a) he keeps the Coalition in the (bad) news for ages b) he pushes anymore leftie Lib waverers into Labour's arms*
*or so you would think from reading this blog. I suspect it will make little difference
He thinks he is right. People racked by self-doubt are unlikely to go into politics. That's what stops me wanting to be Prime Minister: it's not that I don't know how to bring peace to the Middle East and end world poverty; it's that I know I don't know.
The L/Dems are cracking up, and Lord Carlile, Rennards defender, is another peer who has nothing to be proud of; they all have the morals of the lowest of the low:
On topic, it's clearly unfortunate to get four brand new Tory female MPs choosing to quit within only 4 years of being elected.
I suspect it's a function of several things; however, I do wonder if the culture of the HoC and the Conservative Party has a lot to do with it. The HoC can feel like an old gentleman's club as it is (even when just visiting the place) and my understanding from speaking to two new Tory MPs is that support is very limited when you're elected. It's almost a case of 'here's your pass, now off you go'. This might not mesh with what some candidates were told before they were elected. I'm not sure Labour have the same problem and I have witnessed some pretty macho behaviour by male Tory PPCs/MPs at conferences in the past. This was rarely overly sexist, but it wasn't exactly exclusive. If these female MPs had an 'a-list' or 'cameroon' tag, that won't have helped either.
On course, on top of all that, you've got the limited career options and the almost instant opprobrium that's now thrown at you the minute you become an MP. In the medium/long-term these pose even bigger challenges for the quality of our politicians and, consequently, our politics.
a) he keeps the Coalition in the (bad) news for ages b) he pushes anymore leftie Lib waverers into Labour's arms*
*or so you would think from reading this blog. I suspect it will make little difference
He thinks he is right. People racked by self-doubt are unlikely to go into politics. That's what stops me wanting to be Prime Minister: it's not that I don't know how to bring peace to the Middle East and end world poverty; it's that I know I don't know.
The L/Dems are cracking up, and Lord Carlile, Rennards defender, is another peer who has nothing to be proud of; they all have the morals of the lowest of the low:
a) he keeps the Coalition in the (bad) news for ages b) he pushes anymore leftie Lib waverers into Labour's arms*
*or so you would think from reading this blog. I suspect it will make little difference
He thinks he is right. People racked by self-doubt are unlikely to go into politics. That's what stops me wanting to be Prime Minister: it's not that I don't know how to bring peace to the Middle East and end world poverty; it's that I know I don't know.
The L/Dems are cracking up, and Lord Carlile, Rennards defender, is another peer who has nothing to be proud of; they all have the morals of the lowest of the low:
I believe NPXMP voted with the governments of Blair and Brown 100% of the time. But that's fine coz they never put forward anything stupid, damaging, divisive, self serving or illegal.
Nope. Voted against Labour whip and/or majority of PLP 35 times.
The Conservative Party needs to spend less time talking about people and things it hates and more time talking about those it likes, a Tory Treasury minister has warned.
Nicky Morgan, the economic secretary, said in order to win in 2015 the party needed to set out a "positive long term plan" - especially if it wanted to win over female voters.
Speaking at an event for Tory activists in Westminster on Monday evening, Morgan said the party needed to have a more constructive message than simply "we're against this, we're anti-that, we don't like them, we don't want them here, we don't want them doing this".
"If we talk about what we hate all the time, we're not talking about we like and what we want to do to help people who want to do well," she said. "We never say actually we are on the side of these people, we want this to happen and we think this is great."
Must be frustrating for people like her that the likes of George Osborne and Lynton "hate a foreigner or poor person a week" Crosby are following the Nasty Party route instead.
She makes a very valid point. There are those famous "hard working families" of course but the tory party should remember its roots as the party not just of landowners but shopkeepers, small businessmen (and women) and the aspirational classes who want a property owning democracy. They are what Thatcher tapped into.
There are more self employed in this country than ever before and we have an excellent record in new business formation. Tory ministers do not talk about this nearly enough and let the perception that they are all about big business and even big government take hold.
I'm not convinced Lynton Crosby is the answer. I know he helped mastermind Boris' election victories but those were mayoral elections. And the 2012 campaign wasn't as impressive as the 2008 one. He tried the negative approach for a UK general election in 2005 - it didn't exactly yield great results. There is a cynical view to say that, because politicians are so disliked and distrusted, there's no point trying to present a positive vision. But that's a very depressing strategy. I'd have thought at least some attempt at a positive umbrella and future roadmap is needed. Poor grammar aside, it'd be nice to see a Conservative answer to Labour's 'Ambitions for Britain' and 'Britain: forward not back' in 2001 and 2005, respectively.
If there is a benefit, I hope it's to give the general election campaign coherence unlike the disjointed mess we had last time.
A quarter of young people in the UK now live with their parents, official figures show.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said more than 3.3 million adults between the ages of 20 and 34 were living with parents in 2013, 26% of that age group.
The number has increased by a quarter, or 669,000 people, since 1996.
This is despite the fact that the number of 20 to 34-year-olds in the UK remains almost the same, the ONS said.
In 1996, the earliest year for which comparable statistics are available, there were 2.7m 20 to 34-year-olds living in the family home - 21% of the age group at that time.
