I'm no fan of Labour but this is appalling. Just as the original council house selling was. If Miliband does win he needs to pass an act that makes it impossible for the Tories to do this in the future. Perhaps needing a 75% majority in both houses to do it.
That would be outragme laws sit higher than others.
Don't see why not. Its common enough elsewhere, such as the USA, where you need a two thirds majority in ning the spending spigots in 2001.
Do you really not see how undemocratic it is to protect legislation against reciprocal repeal? Indeed, it's so undemocratic that if a government proposed it, I'd argue that it's the kind of circumstance in which the Royal veto should be invoked.
Can you not see how absurd it would be to stop a government that had just won a second landslide majority from pursuing its policy on the basis of one kicked out several years earlier and a bunch of people effectively nominated centuries ago?
Were it not for the fact that you're a regular poster, I'd suspect you were trolling.
Edit - OK, turns out you were trolling on that bit but the principle still stands.
Im not sure I agree. Provided the matter is importat enough. Effectively you would be creating a constitution one bill at a time.
All a constitution is really is such an act that needs a two thirds majority to amend or repeal.
But constitutions have different mechanisms for coming into place in the first instance. That's what gives them their legitimacy. You can't reasonably use one system to set up a more restrictive one unless there's widespread consent for it - and that certainly wouldn't be the case were the measure used just to protect pet projects.
Quite - and one of the problems is people seem to suggest it most around such pet projects. Often very important ones, many of which have a great deal of consensus attached to them, but pet projects all the same.
Good night everybody. I was worried that having been interested in politics for many years I'd have worn myself out before the GE came in, particularly with the drain of the IndyRef less than a year ago, but still some energy left in my tank to avoid burnout or apathy for the moment it seems.
An awful lot of writers for the Guardian have been implicated in the assault (fearing for his safety constitutes assault) on Nigel Farage. Looks like about 6 or so.
If we're doing anecdotes, my father started a conversation on the phone about politics(I just listened). He is alienated by all politicians and would probably be inclined to UKIP but he doesn't like their divisive tone. But "what really scares me is the idea of a Labour government propped up by the SNP".
Lynton Crosby is earning his money.
Only if you dad actually goes out and votes to prevent that fear, which if he feels alienated by all politicians but UKIP aren't scratching that itch, he might not?
My father will vote. Like many of his generation, he sees it as a duty. Who he'll vote for I'm not sure, but the chances have risen substantially that it will be the Conservatives.
Its the notion of 2 things. 1 - the Regional bias of the SNP which would mitigate against the rest of the country 2 - the movement ever leftward of the SNP and its effect on Labour
On another older topic I'm beginning to wonder if I can independently persuade 10 different people from 10 different constituencies to postal vote for the party of my choice in return for me showing them a picture of my own postal ballot which would match their preference.
I think there is a third. That lot get more than their fare share of our taxes already. Get Salmond and Milipede in power and as sure as night follows day more bags of gold than ever will be headed up the M6
No, I think the SNP would be quite happy with FFA - of course at the moment the Scots would have to cut their cloth but it'd also mean they'd need to sort out welfare and so forth particularly in the DE areas of the west of Scotland. As @Notme has aluded to though I think that would be good for the Scots.
It's clear the UK has done very well off of Scotland and particularly it's North Sea revenues, sadly pissed away (By both Labour & Conservative Gov'ts) - http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00435654.gif. Voting SNP would be a very easy choice if I was in Scotland.
So would voting Yes if the English ever had a vote.
Completely off-topic, but for those following it, I've written the latest chapter in my alternative history. A quick summary of which is that WWI ends in 1916.
Note the length of the sections on ending FGM (one paragraph, where they decide to 'consider the issue'), and compare it to the 2+ pages of anti-Israel dribble that follows.
Of all the countries in the world that commit human rights abuses, the UN Commission on the Status of Women's annual meeting chooses to excoriate... Israel.
Not Saudi Arabia, where women are not even allowed to drive. Not Syria, not Iraw, not Afghanistan.
Israel, ffs.
Israel probably killed 700 women in Gaza. FGM is serious. But does not compare to death.
Women sadly die in large numbers in many places. Why single Israel out in their report compared to any of the other countries where women's lives are in far greater danger?
Oh hang on, we know ...
And how many women have Hamas killed? (answer, many, both directly and indirectly).
And FGM gets one f'ing paragraph where they 'decide to consider ending FGM'.
Completely off-topic, but for those following it, I've written the latest chapter in my alternative history. A quick summary of which is that WWI ends in 1916.
If we're doing anecdotes, my father started a conversation on the phone about politics(I just listened). He is alienated by all politicians and would probably be inclined to UKIP but he doesn't like their divisive tone. But "what really scares me is the idea of a Labour government propped up by the SNP".
Lynton Crosby is earning his money.
Haven't come across the SNP issue, but I do meet the "don't like the tone" comment on UKIP - it's not that such people think they're racist, but that they think they're rabble-rousing, which is seen by many as a mortal sin in a middle England constituency like mine. Equally though I suspect there are people who do like the tone and would not vote for them if they seemed too bland.
On enthusiam (responding to SeanT), I find about half the Labour and Tory voters are very keen and see it all like a thrilling football match between their favourite team and Man Utd. The other half are much more unenthusiastic, both Labour and Tory, though in general not IMO enough to put them off voting. Again the dynamics of marginals are likely be different - for many people, the election has been going on for five years here, ever since the last one ended in nearly a dead heat. The polls suggest similar certainty to vote for Lab/Con/UKIP, and I think that's right.
You say you haven't come across the SNP issues but I promise you you will in the next few weeks especially with the SNP in two debates .
Note the length of the sections on ending FGM (one paragraph, where they decide to 'consider the issue'), and compare it to the 2+ pages of anti-Israel dribble that follows.
Of all the countries in the world that commit human rights abuses, the UN Commission on the Status of Women's annual meeting chooses to excoriate... Israel.
Not Saudi Arabia, where women are not even allowed to drive. Not Syria, not Iraw, not Afghanistan.
Israel, ffs.
Israel probably killed 700 women in Gaza. FGM is serious. But does not compare to death.
The deaths of civilians in war is a different issue. Women are not being targeted as women, civilians are not being targeted at all. If there were no rocket fire there would be no shelling. Israel cannot be both indiscriminate and biased at the same time in its shelling.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 12m12 minutes ago Conservative and Labour in ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) w/e 22 March: Labour lead 0.5% (0.0% last week)
Hello hello hello...seems this dispatches program that has already done for a Lib Dem Peer has got footage of the big boys meeting a fake donor, but reading the small print it doesn't seem like they necessary broke any rules, more I think it is the embarrassment factor of high profile politicians doing a dance for money.
I presume if they had a big name doing something really bad, they would have splashed it.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 6m6 minutes ago LibDems and Greens in ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) w/e 22nd March. Greens on 5.5% lowest since November
No - James II/VII was before the union so it's correct to use the two numbers independently, depending on the kingdom in question. Future monarchs will take the higher of the two, so another James would be James VIII in both, or if Prince George decides to use his second name rather than his first, he'd be Alexander IV.
Elizabeth II is called that in Scotland as well. Some proto nationalist numpty went to Court to challenge it in MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396. He lost, comprehensively. Even more clear cut than the referendum really.
This doesn't make sense. Why then were they so careful to name the liner Queen Elizabeth, and put QE on the pillar boxes?
And I wouldn't say Mr MacCormick lost it - in a sense the result was neutral (ie the regnal number is royal prerogative, not constitutional law). It had major implications for confirming the validity of Scots law, after all.
After the Union of the Crowns there were still two separate countries of England and Scotland, it was only after the Act of Union that the single Kingdom of Great Britain was formed.
That still does not explain why - and despite what DavidL perhaps implies - the title of QE north of the border was not at all contentious, in the sense that officialdom and the establishment accepted the different regnal number as shown by the launch of the liner and the pillarboxes. I was taught about those when a child without a trace of a hint that it might be in any way contentious. Hence my puzzlement at some of the suggestions. One of those constitional anomalies I expect ...
Anyway, goodnight and thanks for the discussion.
The liner was named after Queen Elizabeth the then future Queen Mother, not Elizabeth II. The QE2's naming is ambiguous as to whether it is the second ship named after the Queen Mother, or whether it's named after the Queen but with an unorthodox numbering.
Cunard should be bold and unambiguous and bring out a liner named 'The Traitorous and Thankfully Now Beheaded Mary Queen of Scots' followed by 'The Glorious Fragrant and Valiant Queen Elisabeth The First'.
'The Blessed Margaret' might be more suited to an ironclad.
