media and society.
Good in a crisis: +26
Natural leader: +25
Charismatic: +22
Strong: +20
Decisive: +17
Sticks to what he believes in: +17
Honest: +4
In touch with concerns of ordinary people: -28
OA Labour back below 40, lead +8: http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ie9dn86na5/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-090713.pdf
"The plans – to solve what is known as the West Lothian Question – have been devised by the Conservative Cabinet Office Minister, Oliver Letwin, and the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-constitutional-bombshell-that-would-reshape-british-politics-8698506.html
Coalition 41%
Labour 39%
OR
Tory/UKIP 44%
Labour 39%