I'm not sure the football comparison he makes is fair. There have been periods of dominance for individual teams in football, and in 2009 Brawn came from nowhere to take both titles. In the first 7 races of 2012 there were 7 different winners.
If I were involved with UKIPs campaign in Labour areas, I would rebut their criticisms by saying Labours policies have incentivised millions of poor people to waste their lives claiming benefits while the immigrants Labour imported are climbing the social ladder ahead of them... UKIP want to help make such people active members of society by scrapping all taxes on minimum wage jobs, creating more job opportunites by reducing immigration, etc etc
Id give out free copies of 1984 to show them what will become of England if they keep voting for the nightmare of socialism
a) he keeps the Coalition in the (bad) news for ages b) he pushes anymore leftie Lib waverers into Labour's arms*
*or so you would think from reading this blog. I suspect it will make little difference
He thinks he is right. People racked by self-doubt are unlikely to go into politics. That's what stops me wanting to be Prime Minister: it's not that I don't know how to bring peace to the Middle East and end world poverty; it's that I know I don't know.
The L/Dems are cracking up, and Lord Carlile, Rennards defender, is another peer who has nothing to be proud of; they all have the morals of the lowest of the low:
a) he keeps the Coalition in the (bad) news for ages b) he pushes anymore leftie Lib waverers into Labour's arms*
*or so you would think from reading this blog. I suspect it will make little difference
He thinks he is right. People racked by self-doubt are unlikely to go into politics. That's what stops me wanting to be Prime Minister: it's not that I don't know how to bring peace to the Middle East and end world poverty; it's that I know I don't know.
The L/Dems are cracking up, and Lord Carlile, Rennards defender, is another peer who has nothing to be proud of; they all have the morals of the lowest of the low:
You're not showing any evidence to support this though.
If they were really protest voters then they wouldn't have left the Lib Dems for the Labour party, they'd have either not voted or gone to one of the smaller parties.
If voters went Lab-LD-Lab, that suggests they're left leaning rather than NOTA.
They were left leaning. They were (and now are agaiin) Lab supporters but couldn't, after all the craziness of Blair-Brown, bring themselves to vote Lab. So they chose the next most obvious left-leaning (hitherto NOTA) party: the LibDems.
The LibDems have disappointed them by not bringing back Clause Four while in coalition with the Tories, so those voters are (now indicating to the polls that they are) back with Lab. Of course GE2015 might prove otherwise.
Hitherto NOTA?
So before GE 2010 they were a NOTA? That's an equally bizarre claim.
OK look, before GE2010 the LDs were a well-constituted party with a manifesto and all the trappings of a party that wanted to be in power. But they had some, shall we call them "out there" policies and were not a million miles in sight of being elected with a majority to govern.
But that's not what I meant - a significant amount of their support was from NOTA voters. It was participating in the cut-and-thrust of UK politics, giving Lab-Con a bit of a bloody nose (of sorts), while not having to deal with the implications still less responsibility of power. But then they ended up in power and the events I described above transpired.
Any foundation to this, Lib Dems as NOTA party theory? As opposed to the simpler explanation that a coalition with the Conservatives was unpalatable to a chunk of Lib Dems who then went to Labour?
Yes.
I've spoken to every voter who put a cross in the LibDem box because it was a NOTA vote. And they confirm my theory.
I apologise if you and some of your fellow "true" LibDems thought every LD vote was a sincere and enthusiastic vote for a LD govt but it wasn't and ain't so. Sorry to break it to you.
You're sliding goalposts around. You've gone from declaring that the Lib Dems were a NOTA party, to 'not every vote wasn't NOTA'.
Were some votes NOTA votes sure, were they a NOTA party, rubbish.
Oh gawd Freddie Ayer where art thou?
"The LibDems is a NOTA party" is consistent with NOTA voters voting for the LibDems. It doesn't mean that every LibDem vote is a NOTA vote.
On topic, it's clearly unfortunate to get four brand new Tory female MPs choosing to quit within only 4 years of being elected.
I suspect it's a function of several things; however, I do wonder if the culture of the HoC and the Conservative Party has a lot to do with it. The HoC can feel like an old gentleman's club as it is (even when just visiting the place) and my understanding from speaking to two new Tory MPs is that support is very limited when you're elected. It's almost a case of 'here's your pass, now off you go'. This might not mesh with what some candidates were told before they were elected. I'm not sure Labour have the same problem and I have witnessed some pretty macho behaviour by male Tory PPCs/MPs at conferences in the past. This was rarely overly sexist, but it wasn't exactly exclusive. If these female MPs had an 'a-list' or 'cameroon' tag, that won't have helped either.
On course, on top of all that, you've got the limited career options and the almost instant opprobrium that's now thrown at you the minute you become an MP. In the medium/long-term these pose even bigger challenges for the quality of our politicians and, consequently, our politics.
Oh dear, those poor ladies. Sixty-odd thousand a year, plus the best expenses regime in the country (tell me who else gets such a free ride by HMRC), no compulsory hours of work, no performance standards. But some of their colleagues might not be very nice and they didn't have their little hands held and they are not all going to make SoS inside five years. FFS!
11% of them don't like it (what is the equivalent figure for male members elected for the first time in 2010 does anyone know?). Well, they can piss off because there are lots of people male, and female, who would give their eye teeth for the opportunity that these women had.