No - James II/VII was before the union so it's correct to use the two numbers independently, depending on the kingdom in question. Future monarchs will take the higher of the two, so another James would be James VIII in both, or if Prince George decides to use his second name rather than his first, he'd be Alexander IV.
But James II/VII was entirely after the union (i.e. after Charles II passed on) - and that is the accepted usage depending on whether you are in England or Scotland.
EDIT: just realising you are thinking of the Union of the Pmts in 1707 - the right Union in this context is the 1603 Union of the Crowns surely. Or is it?
Elizabeth II is called that in Scotland as well. Some proto nationalist numpty went to Court to challenge it in MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396. He lost, comprehensively. Even more clear cut than the referendum really.
This doesn't make sense. Why then were they so careful to name the liner Queen Elizabeth, and put QE on the pillar boxes?
And I wouldn't say Mr MacCormick lost it - in a sense the result was neutral (ie the regnal number is royal prerogative, not constitutional law). It had major implications for confirming the validity of Scots law, after all.
After the Union of the Crowns there were still two separate countries of England and Scotland, it was only after the Act of Union that the single Kingdom of Great Britain was formed.
That still does not explain why - and despite what DavidL perhaps implies - the title of QE north of the border was not at all contentious, in the sense that officialdom and the establishment accepted the different regnal number as shown by the launch of the liner and the pillarboxes. I was taught about those when a child without a trace of a hint that it might be in any way contentious. Hence my puzzlement at some of the suggestions. One of those constitional anomalies I expect ...
Anyway, goodnight and thanks for the discussion.
I think you have developed some false memory over these things. Post boxes had the E2R replaced with a crown without numerals. Wiki The Pillar Box War. As for the boats, I dunno where you're getting your ideas from but it's not right.
Overall, the entire thing is ridiculous and pointless as a debating point, it has no bearing on anything.
Not to mention the Monarch has since stipulated that future monarchs will use the higher numeral and this is adopted into law under the Royal Prerogative.
Anna Soubry on Andrew Marr this morning is the first person I have seen wrong foot Alex Salmond and was excellent. Very impressed with her her and I think Nick Palmer may have a fight on his hands
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 2m2 minutes ago Conservatives and UKIP in ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) w/e 22nd March. UKIP on 13.9% lowest since August
Completely off-topic, but for those following it, I've written the latest chapter in my alternative history. A quick summary of which is that WWI ends in 1916.
I don't think it's specified when in WWI Blackadder Goes Forth is set? One episode is after the Americans come in but as my timeline has that happen in 1915 (which indirectly leads to the earlier conclusion of the war), I don't think that'd affect matters.
Completely off-topic, but for those following it, I've written the latest chapter in my alternative history. A quick summary of which is that WWI ends in 1916.
I don't think it's specified when in WWI Blackadder Goes Forth is set? One episode is after the Americans come in but as my timeline has that happen in 1915 (which indirectly leads to the earlier conclusion of the war), I don't think that'd affect matters.
In the last episode, just before they go over the top Lt George says something like
"We've survived it, The Great War, From 1914 to 1917."
How to Buy a Meeting with a Minister: Channel 4 Dispatches - 8pm Tomorrow Night
Its 1hr long, so I presume they have manage to get a lot of good footage. The sting for lobbying they only got a 30 mins program and really most of it was filler. There was 5 mins really of meat.
Completely off-topic, but for those following it, I've written the latest chapter in my alternative history. A quick summary of which is that WWI ends in 1916.
I don't think it's specified when in WWI Blackadder Goes Forth is set? One episode is after the Americans come in but as my timeline has that happen in 1915 (which indirectly leads to the earlier conclusion of the war), I don't think that'd affect matters.
Sounds like Clarkson will be off to the job centre later this week.
One thing I found interesting...it has been said oh Top Gear can only be done because of the unique way the BBC is funded and they can take shots at the car makers etc without having to worry about loss of ad revenue.
Guess what happens at these live events....they are big money makers, because for instance car markers pay the BBC big bucks to get their cars in the shows, plus a whole array of other advertising. Nothing wrong with that, but kinda of blows the original argument out the water.
An awful lot of writers for the Guardian have been implicated in the assault (fearing for his safety constitutes assault) on Nigel Farage. Looks like about 6 or so.
They should shut down that rag and put the hypocritical scum who write for it on the streets.
I got directed to one of their stories about 'privatisation of the nhs', when in fact they are replacing one set of private providers for another, but i digress, no the worst part of the article was the way in which, with full moral outrage they put the boot into Virgin Care for using the British Virgin Isles to borrow money from its parent company essentially not making a profit in the UK, and thus not paying corporation tax. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/21/ow-lucrative--deals-go-to-firms-that-use-tax-havens?CMP=fb_gu
But this is more or less exactly what the Granuiad do themselves, but they use the Cayman Islands to shelter hundreds of millions of pounds of assets.
An awful lot of writers for the Guardian have been implicated in the assault (fearing for his safety constitutes assault) on Nigel Farage. Looks like about 6 or so.
They should shut down that rag and put the hypocritical scum who write for it on the streets.
I got directed to one of their stories about 'privatisation of the nhs', when in fact they are replacing one set of private providers for another, but i digress, no the worst part of the article was the way in which, with full moral outrage they put the boot into Virgin Care for using the British Virgin Isles to borrow money from its parent company essentially not making a profit in the UK, and thus not paying corporation tax. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/21/ow-lucrative--deals-go-to-firms-that-use-tax-havens?CMP=fb_gu
But this is more or less exactly what the Granuiad do themselves, but they use the Cayman Islands to shelter hundreds of millions of pounds of assets.
Strange how the two organizations that bang on about this stuff the most, both use tax efficient solutions both as organization and to assist their employees. The word hypocrite isn't a strong enough word.
Cunard should be bold and unambiguous and bring out a liner named 'The Traitorous and Thankfully Now Beheaded Mary Queen of Scots' followed by 'The Glorious Fragrant and Valiant Queen Elisabeth The First'.
'The Blessed Margaret' might be more suited to an ironclad.
Hopefully they wouldn't be so moronic as to misspell 'Elizabeth', though in this debased world who knows?
Douglas Carswell (@DouglasCarswell) 22/03/2015 19:17 Appalling behaviour by the anti-UKIP extremists attacking Nigel Farage's family. Perhaps Ch 4 et al anti-UKIP output makes them think it ok?
Sounds like Clarkson will be off to the job centre later this week.
One thing I found interesting...it has been said oh Top Gear can only be done because of the unique way the BBC is funded and they can take shots at the car makers etc without having to worry about loss of ad revenue.
Guess what happens at these live events....they are big money makers, because for instance car markers pay the BBC big bucks to get their cars in the shows, plus a whole array of other advertising. Nothing wrong with that, but kinda of blows the original argument out the water.
Should clarify the live events are BBC Worldwide, but it is basically still the same issue...if there was really an issue of pi$$ing of sponsors / advertisers / car companies, all this spin off stuff from the original show wouldn't go ahead...and the money drains back one way.
The problem with government spending is that to stay still you have to cut. To role back is close to impossible, a feat rarely achieved (though the coalition is slowly reigning back from what is a very high base).
No - James II/VII was before the union so it's correct to use the two numbers independently, depending on the kingdom in question. Future monarchs will take the higher of the two, so another James would be James VIII in both, or if Prince George decides to use his second name rather than his first, he'd be Alexander IV.
Elizabeth II is called that in Scotland as well. Some proto nationalist numpty went to Court to challenge it in MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396. He lost, comprehensively. Even more clear cut than the referendum really.
This doesn't make sense. Why then were they so careful to name the liner Queen Elizabeth, and put QE on the pillar boxes?
And I wouldn't say Mr MacCormick lost it - in a sense the result was neutral (ie the regnal number is royal prerogative, not constitutional law). It had major implications for confirming the validity of Scots law, after all.
After the Union of the Crowns there were still two separate countries of England and Scotland, it was only after the Act of Union that the single Kingdom of Great Britain was formed.
That still does not explain why - and despite what DavidL perhaps implies - the title of QE north of the border was not at all contentious, in the sense that officialdom and the establishment accepted the different regnal number as shown by the launch of the liner and the pillarboxes. I was taught about those when a child without a trace of a hint that it might be in any way contentious. Hence my puzzlement at some of the suggestions. One of those constitional anomalies I expect ...
Anyway, goodnight and thanks for the discussion.
The liner was named after Queen Elizabeth the then future Queen Mother, not Elizabeth II. The QE2's naming is ambiguous as to whether it is the second ship named after the Queen Mother, or whether it's named after the Queen but with an unorthodox numbering.