I believe NPXMP voted with the governments of Blair and Brown 100% of the time. But that's fine coz they never put forward anything stupid, damaging, divisive, self serving or illegal.
Nope. Voted against Labour whip and/or majority of PLP 35 times.
35 times? Wow! You rebel, you. How many votes were there in the House of Commons between 1997 and 2010? Just to the nearest 500 should be enough to give us a rebellion percentage; cheers.
Defeat no. 87 for this supposed coalition.This time on the gagging bill.I delivered the 38 degrees petition to my MP,on behalf of the Countryside Alliance,Unite,Womens'Institute,not to mention hundreds of charities-the range of political opposition being the point which might enter their cognitive processes.Yet,the real lobbying industry aren't touched. Dave said lobbying would be the next big scandal.It still might as this bill won't hit the target. Must be some kind of record?
Tiger is 38 and opens his 2014 campaign this week at Torrey Pines, where he has already won 8 times.
For the first time he is falling behind Nicklaus' schedule on reaching 18 major championships.
Last year he played some great golf - except in the Majors, where he was 20+ over par on weekend rounds.
It's been 5 years now since he won one and is stuck on 14.
All the majors this year are on courses he plays well.
Only one player has ever won 4 majors after turning 38 - Jack Nicklaus.
What odds on Tiger winning a major this year? I'd fancy him to do it.
Found the odds.
Tiger to win a major in 2014, 6/4.
I'd reckon it as a decent bet, but would bow to your golfing knowledge.
Tiger's game is back and he's playing really well - he won 5 times last year and was voted player of the year. He's back at #1.
But Tiger's career will be measured by whether he passes 18 majors, a yardstick he set up.
He plays average at best in Majors on Thursday and Friday, but plays badly on weekends (only 1 round under 70 weekends at majors in 2013). That tells you he's feeling the pressure as the calendar moves inexorably on.
He still has the game and experience to win majors. His problem is between his ears, the fact that his driver increasingly lets him down and he pulls it badly left, and the fact that nobody's scared of him any more.
Having said that, he is Tiger after all, so cannot be counted out. But he needs to win one soon to have any chance of passing Nicklaus.
Anecdote alert: my other half (a builder, not particularly interested in politics, but he has firm views on things) announced last night that the Lib Dems looked as though they were stuffed full of chauvinists, and "that just isn't acceptable in this day and age".
When a builder is handing out lessons to anyone about political correctness, you know they're in trouble.
I would rebut their criticisms by saying Labours policies have incentivised millions of poor people to waste their lives claiming benefits while the immigrants Labour imported are climbing the social ladder ahead of them.
Id give out free copies of 1984 to show them what will become of England if they keep voting for the nightmare of socialism
Badmouthing the opposition eh. Tut. Typical of the Political Classes.
No no, rebutting criticisms
EDIT; Hahaha you edited out the positive plans in response to the criticisms!!! Brilliant! Straight down the old memory hole eh?!!
I would rebut their criticisms by saying Labours policies have incentivised millions of poor people to waste their lives claiming benefits while the immigrants Labour imported are climbing the social ladder ahead of them.
Id give out free copies of 1984 to show them what will become of England if they keep voting for the nightmare of socialism
Badmouthing the opposition eh. Tut. Typical of the Political Classes.
No no, rebutting criticisms
Labour are rebutting criticisms by pointing out that UKIP want to destroy the rights of low paid workers, decimate public services, change the tax system so a banker pays the same rate as his cleaner etc etc.
EDIT I'm sure Labour will be mentioning their positive stuff such as the energy price freeze alongside their "rebuttal" of UKIP's criticisms.
Oh, I haven't seen the planned UKIP Wythenshaw leaflets criticsing Labour, only the Labour rebuttal. Have you a link?
Also, I criticised Labours badmouthing of UKIP because they were 1/10 favourites to win the constituency, and therefore should have the confidence to be positive. Im not saying that politics shouldnt sometimes be about attacking the opponents policies
Anecdote alert: my other half (a builder, not particularly interested in politics, but he has firm views on things) announced last night that the Lib Dems looked as though they were stuffed full of chauvinists, and "that just isn't acceptable in this day and age".
When a builder is handing out lessons to anyone about political correctness, you know they're in trouble.
Im sorry to sound old fashioned, but surely Im not the only one thinking that an openly gay builder isn't exactly at the Neanderthal end of the professions viewpoint
I would rebut their criticisms by saying Labours policies have incentivised millions of poor people to waste their lives claiming benefits while the immigrants Labour imported are climbing the social ladder ahead of them.
Id give out free copies of 1984 to show them what will become of England if they keep voting for the nightmare of socialism
Badmouthing the opposition eh. Tut. Typical of the Political Classes.
No no, rebutting criticisms
Labour are rebutting criticisms by pointing out that UKIP want to destroy the rights of low paid workers, decimate public services, change the tax system so a banker pays the same rate as his cleaner etc etc.
EDIT I'm sure Labour will be mentioning their positive stuff such as the energy price freeze alongside their "rebuttal" of UKIP's criticisms.
All easy to defend for UKIP.
Labour have forced wages for the low paid downwards with their immigration policy, nowhere do they say they will decimate public services, the really rich currently pay less tax than their cleaner.
As for any Labour positives, any grown up knows the energy price freeze is unworkable. Labour might be shocked at how many blue collar workers are turning to UKIP
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
That would be an improvement on being there for life.
But not an improvement on being there for 7 years.
The Tories and the Lib Dems wanted a single, long term. I can see the reasons why. The ridiculousness of people who want to reform the Lords spending over 100 years failing to agree on what to reform it to is one of the funnier aspects of UK politics.
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
That would be an improvement on being there for life.
But not an improvement on being there for 7 years.
The Tories and the Lib Dems wanted a single, long term. I can see the reasons why. The ridiculousness of people who want to reform the Lords spending over 100 years failing to agree on what to reform it to is one of the funnier aspects of UK politics.
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
Certainly better to have them there than those who assume people guilty without having seen or heard any evidence .
The evidence was considered broadly credible by an independent investigator.
Some of us still remember the comments on Christopher Jefferies both on this site and in the press when he was arrested . He looks a bit wierd ... and ..he's a LIB DEM , must be guilty .
As currently constituted, the Liberal Democrats are not fit for purpose. “I am leader of a political party, not a sect… I can’t frogmarch someone to apologise,” Nick Clegg said on Monday. But he’s wrong. He is the leader of a sect. That’s the whole point.
No serious political party – indeed, no credible organisation – would commission an independent inquiry into allegations as serious as those against Lord Rennard, conclude that those allegations were themselves credible, then throw their hands up and say: “There’s nothing we can do, really. Would you mind just apologising instead?”
That’s not how modern politics works. And it’s certainly not how modern government works.
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
Certainly better to have them there than those who assume people guilty without having seen or heard any evidence .
The evidence was considered broadly credible by an independent investigator.
Some of us still remember the comments on Christopher Jefferies both on this site and in the press when he was arrested . He looks a bit wierd ... and ..he's a LIB DEM , must be guilty .
Christopher Jeffries didnt do anything.
Women who complained about Lord Rennard harassing them were found to be broadly credible. We must assume that the independent investigator believes at least some of the incidents described probably happened. But most Lib Dem peers apparently dont think that behaving in that way is serious enough to warrant losing the whip. I find that incredible.
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
That would be an improvement on being there for life.
But not an improvement on being there for 7 years.
The Tories and the Lib Dems wanted a single, long term. I can see the reasons why. The ridiculousness of people who want to reform the Lords spending over 100 years failing to agree on what to reform it to is one of the funnier aspects of UK politics.
What odds on Tiger winning a major this year? I'd fancy him to do it.
Found the odds.
Tiger to win a major in 2014, 6/4.
I'd reckon it as a decent bet, but would bow to your golfing knowledge.
I don't think 6/4 is attractive.
He last won a major in 2008 - OK, we know what's happened since then and he may be back to number 1 but winning any major is tough.
Pretty few majors have been won by people 38+. I think there have been a lot of instances of people going very close but ultimately they don't often win.
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
Certainly better to have them there than those who assume people guilty without having seen or heard any evidence .
The evidence was considered broadly credible by an independent investigator.
Some of us still remember the comments on Christopher Jefferies both on this site and in the press when he was arrested . He looks a bit wierd ... and ..he's a LIB DEM , must be guilty .
Christopher Jeffries didnt do anything.
Women who complained about Lord Rennard harassing them were found to be broadly credible. We must assume that the independent investigator believes at least some of the incidents described probably happened. But most Lib Dem peers apparently dont think that behaving in that way is serious enough to warrant losing the whip. I find that incredible.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
That would be an improvement on being there for life.
But not an improvement on being there for 7 years.
The Tories and the Lib Dems wanted a single, long term. I can see the reasons why. The ridiculousness of people who want to reform the Lords spending over 100 years failing to agree on what to reform it to is one of the funnier aspects of UK politics.
So you're saying Labour dont want HoL reform ?
No, I wouldnt say that.
Odd that they didn't push for it though, I;d have thought it would have been red meat for their party base.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
Oh, indeed. It's absolutely clear that you lot think there's nothing wrong with what happened. That's the problem.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
Oh, indeed. It's absolutely clear that you lot think there's nothing wrong with what happened. That's the problem.
It is also absolutely clear that you are happy with someone being punished without following the due process of law and justice especially if you have an antipathy towards them .
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
That would be an improvement on being there for life.
But not an improvement on being there for 7 years.
The Tories and the Lib Dems wanted a single, long term. I can see the reasons why. The ridiculousness of people who want to reform the Lords spending over 100 years failing to agree on what to reform it to is one of the funnier aspects of UK politics.
So you're saying Labour dont want HoL reform ?
No, I wouldnt say that.
Odd that they didn't push for it though, I;d have thought it would have been red meat for their party base.
They did, they obviously got rid of the hereditary peers, it was a failure on the part of the reformers to agree on a particular form of elected house that saw the existing arrangements survive.
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
That would be an improvement on being there for life.
But not an improvement on being there for 7 years.
The Tories and the Lib Dems wanted a single, long term. I can see the reasons why. The ridiculousness of people who want to reform the Lords spending over 100 years failing to agree on what to reform it to is one of the funnier aspects of UK politics.
So you're saying Labour dont want HoL reform ?
No, I wouldnt say that.
Odd that they didn't push for it though, I;d have thought it would have been red meat for their party base.
They did, they obviously got rid of the hereditary peers, it was a failure on the part of the reformers to agree on a particular form of elected house that saw the existing arrangements survive.