Cunard should be bold and unambiguous and bring out a liner named 'The Traitorous and Thankfully Now Beheaded Mary Queen of Scots' followed by 'The Glorious Fragrant and Valiant Queen Elisabeth The First'.
'The Blessed Margaret' might be more suited to an ironclad.
Queen Mary was named for Queen Mary of Teck, George V's wife!
Completely off-topic, but for those following it, I've written the latest chapter in my alternative history. A quick summary of which is that WWI ends in 1916.
I don't think it's specified when in WWI Blackadder Goes Forth is set? One episode is after the Americans come in but as my timeline has that happen in 1915 (which indirectly leads to the earlier conclusion of the war), I don't think that'd affect matters.
In the last episode, just before they go over the top Lt George says something like
"We've survived it, The Great War, From 1914 to 1917."
Ah, fair enough. Still, the course of the war is changed in my timeline when the Americans join, partly directly but more because other countries - in particular Germany - take different decisions due to the US involvement. It's quite possible that Blackadder would have still been sent over the top in the counterfactual in 1916 in one of the several battles on the Western Front that year.
Completely off-topic, but for those following it, I've written the latest chapter in my alternative history. A quick summary of which is that WWI ends in 1916.
I don't think it's specified when in WWI Blackadder Goes Forth is set? One episode is after the Americans come in but as my timeline has that happen in 1915 (which indirectly leads to the earlier conclusion of the war), I don't think that'd affect matters.
Its a heck of an alternative history that ends the war in 1916, even if the USA 'came in' in 1915. The USA no more had an army in 1915 than they had in 1917.
PS - more bite in the tackles in 10 minutes the Liverpool/Utd game than in the whole of England/France
The second most shocking thing I've been told this weekend is that Dave (and the Tories) wouldn't go into coalition with the Lib Dems, even if the numbers worked for a Con/Lib Dem majority.
This doesn't make sense. Why then were they so careful to name the liner Queen Elizabeth, and put QE on the pillar boxes?
And I wouldn't say Mr MacCormick lost it - in a sense the result was neutral (ie the regnal number is royal prerogative, not constitutional law). It had major implications for confirming the validity of Scots law, after all.
After the Union of the Crowns there were still two separate countries of England and Scotland, it was only after the Act of Union that the single Kingdom of Great Britain was formed.
That still does not explain why - and despite what DavidL perhaps implies - the title of QE north of the border was not at all contentious, in the sense that officialdom and the establishment accepted the different regnal number as shown by the launch of the liner and the pillarboxes. I was taught about those when a child without a trace of a hint that it might be in any way contentious. Hence my puzzlement at some of the suggestions. One of those constitional anomalies I expect ...
Anyway, goodnight and thanks for the discussion.
The liner was named after Queen Elizabeth the then future Queen Mother, not Elizabeth II. The QE2's naming is ambiguous as to whether it is the second ship named after the Queen Mother, or whether it's named after the Queen but with an unorthodox numbering.
Cunard should be bold and unambiguous and bring out a liner named 'The Traitorous and Thankfully Now Beheaded Mary Queen of Scots' followed by 'The Glorious Fragrant and Valiant Queen Elisabeth The First'.
'The Blessed Margaret' might be more suited to an ironclad.
Queen Mary was named for Queen Mary of Teck, George V's wife!
Although that wasn't Cunard's intention. As with all of their ships, the company had planned on it ending 'ia', as in Lusitania, Mauretania etc. The story goes that the company chairman (I think?) had an audience with George V to request the use of the name Queen Victoria but phrased the request "to name her after Britain's greatest queen". George replied "I think that's the greatest compliment anyone's ever paid my wife". And so the ship was named Queen Mary instead.
In MY alternate history, all English speaking countries (even the US and its former dependencies!) are part of the Commonwealth, which would also include the EU (English is an Official language!). And, there's more, the easterly EU nations would be on their 1920s boundaries!
So - remember this just for a bit of fun! - 1973 would be the accession date of a bunch of EU nations to the Commonwealth!
The second most shocking thing I've been told this weekend is that Dave (and the Tories) wouldn't go into coalition with the Lib Dems, even if the numbers worked for a Con/Lib Dem majority.
I have more profit on Con minority than Con-Lib Dem so that's OK.
'Now David Cameron and Ed Miliband caught in cash for access row over chats with 'businessman'
David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have been drawn into the cash for access debate after it emerged that all three met an undercover businessman posing as a potential donor.
The Daily Telegraph understands that the Prime Minister was secretly filmed by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme meeting Paul Wilmott, who said he was considering large donations to each of the three main parties.
The Conservative Party is understood to be furious about the secret filming, not least because high-profile Tory donors are also caught on camera'
Completely off-topic, but for those following it, I've written the latest chapter in my alternative history. A quick summary of which is that WWI ends in 1916.
I don't think it's specified when in WWI Blackadder Goes Forth is set? One episode is after the Americans come in but as my timeline has that happen in 1915 (which indirectly leads to the earlier conclusion of the war), I don't think that'd affect matters.
In the last episode, just before they go over the top Lt George says something like
"We've survived it, The Great War, From 1914 to 1917."
Ah, fair enough. Still, the course of the war is changed in my timeline when the Americans join, partly directly but more because other countries - in particular Germany - take different decisions due to the US involvement. It's quite possible that Blackadder would have still been sent over the top in the counterfactual in 1916 in one of the several battles on the Western Front that year.
My alternate history for World War I was what would have happened if we were on the Central Powers side
Completely off-topic, but for those following it, I've written the latest chapter in my alternative history. A quick summary of which is that WWI ends in 1916.
I don't think it's specified when in WWI Blackadder Goes Forth is set? One episode is after the Americans come in but as my timeline has that happen in 1915 (which indirectly leads to the earlier conclusion of the war), I don't think that'd affect matters.
In the last episode, just before they go over the top Lt George says something like
"We've survived it, The Great War, From 1914 to 1917."
Ah, fair enough. Still, the course of the war is changed in my timeline when the Americans join, partly directly but more because other countries - in particular Germany - take different decisions due to the US involvement. It's quite possible that Blackadder would have still been sent over the top in the counterfactual in 1916 in one of the several battles on the Western Front that year.
The British Army in 1916 was a completely different animal to that of 1917 never mind 1918. I do not see any army winning a war in 1916.
You say you haven't come across the SNP issues but I promise you you will in the next few weeks especially with the SNP in two debates .
We'll see - clearly the Tory press think it's worth a run. Ashcroft tried it on Labour voters in his focus groups, but said that it didn't seem to affect voting intention, since Labour voters didn't really have an option to vote against the SNP, beyond voting Labour as they already intended to do.
Completely off-topic, but for those following it, I've written the latest chapter in my alternative history. A quick summary of which is that WWI ends in 1916.
I don't think it's specified when in WWI Blackadder Goes Forth is set? One episode is after the Americans come in but as my timeline has that happen in 1915 (which indirectly leads to the earlier conclusion of the war), I don't think that'd affect matters.
In the last episode, just before they go over the top Lt George says something like
"We've survived it, The Great War, From 1914 to 1917."
Ah, fair enough. Still, the course of the war is changed in my timeline when the Americans join, partly directly but more because other countries - in particular Germany - take different decisions due to the US involvement. It's quite possible that Blackadder would have still been sent over the top in the counterfactual in 1916 in one of the several battles on the Western Front that year.
My alternate history for World War I was what would have happened if we were on the Central Powers side
'Now David Cameron and Ed Miliband caught in cash for access row over chats with 'businessman'
David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have been drawn into the cash for access debate after it emerged that all three met an undercover businessman posing as a potential donor.
The Daily Telegraph understands that the Prime Minister was secretly filmed by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme meeting Paul Wilmott, who said he was considering large donations to each of the three main parties.
The Conservative Party is understood to be furious about the secret filming, not least because high-profile Tory donors are also caught on camera'
'Now David Cameron and Ed Miliband caught in cash for access row over chats with 'businessman'
David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have been drawn into the cash for access debate after it emerged that all three met an undercover businessman posing as a potential donor.
The Daily Telegraph understands that the Prime Minister was secretly filmed by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme meeting Paul Wilmott, who said he was considering large donations to each of the three main parties.
The Conservative Party is understood to be furious about the secret filming, not least because high-profile Tory donors are also caught on camera'
Isnt that what political parties do? You go and butter up people, give them an audience and they donate some money to the party.
The scandal would be of they were offered something in return. Which, other than a sympathetic ear, they wont be.
Reading the Telegraph report, they don't seem to have anything more than that in the article
e.g. Mr Wilmott, who was working for the programme, is understood to have discussed policies that could have benefited one of his firms with Chris Leslie, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury.
Now that could be read every which way. The fact that the Telegraph aren't running with "cash for laws scandal" type headlines would suggest that all that happened was he met this guy, listened, nodded and said nothing of any substance.
However, I guess lets wait and see what they fill the 1hr program with. It will be a bit boring if all it is, is this bloke shaking hands with well known politicians.
Far-right group with barely any members asks their few hundred members to vote UKIP. Something UKIP have zero control over.
So why has UKIP managed to attract the support of Britain First, Tommy Robinson and Nick Griffin in recent weeks and months?
Because they are the only party who are in favour of controls on immigration. They are hardly spoilt for choice when the other parties are either in favour of unrestricted immigration from the EU or rest of the world.
You say you haven't come across the SNP issues but I promise you you will in the next few weeks especially with the SNP in two debates .
We'll see - clearly the Tory press think it's worth a run. Ashcroft tried it on Labour voters in his focus groups, but said that it didn't seem to affect voting intention, since Labour voters didn't really have an option to vote against the SNP, beyond voting Labour as they already intended to do.
It's not aimed at Labour voters, Nick! (Are you new to this politics business?)
A work colleague the other day who has previously said she might vote UKIP now says she's going off them, because she's worried they want to "privatise the NHS". That was the first time I've ever heard anyone in "real life" (she's not especially interested in politics) say something like that....actually, it's one of the only times I've heard anyone in real life say anything about UKIP that wasn't to do with immigration / other cultural issues.
I don't think it's specified when in WWI Blackadder Goes Forth is set? One episode is after the Americans come in but as my timeline has that happen in 1915 (which indirectly leads to the earlier conclusion of the war), I don't think that'd affect matters.
Its a heck of an alternative history that ends the war in 1916, even if the USA 'came in' in 1915. The USA no more had an army in 1915 than they had in 1917.
PS - more bite in the tackles in 10 minutes the Liverpool/Utd game than in the whole of England/France
I would naturally encourage you to read the whole thing:
But to précis hugely (the full alternative history now runs to over 24,000 words), the point of departure is in 1906, when Theodore Roosevelt appoints William Taft to the Supreme Court (as he three times offered to do). As a result, the GOP nominate Charles Evans Hughes in 1908 who loses to William Jennings Bryan. Bryan's presidency goes badly to put it mildly and Roosevelt wins a third term in 1912.
On the outbreak of war in 1914, Roosevelt requests preparatory defensive measures of Congress, so the army in 1915 isn't in as bad a state as it was in our timeline. Still, once the US joins in following the sinking of the Lusitania, it takes a year to deploy a meaningful army (which is comparable with our 1917/8). That window of opportunity before the US can make their presence felt encourages the Germans to launch two massive offensives on the Western Front aimed at knocking France and/or Britain out before the US can make their manpower felt. Neither makes a significant breakthrough but it does draw in so many British and French troops in that the Germans see the opportunity to mount a third offensive against the raw and under-supported Americans. After an initial breakthrough, that also runs out of steam.
At the same time, the Russians launch the offensive they actually did against Austria-Hungary. Unlike our timeline, having committed so many men to the west, the Germans don't have the manpower to bail out the Austrians but believe them, wrongly, capable of taking care of themselves. By September, the Austrians have collapsed hopelessly, sue for peace and the Hapsburg empire dissolves.
With an army exhausted by the failed offensive, rising social disturbances at home, faced with no allies - and opposed by the US, UK, Russia, France and Italy - Germany decides to sue for peace from a position of relative strength on the ground on the basis that their position can only get worse.
'Now David Cameron and Ed Miliband caught in cash for access row over chats with 'businessman'
David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have been drawn into the cash for access debate after it emerged that all three met an undercover businessman posing as a potential donor.
The Daily Telegraph understands that the Prime Minister was secretly filmed by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme meeting Paul Wilmott, who said he was considering large donations to each of the three main parties.
The Conservative Party is understood to be furious about the secret filming, not least because high-profile Tory donors are also caught on camera'
'Now David Cameron and Ed Miliband caught in cash for access row over chats with 'businessman'
David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have been drawn into the cash for access debate after it emerged that all three met an undercover businessman posing as a potential donor.
The Daily Telegraph understands that the Prime Minister was secretly filmed by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme meeting Paul Wilmott, who said he was considering large donations to each of the three main parties.
The Conservative Party is understood to be furious about the secret filming, not least because high-profile Tory donors are also caught on camera'
Isnt that what political parties do? You go and butter up people, give them an audience and they donate some money to the party.
The scandal would be of they were offered something in return. Which, other than a sympathetic ear, they wont be.
Well this is the point really isn't it. What is wrong with anyone meeting a donor. The issue for me is the parties do not seem to have checked the bona fides of the donor, although if the whole point is to run a fake then they too would be faked.
The trade unions donate and they get plenty of access. All quite legal. All told we see the odious owners of the Telegraph desperate to see weak government.
You say you haven't come across the SNP issues but I promise you you will in the next few weeks especially with the SNP in two debates .
We'll see - clearly the Tory press think it's worth a run. Ashcroft tried it on Labour voters in his focus groups, but said that it didn't seem to affect voting intention, since Labour voters didn't really have an option to vote against the SNP, beyond voting Labour as they already intended to do.
It's not aimed at Labour voters, Nick! (Are you new to this politics business?)
Who is it aimed at, then?
I think tbh this SNP business is another example of the political bubble overestimating how much the public cares/understands parliamentary procedures. The public have now just about got their heads round the concept of coalition government, but I think the Tories are whistling in the wind if they think Joe Public is going to spend the next few weeks contemplating the intricacies of confidence-and-supply agreements.
The issue for me is the parties do not seem to have checked the bona fides of the donor, although if the whole point is to run a fake then they too would be faked.
I believe the point in this case is the guy isn't a "fake". He isn't some made up character with a made up company, like so many of these stings.
As I understand it, he is a real person with real businesses. There is a pretty well known Paul Wilmott, I don't know if it is the same person as involved in the sting.
You say you haven't come across the SNP issues but I promise you you will in the next few weeks especially with the SNP in two debates .
We'll see - clearly the Tory press think it's worth a run. Ashcroft tried it on Labour voters in his focus groups, but said that it didn't seem to affect voting intention, since Labour voters didn't really have an option to vote against the SNP, beyond voting Labour as they already intended to do.
The press and tv headlines tonight are full of Alex Salmond's comments about Trident and re-writing an Ed Balls budget. This issue threatens to be a game changer with Ed Miliband having to affirm Trident and deficit reduction otherwise RUK could be spooked and vote conservative as the only way to keep the SNP out.
You say you haven't come across the SNP issues but I promise you you will in the next few weeks especially with the SNP in two debates .
We'll see - clearly the Tory press think it's worth a run. Ashcroft tried it on Labour voters in his focus groups, but said that it didn't seem to affect voting intention, since Labour voters didn't really have an option to vote against the SNP, beyond voting Labour as they already intended to do.
The press and tv headlines tonight are full of Alex Salmond's comments about Trident and re-writing an Ed Balls budget. This issue threatens to be a game changer with Ed Miliband having to affirm Trident and deficit reduction otherwise RUK could be spooked and vote conservative as the only way to keep the SNP out.
rUK public opinion is much closer to the SNP's position on deficit reduction than it is to the Tories' (or Labour's).
You say you haven't come across the SNP issues but I promise you you will in the next few weeks especially with the SNP in two debates .
We'll see - clearly the Tory press think it's worth a run. Ashcroft tried it on Labour voters in his focus groups, but said that it didn't seem to affect voting intention, since Labour voters didn't really have an option to vote against the SNP, beyond voting Labour as they already intended to do.
The press and tv headlines tonight are full of Alex Salmond's comments about Trident and re-writing an Ed Balls budget. This issue threatens to be a game changer with Ed Miliband having to affirm Trident and deficit reduction otherwise RUK could be spooked and vote conservative as the only way to keep the SNP out.
rUK public opinion is much closer to the SNP's position on deficit reduction than it is to the Tories' (or Labour's).
Well that's an opinion - try explaining an extra 180 billion to the voters
re-enfranchised- possibly.. applied for my postal vote, which apparently will count in Glasgow NorthWest. expat voting ahoy! (assuming it all arrives in time etc...)
I read the whole piece, and a successful Brusilov offensive would perhaps be on the cards in 1916.
But without being infected by Bolshevik mutinees in the East, I do not think the German army would have had the outbreak of defeatism and rebellion that occurred in 1918.
Perhaps an interesting counterfactual would have been the Ottomans keeping out of the war, or siding with the Entente. Either could have happened, and the mid east world in particular may have looked very different indeed.