Really ? I can't say I remember Ed push hard for it.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
Oh, indeed. It's absolutely clear that you lot think there's nothing wrong with what happened. That's the problem.
It is also absolutely clear that you are happy with being punished without following the due process of law and justice
I am happy with someone being punished for their actions. The idea that getting your mates to vote against your punishment is some form of superior due process is one solely for bewildered Lib Dems.
The SNP are really quite bizarre in their attempts to ban Fracking "Before it's too late" thay say...too late for what?
I've read a report from McSporran University that they're afraid the underground tremors will effect the mating grounds of the Haggis, and cause a worldwide glut on Scotland main export.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
Oh, indeed. It's absolutely clear that you lot think there's nothing wrong with what happened. That's the problem.
It is also absolutely clear that you are happy with being punished without following the due process of law and justice
I am happy with someone being punished for their actions. The idea that getting your mates to vote against your punishment is some form of superior due process is one solely for bewildered Lib Dems.
Again you are presuming guilt when none has been proved without having seen any of the evidence . You would serve well on a jury in North Korea .
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
I've said from early on this parliament that the Lib Dems' biggest mistake was pushing for a referendum on AV rather than a fully elected Lords (or Senate), using STV.
My main reasoning has been that Lords reform would have given the Lib Dems a good chance of holding the balance of power in the Lords, could have been delivered without the need for a referendum, and wouldn't have split the coalition. However, it has to be said that one fringe benefit is that it would have cleared out a lot of dinosaurs who are too satisfied with their own company too (and obviously not just in the Lib Dems).
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
That would be an improvement on being there for life.
But not an improvement on being there for 7 years.
The Tories and the Lib Dems wanted a single, long term. I can see the reasons why. The ridiculousness of people who want to reform the Lords spending over 100 years failing to agree on what to reform it to is one of the funnier aspects of UK politics.
So you're saying Labour dont want HoL reform ?
No, I wouldnt say that.
Odd that they didn't push for it though, I;d have thought it would have been red meat for their party base.
They did, they obviously got rid of the hereditary peers, it was a failure on the part of the reformers to agree on a particular form of elected house that saw the existing arrangements survive.
Really ? I can't say I remember Ed push hard for it.
It was in their manifesto. I imagine it will be in their next one too.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
Oh, indeed. It's absolutely clear that you lot think there's nothing wrong with what happened. That's the problem.
It is also absolutely clear that you are happy with being punished without following the due process of law and justice
I am happy with someone being punished for their actions. The idea that getting your mates to vote against your punishment is some form of superior due process is one solely for bewildered Lib Dems.
Again you are presuming guilt when none has been proved without having seen any of the evidence . You would serve well on a jury in North Korea .
The complaints were found to be credible, Mark. I'm not presuming anything, I'm basing my judgement on what your own independent investigator found. That intent to cause distress couldnt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in no way means he didnt behave in a way that should have lost him the whip (or his job if he was still employed by them).
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
That would be an improvement on being there for life.
But not an improvement on being there for 7 years.
The Tories and the Lib Dems wanted a single, long term. I can see the reasons why. The ridiculousness of people who want to reform the Lords spending over 100 years failing to agree on what to reform it to is one of the funnier aspects of UK politics.
So you're saying Labour dont want HoL reform ?
No, I wouldnt say that.
Odd that they didn't push for it though, I;d have thought it would have been red meat for their party base.
They did, they obviously got rid of the hereditary peers, it was a failure on the part of the reformers to agree on a particular form of elected house that saw the existing arrangements survive.
Really ? I can't say I remember Ed push hard for it.
It was in their manifesto. I imagine it will be in their next one too.
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
That would be an improvement on being there for life.
But not an improvement on being there for 7 years.
The Tories and the Lib Dems wanted a single, long term. I can see the reasons why. The ridiculousness of people who want to reform the Lords spending over 100 years failing to agree on what to reform it to is one of the funnier aspects of UK politics.
So you're saying Labour dont want HoL reform ?
No, I wouldnt say that.
Odd that they didn't push for it though, I;d have thought it would have been red meat for their party base.
They did, they obviously got rid of the hereditary peers, it was a failure on the part of the reformers to agree on a particular form of elected house that saw the existing arrangements survive.
Really ? I can't say I remember Ed push hard for it.
It was in their manifesto. I imagine it will be in their next one too.
On topic, it's clearly unfortunate to get four brand new Tory female MPs choosing to quit within only 4 years of being elected.
I suspect it's a function of several things; however, I do wonder if the culture of the HoC and the Conservative Party has a lot to do with it. The HoC can feel like an old gentleman's club as it is (even when just visiting the place) and my understanding from speaking to two new Tory MPs is that support is very limited when you're elected. It's almost a case of 'here's your pass, now off you go'. This might not mesh with what some candidates were told before they were elected. I'm not sure Labour have the same problem and I have witnessed some pretty macho behaviour by male Tory PPCs/MPs at conferences in the past. This was rarely overly sexist, but it wasn't exactly exclusive. If these female MPs had an 'a-list' or 'cameroon' tag, that won't have helped either.
On course, on top of all that, you've got the limited career options and the almost instant opprobrium that's now thrown at you the minute you become an MP. In the medium/long-term these pose even bigger challenges for the quality of our politicians and, consequently, our politics.