You say you haven't come across the SNP issues but I promise you you will in the next few weeks especially with the SNP in two debates .
We'll see - clearly the Tory press think it's worth a run. Ashcroft tried it on Labour voters in his focus groups, but said that it didn't seem to affect voting intention, since Labour voters didn't really have an option to vote against the SNP, beyond voting Labour as they already intended to do.
The press and tv headlines tonight are full of Alex Salmond's comments about Trident and re-writing an Ed Balls budget. This issue threatens to be a game changer with Ed Miliband having to affirm Trident and deficit reduction otherwise RUK could be spooked and vote conservative as the only way to keep the SNP out.
rUK public opinion is much closer to the SNP's position on deficit reduction than it is to the Tories' (or Labour's).
Well that's an opinion - try explaining an extra 180 billion to the voters
Polls have consistently shown 50-60% of the UK think there is no need for more cuts.
Danny - quite possibly but Labour is tarnished because they were running a significant deficit pre-2008. If Miliband had acknowledged that he'd now be in a position to propose a less stringent fiscal policy. His failure to put Labour's record into context (both good and bad) and instead try to wipe the slate clean on has been perhaps his biggest strategic error. He is of course being advised by an American David Axelrod who's familiar with the presidential system. The trouble is we have a party system here and you can't just walk away from your team's record in government, particularly when you were one of the people on the inside yourself.
I read the whole piece, and a successful Brusilov offensive would perhaps be on the cards in 1916.
But without being infected by Bolshevik mutinees in the East, I do not think the German army would have had the outbreak of defeatism and rebellion that occurred in 1918.
Perhaps an interesting counterfactual would have been the Ottomans keeping out of the war, or siding with the Entente. Either could have happened, and the mid east world in particular may have looked very different indeed.
Cheers for the comments. I agree that the German army wouldn't have been in as bad a state as it eventually reached come Nov 1918. However, that's not what causes Germany to throw in the towel: it's the prospect of having to face four great powers (plus other lesser ones), alone. Germany isn't defeated as such but its leaders recognise that it's highly likely that it will be and that the terms they'll get can only worsen the longer they delay.
It's not aimed at Labour voters, Nick! (Are you new to this politics business?)
You reckon? I think Big G sums up what it's supposed to do (make Labour voters go eeek and vote Tory) - but I don't think it'll work, as they're more anti-Tory than they're anti-SNP. Who do you reckon it's aimed at?
It's not aimed at Labour voters, Nick! (Are you new to this politics business?)
You reckon? I think Big G sums up what it's supposed to do (make Labour voters go eeek and vote Tory) - but I don't think it'll work, as they're more anti-Tory than they're anti-SNP. Who do you reckon it's aimed at?
Scaring lily livered soft UKIP-Con switchers. I always think if you're going to do something you should do it properly and that's why I've pretty much made up my mind on my vote
I don't think it's specified when in WWI Blackadder Goes Forth is set? One episode is after the Americans come in but as my timeline has that happen in 1915 (which indirectly leads to the earlier conclusion of the war), I don't think that'd affect matters.
Its a heck of an alternative history that ends the war in 1916, even if the USA 'came in' in 1915. The USA no more had an army in 1915 than they had in 1917.
PS - more bite in the tackles in 10 minutes the Liverpool/Utd game than in the whole of England/France
I would naturally encourage you to read the whole thing:
But to précis hugely (the full alternative history now runs to over 24,000 words), the point of departure is in 1906, when Theodore Roosevelt appoints William Taft to the Supreme Court (as he three times offered to do). As a result, the GOP nominate Charles Evans Hughes in 1908 who loses to William Jennings Bryan. Bryan's presidency goes badly to put it mildly and Roosevelt wins a third term in 1912.
...
At the same time, the Russians launch the offensive they actually did against Austria-Hungary. Unlike our timeline, having committed so many men to the west, the Germans don't have the manpower to bail out the Austrians but believe them, wrongly, capable of taking care of themselves. By September, the Austrians have collapsed hopelessly, sue for peace and the Hapsburg empire dissolves.
With an army exhausted by the failed offensive, rising social disturbances at home, faced with no allies - and opposed by the US, UK, Russia, France and Italy - Germany decides to sue for peace from a position of relative strength on the ground on the basis that their position can only get worse.
My point is it takes longer than a year to deploy a meaningful mass army from scratch. Longer than 2 really. The Americans would not have been a major threat in 1916 after entering a war in 1915. The British and French were not a threat in 1916. True indeed the Austrians were totally useless and could not even overrun Serbia. Its a bit optimistic however to think the Germans would not have been capable of shoring up the Austrians. The Russian offensive itself was disjointed. But I guess the point of alternate histories is to run through what the effects of a relatively small change might be.
However with the USA in the war then of course there was only one result in prospect. I'm sure the allies would have loved them to be 'in' in 1915. One result of the terrible fighting in 1916, not least the Somme, which shocked the Germans, was unrestricted submarine warfare which in the end brought the USA in.
Comments about Salmond are interesting, mostly because people "darn souf" have any idea how he operates.
If, and at this stage of the GE it is still only if, he gets elected to Westminster, he will, and most of Parliament, consider himself to be the leader of the SNP. Sturgeon, unless she sits for Westminster and wins a seat, will as FM of Scotland, be regarded as irrelevant.
'One senior Labour figure fears “civil disobedience” if the SNP accrues too much power over the English.'
Will not voting and doing sit-down protests in front of the telly count?
Perhaps they will invade the pub where Salmond or Sturgeon is having dinner with their family.
And jump up and down on their car.
One of the photos features a breastfeeding mother blocking his car. I would suggest social services investigate such negligent behaviour but they would be too busy harrassing UKIP supporters.
Comments about Salmond are interesting, mostly because people "darn souf" have any idea how he operates.
If, and at this stage of the GE it is still only if, he gets elected to Westminster, he will, and most of Parliament, consider himself to be the leader of the SNP. Sturgeon, unless she sits for Westminster and wins a seat, will as FM of Scotland, be regarded as irrelevant.
The absurdity of devolution means that she will be in the debates though. Oh - it also shows the absurdity of the debates because what does her 'personality' and debating skills count for?
It's not aimed at Labour voters, Nick! (Are you new to this politics business?)
You reckon? I think Big G sums up what it's supposed to do (make Labour voters go eeek and vote Tory) - but I don't think it'll work, as they're more anti-Tory than they're anti-SNP. Who do you reckon it's aimed at?
There's very little abour/Tory switching going on. I suspect the Salmond ads are about getting Ukip supporters to the Tories. Kippers are very negative about most things but one thing they egenrally seem to have is a strong sense of identity, be it British or English or both. I can't see them being too keen on Scottish separatists having Miliband in their pocket.
On the subject of which I was pleased to see Andrew Marr corner Salmond on the weakness of the SNP position. Given they won't back any kind of a deal with the Tories what real leverage will they have over Labour? Any more than the lobby of Scottish Labour MPs who'll no longer be there would have? If I was Miliband and I felt I had to nip this in the bud it's the weakness of the SNP position I'd point to.
It's not aimed at Labour voters, Nick! (Are you new to this politics business?)
You reckon? I think Big G sums up what it's supposed to do (make Labour voters go eeek and vote Tory) - but I don't think it'll work, as they're more anti-Tory than they're anti-SNP. Who do you reckon it's aimed at?
The pro English? Not least those in marginal seats. Why are labour voters in Scotland going eek and voting SNP?
It's not aimed at Labour voters, Nick! (Are you new to this politics business?)
You reckon? I think Big G sums up what it's supposed to do (make Labour voters go eeek and vote Tory) - but I don't think it'll work, as they're more anti-Tory than they're anti-SNP. Who do you reckon it's aimed at?
It's not aimed at Labour voters, Nick! (Are you new to this politics business?)
You reckon? I think Big G sums up what it's supposed to do (make Labour voters go eeek and vote Tory) - but I don't think it'll work, as they're more anti-Tory than they're anti-SNP. Who do you reckon it's aimed at?
Not labour voters Nick - the most likely result is the movement of the many undecided voters to reject any prospect of the SNP dictating the RUK and voting conservative as the only way to keep the SNP at bay
My point is it takes longer than a year to deploy a meaningful mass army from scratch. Longer than 2 really. The Americans would not have been a major threat in 1916 after entering a war in 1915. The British and French were not a threat in 1916.
I agree. In fact, the closest I have the Germans come to winning is when they break the American line:
True indeed the Austrians were totally useless and could not even overrun Serbia. Its a bit optimistic however to think the Germans would not have been capable of shoring up the Austrians. The Russian offensive itself was disjointed. But I guess the point of alternate histories is to run through what the effects of a relatively small change might be.