Oh dear, those poor ladies. Sixty-odd thousand a year, plus the best expenses regime in the country (tell me who else gets such a free ride by HMRC), no compulsory hours of work, no performance standards. But some of their colleagues might not be very nice and they didn't have their little hands held and they are not all going to make SoS inside five years. FFS!
11% of them don't like it (what is the equivalent figure for male members elected for the first time in 2010 does anyone know?). Well, they can piss off because there are lots of people male, and female, who would give their eye teeth for the opportunity that these women had.
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
Certainly better to have them there than those who assume people guilty without having seen or heard any evidence .
The evidence was considered broadly credible by an independent investigator.
Some of us still remember the comments on Christopher Jefferies both on this site and in the press when he was arrested . He looks a bit wierd ... and ..he's a LIB DEM , must be guilty .
Christopher Jeffries didnt do anything.
Women who complained about Lord Rennard harassing them were found to be broadly credible. We must assume that the independent investigator believes at least some of the incidents described probably happened. But most Lib Dem peers apparently dont think that behaving in that way is serious enough to warrant losing the whip. I find that incredible.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
A disciplinary hearing in most organisations that found that some of the incidents of the nature alleged in the Rennard case probably happened would undoubtedly result in some form of action, possibly dismissal. It doesn't go against the principles of natural justice at all; it goes against Lib Dem procedure, which is a rather different thing.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
Oh, indeed. It's absolutely clear that you lot think there's nothing wrong with what happened. That's the problem.
It is also absolutely clear that you are happy with being punished without following the due process of law and justice
I am happy with someone being punished for their actions. The idea that getting your mates to vote against your punishment is some form of superior due process is one solely for bewildered Lib Dems.
Again you are presuming guilt when none has been proved without having seen any of the evidence . You would serve well on a jury in North Korea .
The complaints were found to be credible, Mark. I'm not presuming anything, I'm basing my judgement on what your own independent investigator found. That intent to cause distress couldnt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in no way means he didnt behave in a way that should have lost him the whip (or his job if he was still employed by them).
Nor does it mean in any way that he did behave in a way that should lose him the whip .
I was wondering about the whereabouts of Vince Cable and his wing man Lord Oakeshott last night, they seem to have disappeared from the Libdem radar this last week.
I would rebut their criticisms by saying Labours policies have incentivised millions of poor people to waste their lives claiming benefits while the immigrants Labour imported are climbing the social ladder ahead of them.
Id give out free copies of 1984 to show them what will become of England if they keep voting for the nightmare of socialism
Badmouthing the opposition eh. Tut. Typical of the Political Classes.
No no, rebutting criticisms
Labour are rebutting criticisms by pointing out that UKIP want to destroy the rights of low paid workers, decimate public services, change the tax system so a banker pays the same rate as his cleaner etc etc.
EDIT I'm sure Labour will be mentioning their positive stuff such as the energy price freeze alongside their "rebuttal" of UKIP's criticisms.
Oh, I haven't seen the planned UKIP Wythenshaw leaflets criticsing Labour, only the Labour rebuttal. Have you a link?
Your preferred strategy was to badmouth your opponents. Even by saying that a vote for Labour would lead to a 1984 scenario.
At least Labour's critique of UKIP isn't that amusingly hysterical.
In response to leaflets from the 1/10 favoutite criticising a party that got 3.4% last time
My criticism was that such an overwhelming favourite would need to use negative campaigning. UKIP doing it, if they did, would be justifiable as they are attacking the established party of the area and are trying to make an impact.
Would be the exactly the same if the shoe was on the other foot, and UKIP were the incumbents resorting to slagging off a challenger rather than talk themselves up
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
I've said from early on this parliament that the Lib Dems' biggest mistake was pushing for a referendum on AV rather than a fully elected Lords (or Senate), using STV.
My main reasoning has been that Lords reform would have given the Lib Dems a good chance of holding the balance of power in the Lords, could have been delivered without the need for a referendum, and wouldn't have split the coalition. However, it has to be said that one fringe benefit is that it would have cleared out a lot of dinosaurs who are too satisfied with their own company too (and obviously not just in the Lib Dems).
I think the 2010 Conservative offer to the Liberal Democrats was pretty generous - they were offered a referendum on AV and an 80% elected Lords, plus other moves to beef up backbench scrutiny of the government/more free votes. So they actually had a chance to change the system for electing members in both chambers. The Lib Dems would have got Lords reform too had Labour not decided to play short-term politics with discomforting the coalition. It would have split the Tories (like Iraq did Labour) but Labour were still in 'hate the Lib Dems' mode then. I don't know why Clegg went for semi-open list, rather than STV, that's an odd one.
The Lib Dems didn't really have the luxury of demanding STV for the HoC. Labour *were* offering AV without a referendum, but it was clear that they couldn't deliver the votes for it.
The interesting question, for me, is what negotiations hinge on next time. If Lib Dem + Tory MPs sum to, say, 330 - and Labour fall shorter than that again - what price for a Tory-Lib Dem coalition piddly effective majority of 14-ish?
I'd imagine Lib Dems would want something written in blood this time. I doubt they'd get a second HoC referendum only 5 years after the last. They might demand (and be offered) STV for local authorities but I'm not sure that'd be enough. Certainly not next to the 2010 offer.