That depends on the decisions of the Great General Staff. I have Falkenhayn panic a bit after the US enters and develop a strategy to aim to win the war in 1916, precisely because after that, the Allied manpower will make it far harder to deliver victory. As such, he commits huge resources to the attacks against the French at Verdun and the British in the north. After those battles fail to break either the lines or the armies, Hindenburg (having replaced Falkenhayn) makes the best of a bad job and raids the reserves to launch the offensive against the Americans, which almost succeeds. With his troops tied down in the East, he decides he doesn't have the manpower spare for Austria.
However with the USA in the war then of course there was only one result in prospect. I'm sure the allies would have loved them to be 'in' in 1915. One result of the terrible fighting in 1916, not least the Somme, which shocked the Germans, was unrestricted submarine warfare which in the end brought the USA in.
And the point that there was only one result in prospect is the key one, particularly with Austria out and the offensives of 1916 having failed. In some ways, the question would then be, why wouldn't Germany ask for an armistice, not why would she?
You say you haven't come across the SNP issues but I promise you you will in the next few weeks especially with the SNP in two debates .
We'll see - clearly the Tory press think it's worth a run. Ashcroft tried it on Labour voters in his focus groups, but said that it didn't seem to affect voting intention, since Labour voters didn't really have an option to vote against the SNP, beyond voting Labour as they already intended to do.
The press and tv headlines tonight are full of Alex Salmond's comments about Trident and re-writing an Ed Balls budget. This issue threatens to be a game changer with Ed Miliband having to affirm Trident and deficit reduction otherwise RUK could be spooked and vote conservative as the only way to keep the SNP out.
rUK public opinion is much closer to the SNP's position on deficit reduction than it is to the Tories' (or Labour's).
Abolishing Trident is part of the SNP's appeal when it comes to the far left. It seems pretty plain to me that what is good for the SNP is bad for Labour.
If people do not want to see the deficit reduced why then not praise Osborne who has already put back and lowered the reduction targets.
You say you haven't come across the SNP issues but I promise you you will in the next few weeks especially with the SNP in two debates .
We'll see - clearly the Tory press think it's worth a run. Ashcroft tried it on Labour voters in his focus groups, but said that it didn't seem to affect voting intention, since Labour voters didn't really have an option to vote against the SNP, beyond voting Labour as they already intended to do.
The press and tv headlines tonight are full of Alex Salmond's comments about Trident and re-writing an Ed Balls budget. This issue threatens to be a game changer with Ed Miliband having to affirm Trident and deficit reduction otherwise RUK could be spooked and vote conservative as the only way to keep the SNP out.
rUK public opinion is much closer to the SNP's position on deficit reduction than it is to the Tories' (or Labour's).
Abolishing Trident is part of the SNP's appeal when it comes to the far left. It seems pretty plain to me that what is good for the SNP is bad for Labour.
If people do not want to see the deficit reduced why then not praise Osborne who has already put back and lowered the reduction targets.
I agree that the SNP's stance on Trident will be far more problematic for Labour. People really don't like the idea oF Britain being 'unprotected' with all the turbulence in the world.
As for the second part, because Osborne is saying he is going to cut spending even further, which the public does not see the need for when there seems no risk of the bond markets coming for our heads like there arguably was back in 2010. Having a deficit in itself does not matter to voters.
This doesn't make sense. Why then were they so careful to name the liner Queen Elizabeth, and put QE on the pillar boxes?
And I wouldn't say Mr MacCormick lost it - in a sense the result was neutral (ie the regnal number is royal prerogative, not constitutional law). It had major implications for confirming the validity of Scots law, after all.
After the Union of the Crowns there were still two separate countries of England and Scotland, it was only after the Act of Union that the single Kingdom of Great Britain was formed.
Cunard should be bold and unambiguous and bring out a liner named 'The Traitorous and Thankfully Now Beheaded Mary Queen of Scots' followed by 'The Glorious Fragrant and Valiant Queen Elisabeth The First'.
'The Blessed Margaret' might be more suited to an ironclad.
Queen Mary was named for Queen Mary of Teck, George V's wife!
Although that wasn't Cunard's intention. As with all of their ships, the company had planned on it ending 'ia', as in Lusitania, Mauretania etc. The story goes that the company chairman (I think?) had an audience with George V to request the use of the name Queen Victoria but phrased the request "to name her after Britain's greatest queen". George replied "I think that's the greatest compliment anyone's ever paid my wife". And so the ship was named Queen Mary instead.
1) The "Queen Victoria" story is a myth. Cunard had merged with White Star and were looking for a name which didn't use either their own -Ia ending or White Star's -ic. 2) The planned name for the QE2 was simply "Queen Elizabeth" but HMQEII winged it on the day and said "Queen Elizabeth the Second" which Cunard were fleetingly delighted with ("named after a queen regnant, not just a queen consort") until the Scottish problem occurred to them in a project already running late and over budget with militant Clydebank Unions to boot. They then simply ducked the question, and used the Arabic '2' (explained away as an aid to legibility at a distance) rather than the Roman II and avoided answering the question "named after ship or monarch" until Queen Mary 2 came along, when they got their history wrong. I prefer to think HMQEII said "I name this ship Queen Mary too." They finally clarified it with the most recent Queen Elizabeth.
It's not aimed at Labour voters, Nick! (Are you new to this politics business?)
You reckon? I think Big G sums up what it's supposed to do (make Labour voters go eeek and vote Tory) - but I don't think it'll work, as they're more anti-Tory than they're anti-SNP. Who do you reckon it's aimed at?
It's aimed at UKIP voters. I think it will have some success.
You say you haven't come across the SNP issues but I promise you you will in the next few weeks especially with the SNP in two debates .
We'll see - clearly the Tory press think it's worth a run. Ashcroft tried it on Labour voters in his focus groups, but said that it didn't seem to affect voting intention, since Labour voters didn't really have an option to vote against the SNP, beyond voting Labour as they already intended to do.
The press and tv headlines tonight are full of Alex Salmond's comments about Trident and re-writing an Ed Balls budget. This issue threatens to be a game changer with Ed Miliband having to affirm Trident and deficit reduction otherwise RUK could be spooked and vote conservative as the only way to keep the SNP out.
rUK public opinion is much closer to the SNP's position on deficit reduction than it is to the Tories' (or Labour's).
Well that's an opinion - try explaining an extra 180 billion to the voters
Except it's not an extra £180bn. It's an additional £6bn per annum and cancellation of the additional £30bn which Labour and the Tories voted to commit to in January.
Danny565 Though he paired things back a little in the budget to a 36% of GDP spending target, not 35%, and for the cuts to be ended by 2018-19, a year earlier than planned
You say you haven't come across the SNP issues but I promise you you will in the next few weeks especially with the SNP in two debates .
We'll see - clearly the Tory press think it's worth a run. Ashcroft tried it on Labour voters in his focus groups, but said that it didn't seem to affect voting intention, since Labour voters didn't really have an option to vote against the SNP, beyond voting Labour as they already intended to do.
The press and tv headlines tonight are full of Alex Salmond's comments about Trident and re-writing an Ed Balls budget. This issue threatens to be a game changer with Ed Miliband having to affirm Trident and deficit reduction otherwise RUK could be spooked and vote conservative as the only way to keep the SNP out.
rUK public opinion is much closer to the SNP's position on deficit reduction than it is to the Tories' (or Labour's).
Well that's an opinion - try explaining an extra 180 billion to the voters
Except it's not an extra £180bn. It's an additional £6bn per annum and cancellation of the additional £30bn which Labour and the Tories voted to commit to in January.
You say you haven't come across the SNP issues but I promise you you will in the next few weeks especially with the SNP in two debates .
We'll see - clearly the Tory press think it's worth a run. Ashcroft tried it on Labour voters in his focus groups, but said that it didn't seem to affect voting intention, since Labour voters didn't really have an option to vote against the SNP, beyond voting Labour as they already intended to do.
The press and tv headlines tonight are full of Alex Salmond's comments about Trident and re-writing an Ed Balls budget. This issue threatens to be a game changer with Ed Miliband having to affirm Trident and deficit reduction otherwise RUK could be spooked and vote conservative as the only way to keep the SNP out.
rUK public opinion is much closer to the SNP's position on deficit reduction than it is to the Tories' (or Labour's).
Well that's an opinion - try explaining an extra 180 billion to the voters
Except it's not an extra £180bn. It's an additional £6bn per annum and cancellation of the additional £30bn which Labour and the Tories voted to commit to in January.
Is that not £180 billion?
It is £180 billion. It is not "an extra £180bn". It is an extra £30bn over 5 years.