ITV: - Former Liberal leader (Lord Steele) calls for Rennard to be reinstated.
The group that comes out of this worst of all has to be the Lib Dem parliamentary party in the Lords. Clegg and Farron must want to shoot them all.
Absolutely. The news on Friday that they'd cheered Rennard was the most depressing thing I've heard in a long time. What a pathetic shower.
Just the sort of people you'd like to have there for 15 years.
Certainly better to have them there than those who assume people guilty without having seen or heard any evidence .
The evidence was considered broadly credible by an independent investigator.
Some of us still remember the comments on Christopher Jefferies both on this site and in the press when he was arrested . He looks a bit wierd ... and ..he's a LIB DEM , must be guilty .
Christopher Jeffries didnt do anything.
Women who complained about Lord Rennard harassing them were found to be broadly credible. We must assume that the independent investigator believes at least some of the incidents described probably happened. But most Lib Dem peers apparently dont think that behaving in that way is serious enough to warrant losing the whip. I find that incredible.
Most Lib Dem peers ( and myself FWIW ) do not think that some of the incidents probably happening is sufficient evidence to warrant losing the whip . It goes against the basic principles of natural justice .
A disciplinary hearing in most organisations that found that some of the incidents of the nature alleged in the Rennard case probably happened would undoubtedly result in some form of action, possibly dismissal. It doesn't go against the principles of natural justice at all; it goes against Lib Dem procedure, which is a rather different thing.
A disciplinary hearing today may well result in some form of action whereas an identical hearing 20 years ago would not . What 20 years ago would have been considered normal male/female flirting/making passes at is now considered sexual harassment worthy of punishment and also to be applied retroactively . I think that this a reason why there is a difference in opinion between generally older Lib Dems such as those in the HofL and younger ones .
So...that 80/1 bet on West Ham to qualify. Really not good value indeed.
They need 8 now!
I made it 31,500/1
Tweeted William Hill to rub them down about it , and they said they thought they were almost best price!!! It was 1000/1 on Betfair, and 500s with Lads!
Mr Howarth writes that the current threat from the leadership is based on completely different grounds from the original inquiry into improper conduct. Now, Mr Howarth says, the leadership is effectively threatening expulsion for failing to agree with the leader:
“Those of us who spent a lifetime in politics not doing what party leaders wanted us to do should be asking ourselves what this means. Are we in a political party any more, or are we in a fan club?
So...that 80/1 bet on West Ham to qualify. Really not good value indeed.
They need 8 now!
I made it 31,500/1
Tweeted William Hill to rub them down about it , and they said they thought they were almost best price!!! It was 1000/1 on Betfair, and 500s with Lads!
Almost best price? That's almost as insulting as the odds themselves!
Comments
Where it might help the Tories is where they are challenging the Libs.
(but I suspect the whole thing will make no difference so just chewing the cud)
https://twitter.com/thomasknox
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3979984.ece
"Successful societies can’t afford monkey business"
"Five of the [UKIP] candidates on the shortlist are local and one is from London. A candidate will be announced on Thursday."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/ukip-prepares-spooking-campaign-for-wythenshawe-by-election/
NO WONDER LORD CARLILE WANTS AN INJUNCTION!
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-431884/Anti-terror-peer-dumps-boring-wife-glamorous-barrister.html#ixzz2r3OXiBkU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I suspect it's a function of several things; however, I do wonder if the culture of the HoC and the Conservative Party has a lot to do with it. The HoC can feel like an old gentleman's club as it is (even when just visiting the place) and my understanding from speaking to two new Tory MPs is that support is very limited when you're elected. It's almost a case of 'here's your pass, now off you go'. This might not mesh with what some candidates were told before they were elected. I'm not sure Labour have the same problem and I have witnessed some pretty macho behaviour by male Tory PPCs/MPs at conferences in the past. This was rarely overly sexist, but it wasn't exactly exclusive. If these female MPs had an 'a-list' or 'cameroon' tag, that won't have helped either.
On course, on top of all that, you've got the limited career options and the almost instant opprobrium that's now thrown at you the minute you become an MP. In the medium/long-term these pose even bigger challenges for the quality of our politicians and, consequently, our politics.
But are the Q4 growth figs out tomorrow?
And does anyone know what the figure is predicted to be?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100255786/six-reasons-why-the-lib-dems-are-the-real-nasty-party/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
If there is a benefit, I hope it's to give the general election campaign coherence unlike the disjointed mess we had last time.
A quarter of young people in the UK now live with their parents, official figures show.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said more than 3.3 million adults between the ages of 20 and 34 were living with parents in 2013, 26% of that age group.
The number has increased by a quarter, or 669,000 people, since 1996.
This is despite the fact that the number of 20 to 34-year-olds in the UK remains almost the same, the ONS said.
In 1996, the earliest year for which comparable statistics are available, there were 2.7m 20 to 34-year-olds living in the family home - 21% of the age group at that time.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/20/labour-campaign-to-combat-ukip-threat
They are probably far enough ahead they can experiment with propaganda to see effect on vote share.
"The leaflets are being piloted to see if they should be used in the local elections in May."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25833881
I'm not sure the football comparison he makes is fair. There have been periods of dominance for individual teams in football, and in 2009 Brawn came from nowhere to take both titles. In the first 7 races of 2012 there were 7 different winners.
Id give out free copies of 1984 to show them what will become of England if they keep voting for the nightmare of socialism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25820928
"Result: someone whose moral failings are plain for all to see comes within a whisker of being elected party leader."
Which is apparently a problem unique to the Lib Dems...
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-01-15/no-disciplinary-action-for-lib-dem-chief-executive-lord-rennard-over-harassment-claims/
Tiger is 38 and opens his 2014 campaign this week at Torrey Pines, where he has already won 8 times.
For the first time he is falling behind Nicklaus' schedule on reaching 18 major championships.
Last year he played some great golf - except in the Majors, where he was 20+ over par on weekend rounds.
It's been 5 years now since he won one and is stuck on 14.
All the majors this year are on courses he plays well.
Only one player has ever won 4 majors after turning 38 - Jack Nicklaus.
Found the odds.
Tiger to win a major in 2014, 6/4.
I'd reckon it as a decent bet, but would bow to your golfing knowledge.
"The LibDems is a NOTA party" is consistent with NOTA voters voting for the LibDems. It doesn't mean that every LibDem vote is a NOTA vote.
Step back, take in the wood - nice view, right?
Does Lord Rennard or Lord Carlile own any dogs?
*Yes I know he was found innocent, just like Lord Rennard
11% of them don't like it (what is the equivalent figure for male members elected for the first time in 2010 does anyone know?). Well, they can piss off because there are lots of people male, and female, who would give their eye teeth for the opportunity that these women had.
How many votes were there in the House of Commons between 1997 and 2010?
Just to the nearest 500 should be enough to give us a rebellion percentage; cheers.
Dave said lobbying would be the next big scandal.It still might as this bill won't hit the target.
Must be some kind of record?
But Tiger's career will be measured by whether he passes 18 majors, a yardstick he set up.
He plays average at best in Majors on Thursday and Friday, but plays badly on weekends (only 1 round under 70 weekends at majors in 2013). That tells you he's feeling the pressure as the calendar moves inexorably on.
He still has the game and experience to win majors. His problem is between his ears, the fact that his driver increasingly lets him down and he pulls it badly left, and the fact that nobody's scared of him any more.
Having said that, he is Tiger after all, so cannot be counted out. But he needs to win one soon to have any chance of passing Nicklaus.
When a builder is handing out lessons to anyone about political correctness, you know they're in trouble.
EDIT; Hahaha you edited out the positive plans in response to the criticisms!!! Brilliant! Straight down the old memory hole eh?!!
Also, I criticised Labours badmouthing of UKIP because they were 1/10 favourites to win the constituency, and therefore should have the confidence to be positive. Im not saying that politics shouldnt sometimes be about attacking the opponents policies
@WillHillBet: With both starting for #MCFC, would you fancy Alvaro Negredo and Sergio Aguero both to score at anytime @ 13/8?
Labour have forced wages for the low paid downwards with their immigration policy, nowhere do they say they will decimate public services, the really rich currently pay less tax than their cleaner.
As for any Labour positives, any grown up knows the energy price freeze is unworkable. Labour might be shocked at how many blue collar workers are turning to UKIP
Women who complained about Lord Rennard harassing them were found to be broadly credible. We must assume that the independent investigator believes at least some of the incidents described probably happened. But most Lib Dem peers apparently dont think that behaving in that way is serious enough to warrant losing the whip. I find that incredible.
He last won a major in 2008 - OK, we know what's happened since then and he may be back to number 1 but winning any major is tough.
Pretty few majors have been won by people 38+. I think there have been a lot of instances of people going very close but ultimately they don't often win.
See link for graph:
http://golfmajorchampionships.com/byAge
It's a Dan Hodges piece but it's not criticising Ed.
My main reasoning has been that Lords reform would have given the Lib Dems a good chance of holding the balance of power in the Lords, could have been delivered without the need for a referendum, and wouldn't have split the coalition. However, it has to be said that one fringe benefit is that it would have cleared out a lot of dinosaurs who are too satisfied with their own company too (and obviously not just in the Lib Dems).
My criticism was that such an overwhelming favourite would need to use negative campaigning. UKIP doing it, if they did, would be justifiable as they are attacking the established party of the area and are trying to make an impact.
Would be the exactly the same if the shoe was on the other foot, and UKIP were the incumbents resorting to slagging off a challenger rather than talk themselves up
The Lib Dems didn't really have the luxury of demanding STV for the HoC. Labour *were* offering AV without a referendum, but it was clear that they couldn't deliver the votes for it.
The interesting question, for me, is what negotiations hinge on next time. If Lib Dem + Tory MPs sum to, say, 330 - and Labour fall shorter than that again - what price for a Tory-Lib Dem coalition piddly effective majority of 14-ish?
I'd imagine Lib Dems would want something written in blood this time. I doubt they'd get a second HoC referendum only 5 years after the last. They might demand (and be offered) STV for local authorities but I'm not sure that'd be enough. Certainly not next to the 2010 offer.
I made it 31,500/1
Tweeted William Hill to rub them down about it , and they said they thought they were almost best price!!! It was 1000/1 on Betfair, and 500s with Lads!
http://www.skybet.com/football/football-live/event/16122826?aff_id=7945&dcmp=snt-bet-football-2101-WESTHAMMANCITY-LIVE-TW