@SeanF you are bang on the money there. The Labour party is currently stuck between a rock and hard place politically at both ends of the UK. Its desperately trying to shore up its base against the more left leaning SNP in Scotland, and while trying to shore up its support down South against the more right leaning Ukip. It still amazes me that some in the Labour party have not yet woken up to the threat that these public interventions from Salmond and the SNP will have in marginal seats they are fighting South of the border right now.
It was obvious months ago that the Labour party was going to be tied up in knots during this GE campaign as they tried to fight two very different political campaigns North and South of the border. And while trying to keep their options open in the event of a Hung Parliament. Back in the late 90's/early 2000's, the Conservatives faced the perfect storm with the rise of both New Labour and the Libdems along with tactical voting. Now it looks like the Labour Party is facing its own perfect political storm, and just as the Libdems appear to be imploding too.
This kind of threat from Salmond & Co is bound to push a fair few undecided swing voters along with some Ukippers back into the Conservative camp on election day, and no doubt a few Libdems as well. I am surprised that Nick Palmer doesn't realise what a threat this poses to a Labour candidate such as himself in a marginal seat like Broxtowe. It was no accident that the SNP along with the Conservatives immediately shut down any chance of an Conservative/SNP Coalition or confidence and supply deal. And with the Labour party then refusing to do the same as emphatically months ago, its allowed the spectre of a minority Labour Government being threatened with having its budget written by Salmond and an SNP government at Holyrood gain enough traction as to be perfectly feasible. How did they get to a position where Salmond could boast about it on the Marr show just weeks before the short GE campaign kicks off?
I bet Anna Soubry couldn't believe her luck when she was sitting alongside Alex Salmond today on the Marr show when he dropped that budget threat bombshell. Its already made this mornings Times, Telegraph and Daily Mail front pages. Twitter David Jack @DJack_Journo · 15h 15 hours ago WATCH @Anna_SoubryMP pile in tae @AlexSalmondhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02mjj9d … #marrshow @MarrShow
It's not aimed at Labour voters, Nick! (Are you new to this politics business?)
You reckon? I think Big G sums up what it's supposed to do (make Labour voters go eeek and vote Tory) - but I don't think it'll work, as they're more anti-Tory than they're anti-SNP. Who do you reckon it's aimed at?
It's aimed at UKIP voters. I think it will have some success.
@Edin_Rokz A very astute and valid comment on Alex Salmond, hence the Conservative Party were absolutely right to make him rather than Sturgeon the focus of their campaign posters when it comes to a minority Labour Government reliant on the SNP.
Comments about Salmond are interesting, mostly because people "darn souf" have any idea how he operates.
If, and at this stage of the GE it is still only if, he gets elected to Westminster, he will, and most of Parliament, consider himself to be the leader of the SNP. Sturgeon, unless she sits for Westminster and wins a seat, will as FM of Scotland, be regarded as irrelevant.
FPT. @Dair 'Is it really that hard to conform to what most other people on the board do and post your comments below other comments? It seems bizarre and deliberately antagonistic but from the content of your posts maybe that;s to be expected.'
What a totally bizarre and rather antagonistic comment to make about my posting style on this site. Way back when this thread format was implemented, I believe it was OGH among others who suggested that it was easier if we posted our responses to quoted posts above rather than beneath them as it made it easier to follow the threads. That is why I now do so, and I have never found anyone else who has a problem with that. But I suspect that its my criticism of the SNP that you really have a problem with, so no surprise that you prefer to play the man and not the ball when it comes to my comments.
FPT. @Dair 'Is it really that hard to conform to what most other people on the board do and post your comments below other comments? It seems bizarre and deliberately antagonistic but from the content of your posts maybe that;s to be expected.'
What a totally bizarre and rather antagonistic comment to make about my posting style on this site. Way back when this thread format was implemented, I believe it was OGH among others who suggested that it was easier if we posted our responses to quoted posts above rather than beneath them as it made it easier to follow the threads. That is why I now do so, and I have never found anyone else who has a problem with that. But I suspect that its my criticism of the SNP that you really have a problem with, so no surprise that you prefer to play the man and not the ball when it comes to my comments.
You should do half on top, and half underneath, especially on subsequent replies. Dair would have a fit!
FPT. @Dair 'Is it really that hard to conform to what most other people on the board do and post your comments below other comments? It seems bizarre and deliberately antagonistic but from the content of your posts maybe that;s to be expected.'
What a totally bizarre and rather antagonistic comment to make about my posting style on this site. Way back when this thread format was implemented, I believe it was OGH among others who suggested that it was easier if we posted our responses to quoted posts above rather than beneath them as it made it easier to follow the threads. That is why I now do so, and I have never found anyone else who has a problem with that. But I suspect that its my criticism of the SNP that you really have a problem with, so no surprise that you prefer to play the man and not the ball when it comes to my comments.
You should do half on top, and half underneath, especially on subsequent replies. Dair would have a fit!
Comments
Good night everybody. I was worried that having been interested in politics for many years I'd have worn myself out before the GE came in, particularly with the drain of the IndyRef less than a year ago, but still some energy left in my tank to avoid burnout or apathy for the moment it seems.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/3/22/farage-mob-leader-is-guardian-writer.html
I vote against.
Oh hang on, we know ...
And how many women have Hamas killed? (answer, many, both directly and indirectly).
And FGM gets one f'ing paragraph where they 'decide to consider ending FGM'.
Conservative and Labour in ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) w/e 22 March: Labour lead 0.5% (0.0% last week)
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/579767206008995841
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/579766302639800323
I presume if they had a big name doing something really bad, they would have splashed it.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/579770207973060608
Labour % leads in ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) w/e 22nd March. Labour lead 0.5% (+0.5%)
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/579768223928844288
@suttonnick: As mentioned by @jameschappers on @BBCWestminHour - "End mating signals and let's govern alone, Boris tells Tories" http://t.co/TmL61Kbmhg
LibDems and Greens in ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) w/e 22nd March. Greens on 5.5% lowest since November
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/579769538851549184
followed by
'The Glorious Fragrant and Valiant Queen Elisabeth The First'.
'The Blessed Margaret' might be more suited to an ironclad.
Overall, the entire thing is ridiculous and pointless as a debating point, it has no bearing on anything.
Not to mention the Monarch has since stipulated that future monarchs will use the higher numeral and this is adopted into law under the Royal Prerogative.
Conservatives and UKIP in ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) w/e 22nd March. UKIP on 13.9% lowest since August
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/579771605259296769
"We've survived it, The Great War, From 1914 to 1917."
Its 1hr long, so I presume they have manage to get a lot of good footage. The sting for lobbying they only got a 30 mins program and really most of it was filler. There was 5 mins really of meat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32013181
Sounds like Clarkson will be off to the job centre later this week.
One thing I found interesting...it has been said oh Top Gear can only be done because of the unique way the BBC is funded and they can take shots at the car makers etc without having to worry about loss of ad revenue.
Guess what happens at these live events....they are big money makers, because for instance car markers pay the BBC big bucks to get their cars in the shows, plus a whole array of other advertising. Nothing wrong with that, but kinda of blows the original argument out the water.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/21/ow-lucrative--deals-go-to-firms-that-use-tax-havens?CMP=fb_gu
But this is more or less exactly what the Granuiad do themselves, but they use the Cayman Islands to shelter hundreds of millions of pounds of assets.
Douglas Carswell (@DouglasCarswell)
22/03/2015 19:17
Appalling behaviour by the anti-UKIP extremists attacking Nigel Farage's family. Perhaps Ch 4 et al anti-UKIP output makes them think it ok?
Last week, 11 polls, sample 13,108
PS - more bite in the tackles in 10 minutes the Liverpool/Utd game than in the whole of England/France
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/22/snp-tartan-labour-election-scotland
So - remember this just for a bit of fun! - 1973 would be the accession date of a bunch of EU nations to the Commonwealth!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAvIw2XWYAAgyd4.jpg
David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have been drawn into the cash for access debate after it emerged that all three met an undercover businessman posing as a potential donor.
The Daily Telegraph understands that the Prime Minister was secretly filmed by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme meeting Paul Wilmott, who said he was considering large donations to each of the three main parties.
The Conservative Party is understood to be furious about the secret filming, not least because high-profile Tory donors are also caught on camera'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/active/11488610/Cash-for-access-Fake-donor-pays-way-to-heart-of-big-parties.html
Will not voting and doing sit-down protests in front of the telly count?
Far-right group with barely any members asks their few hundred members to vote UKIP. Something UKIP have zero control over.
"the far-right group Britain First announced it would “deploy armoured patrol vehicles and ex-military volunteers to protect” the Ukip leader."
The scandal would be of they were offered something in return. Which, other than a sympathetic ear, they wont be.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAu5kDJWAAESO9N.jpg:large
e.g. Mr Wilmott, who was working for the programme, is understood to have discussed policies that could have benefited one of his firms with Chris Leslie, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury.
Now that could be read every which way. The fact that the Telegraph aren't running with "cash for laws scandal" type headlines would suggest that all that happened was he met this guy, listened, nodded and said nothing of any substance.
However, I guess lets wait and see what they fill the 1hr program with. It will be a bit boring if all it is, is this bloke shaking hands with well known politicians.
A work colleague the other day who has previously said she might vote UKIP now says she's going off them, because she's worried they want to "privatise the NHS". That was the first time I've ever heard anyone in "real life" (she's not especially interested in politics) say something like that....actually, it's one of the only times I've heard anyone in real life say anything about UKIP that wasn't to do with immigration / other cultural issues.
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=340616
But to précis hugely (the full alternative history now runs to over 24,000 words), the point of departure is in 1906, when Theodore Roosevelt appoints William Taft to the Supreme Court (as he three times offered to do). As a result, the GOP nominate Charles Evans Hughes in 1908 who loses to William Jennings Bryan. Bryan's presidency goes badly to put it mildly and Roosevelt wins a third term in 1912.
On the outbreak of war in 1914, Roosevelt requests preparatory defensive measures of Congress, so the army in 1915 isn't in as bad a state as it was in our timeline. Still, once the US joins in following the sinking of the Lusitania, it takes a year to deploy a meaningful army (which is comparable with our 1917/8). That window of opportunity before the US can make their presence felt encourages the Germans to launch two massive offensives on the Western Front aimed at knocking France and/or Britain out before the US can make their manpower felt. Neither makes a significant breakthrough but it does draw in so many British and French troops in that the Germans see the opportunity to mount a third offensive against the raw and under-supported Americans. After an initial breakthrough, that also runs out of steam.
At the same time, the Russians launch the offensive they actually did against Austria-Hungary. Unlike our timeline, having committed so many men to the west, the Germans don't have the manpower to bail out the Austrians but believe them, wrongly, capable of taking care of themselves. By September, the Austrians have collapsed hopelessly, sue for peace and the Hapsburg empire dissolves.
With an army exhausted by the failed offensive, rising social disturbances at home, faced with no allies - and opposed by the US, UK, Russia, France and Italy - Germany decides to sue for peace from a position of relative strength on the ground on the basis that their position can only get worse.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3006583/John-Prescott-accused-apologist-terror-claiming-BRITAIN-blame-fanatics-joining-ISIS.html
The trade unions donate and they get plenty of access. All quite legal. All told we see the odious owners of the Telegraph desperate to see weak government.
I think tbh this SNP business is another example of the political bubble overestimating how much the public cares/understands parliamentary procedures. The public have now just about got their heads round the concept of coalition government, but I think the Tories are whistling in the wind if they think Joe Public is going to spend the next few weeks contemplating the intricacies of confidence-and-supply agreements.
As I understand it, he is a real person with real businesses. There is a pretty well known Paul Wilmott, I don't know if it is the same person as involved in the sting.
I read the whole piece, and a successful Brusilov offensive would perhaps be on the cards in 1916.
But without being infected by Bolshevik mutinees in the East, I do not think the German army would have had the outbreak of defeatism and rebellion that occurred in 1918.
Perhaps an interesting counterfactual would have been the Ottomans keeping out of the war, or siding with the Entente. Either could have happened, and the mid east world in particular may have looked very different indeed.
True indeed the Austrians were totally useless and could not even overrun Serbia. Its a bit optimistic however to think the Germans would not have been capable of shoring up the Austrians. The Russian offensive itself was disjointed. But I guess the point of alternate histories is to run through what the effects of a relatively small change might be.
However with the USA in the war then of course there was only one result in prospect. I'm sure the allies would have loved them to be 'in' in 1915. One result of the terrible fighting in 1916, not least the Somme, which shocked the Germans, was unrestricted submarine warfare which in the end brought the USA in.
If, and at this stage of the GE it is still only if, he gets elected to Westminster, he will, and most of Parliament, consider himself to be the leader of the SNP. Sturgeon, unless she sits for Westminster and wins a seat, will as FM of Scotland, be regarded as irrelevant.
One of the photos features a breastfeeding mother blocking his car. I would suggest social services investigate such negligent behaviour but they would be too busy harrassing UKIP supporters.
On the subject of which I was pleased to see Andrew Marr corner Salmond on the weakness of the SNP position. Given they won't back any kind of a deal with the Tories what real leverage will they have over Labour? Any more than the lobby of Scottish Labour MPs who'll no longer be there would have? If I was Miliband and I felt I had to nip this in the bud it's the weakness of the SNP position I'd point to.
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=10294747&postcount=74 That depends on the decisions of the Great General Staff. I have Falkenhayn panic a bit after the US enters and develop a strategy to aim to win the war in 1916, precisely because after that, the Allied manpower will make it far harder to deliver victory. As such, he commits huge resources to the attacks against the French at Verdun and the British in the north. After those battles fail to break either the lines or the armies, Hindenburg (having replaced Falkenhayn) makes the best of a bad job and raids the reserves to launch the offensive against the Americans, which almost succeeds. With his troops tied down in the East, he decides he doesn't have the manpower spare for Austria.
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=10313133&postcount=77 And the point that there was only one result in prospect is the key one, particularly with Austria out and the offensives of 1916 having failed. In some ways, the question would then be, why wouldn't Germany ask for an armistice, not why would she?
If people do not want to see the deficit reduced why then not praise Osborne who has already put back and lowered the reduction targets.
As for the second part, because Osborne is saying he is going to cut spending even further, which the public does not see the need for when there seems no risk of the bond markets coming for our heads like there arguably was back in 2010. Having a deficit in itself does not matter to voters.
2) The planned name for the QE2 was simply "Queen Elizabeth" but HMQEII winged it on the day and said "Queen Elizabeth the Second" which Cunard were fleetingly delighted with ("named after a queen regnant, not just a queen consort") until the Scottish problem occurred to them in a project already running late and over budget with militant Clydebank Unions to boot. They then simply ducked the question, and used the Arabic '2' (explained away as an aid to legibility at a distance) rather than the Roman II and avoided answering the question "named after ship or monarch" until Queen Mary 2 came along, when they got their history wrong. I prefer to think HMQEII said "I name this ship Queen Mary too." They finally clarified it with the most recent Queen Elizabeth.
It was obvious months ago that the Labour party was going to be tied up in knots during this GE campaign as they tried to fight two very different political campaigns North and South of the border. And while trying to keep their options open in the event of a Hung Parliament.
Back in the late 90's/early 2000's, the Conservatives faced the perfect storm with the rise of both New Labour and the Libdems along with tactical voting. Now it looks like the Labour Party is facing its own perfect political storm, and just as the Libdems appear to be imploding too.
This kind of threat from Salmond & Co is bound to push a fair few undecided swing voters along with some Ukippers back into the Conservative camp on election day, and no doubt a few Libdems as well. I am surprised that Nick Palmer doesn't realise what a threat this poses to a Labour candidate such as himself in a marginal seat like Broxtowe. It was no accident that the SNP along with the Conservatives immediately shut down any chance of an Conservative/SNP Coalition or confidence and supply deal. And with the Labour party then refusing to do the same as emphatically months ago, its allowed the spectre of a minority Labour Government being threatened with having its budget written by Salmond and an SNP government at Holyrood gain enough traction as to be perfectly feasible. How did they get to a position where Salmond could boast about it on the Marr show just weeks before the short GE campaign kicks off?
I bet Anna Soubry couldn't believe her luck when she was sitting alongside Alex Salmond today on the Marr show when he dropped that budget threat bombshell. Its already made this mornings Times, Telegraph and Daily Mail front pages.
Twitter
David Jack @DJack_Journo · 15h 15 hours ago
WATCH @Anna_SoubryMP pile in tae @AlexSalmond http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02mjj9d … #marrshow @MarrShow
What a totally bizarre and rather antagonistic comment to make about my posting style on this site. Way back when this thread format was implemented, I believe it was OGH among others who suggested that it was easier if we posted our responses to quoted posts above rather than beneath them as it made it easier to follow the threads. That is why I now do so, and I have never found anyone else who has a problem with that. But I suspect that its my criticism of the SNP that you really have a problem with, so no surprise that you prefer to play the man and not the ball when it comes to my comments.
Should be just 21 Mar - need to delete 19 Mar!