politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Extraordinary. The union boss who thinks that losing the el
Comments
-
If Labour wins, the Tories don't. Your argument only makes sense if you seriously believe that there really was no difference between the Tories and labour from 2001 onwards.Oliver_PB said:Labour moved too far to the right from the second Blair term onwards. This was electorally successful, but the latter two terms didn't manage to accomplish any left-wing goals, making many people to begin to wonder what's the point of winning for the sake of winning.
Indeed, I'd argue the biggest long-term consequence of last two terms is making the current Conservative government seem moderate.
0 -
That's not what the voting record of UKIP's MP suggests.GeoffM said:
So are most of UKIPs recent economic policies.SouthamObserver said:UKIP's challenge in becoming a major party is that at least 40% of the British electorate are firmly centre left.
0 -
The insularity is staggering. Mike Smithson
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.0 -
With the Red Lib Dems, Ed Milliband will definitely be PMHYUFD said:
Labour only fell below 30% in 1983 and 2010 when the SDP and LDs were strong and offered a significant centre left alternative. The LDs are now at their weakest level for half a centuryInnocent_Abroad said:
The polls always overestimate Labour, because about 5% of the electorate tell pollsters they support that Party but are actually non-voters. For some reason I imagine that 5% to be grossly obese...HYUFD said:
UKIP may see an increased vote share post EU ref especially if a narrow In. Labour will probably have replaced Corbyn with Hillary Benn by 2020 and anyway no poll has shown even Corbyn Labour below 30% so 150 is too lowPhilip_Thompson said:
Zero UKIP is more likely than 50.Innocent_Abroad said:
Absolutely.david_herdson said:
I agree with that analysis. Indeed, I'd go further. I'd argue that if Labour succumbs to prolonged Corbynitis, whether under him or another far-left leader, they *won't* be the other main party. The electorate will give them this parliament as an indulgence but will expect them to come to their senses after another defeat. If they don't, expect either UKIP or the Lib Dems, possibly bolstered by an SDP2, to start making serious running.AndyJS said:One theory to explain Pullinger´s comments goes something like this: since the UK isn´t a one party state, the Labour Party are going to get back into power eventually and so it´s worth having Corbyn as leader even if he loses an election or two en route to eventual victory. The only problem with this analysis is that it assumes Labour will continue to be one of the main two parties no matter what happens.
Things can change quickly. They don't often. Indeed, they do rarely. But as the Liberals of the 1920s or Scottish Labour this last decade. Parties that lose their purpose to the public lose their place at the top table if an alternative is ready and able to take it from them.
I expect the next Parliament to be, in round numbers, 400 Tory, 50-odd each to Labour, SNP and UKIP and the odds-and-sods making up the number (600 IIRC). I just haven't worked out how to bet on it (since I don't trust myself on-line) but there is definitely money to be made in those numbers.
350 Tory, 150 Labour, 50 SNP (if Scotland keeps the many seats) and NI and odds and sods would be my ballpark.0 -
Good point. The GMB isn't happy with Corbyn given what Paul Kenny has Freudian-ly said.mwadams said:
Don't rule out the "extremely rich man" being a confederation of non-loony-Unions (and/or the non-loony wings of currently loony-Unions).david_herdson said:And in the absence of all that, a new-start populist party polling way beyond what these types usually do, probably established and funded by an extremely rich man to begin with.
0 -
I think 'safety first' is the image Cameron projects......but look underneath the surface, as Ganesh argues, there is more radical stuff going on - it rarely breaks surface - but when it does - like with gay marriage - there is a huge fuss and Cameron does it anyway.....Casino_Royale said:
Seldon said in an article in the Sunday Times this week that the leader that Cameron most resembles is Stanley Baldwin.CarlottaVance said:Janan Ganesh:
Formed by the sylvan Home Counties, Mr Cameron was going to be another Harold Macmillan — the Tory grandee elegantly steering his country to no particular destination. Instead, he is turning out to be a disruptive prime minister. He will probably leave the state substantially smaller than he found it, and so tarnish the idea of increasing expenditure faster than economic growth as to make any re-expansion electorally untenable for some time. Already far fewer people work for the state or receive transfers from it.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/719ccd92-6b49-11e5-aca9-d87542bf8673.html#ixzz3nlcVE3M9
I think that's correct.
Andrew Roberts in the Spectator argues Cameron may be on track to rank around - or ahead of - MacMillan:
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/david-camerons-place-in-the-premier-league-of-tory-history/0 -
PB Tories in full agreement with Union Leader shocker.0
-
Jonathan,
"They are a Koreshian death cult."
And Labour who have decided to euthenase themselves are the way forward?0 -
Well stop complaining about it, join the argument and start supporting your activist friends. Shouting into the vacuum of the internet about how unfair it all is, is not going to change anything.SouthamObserver said:
The Labour activists I know are in despair at the arrival of Corbyn as they know what it means in terms of gaining power. There has always been a strong self-indulgent streak in the party and at the moment it is heavily in the ascendancy. Labour will not get close to power again before it starts to engage in the real world. And that is one where votes have to be won from the Tories and UKIP.Jonathan said:
I don't think that's fair. Of course some like protest, but most Labour members work very hard to get candidates elected to office so that they can form Labour governments.SouthamObserver said:This is not extraordinary. This is how the left thinks. In the end, it is all about feeling good about yourself. The vile compromises of power are far less attractive than shouting and gobbing from the sidelines.
And quite frankly, if it wasn't for people like them there would only have been Tory govts since the war. Commentators shouting from the sidelines achieve the sum total of naff all.
It turned around before because people like you and me did something about it.
0 -
Good morning all. I also disagree. If the majority of the people want to stay in the EU, then it's the responsibility of the BOOers - they will have failed to make the argument (which I think is compelling). I'll be sad, but the toys will remain in the pram.JEO said:
I disagree. If the majority of members vote out, while the country votes in, it will be an issue.david_herdson said:
BOO will not matter that much unless the referendum is a close In (which it might be). Any other result takes the issue off the table for a decade or so.Casino_Royale said:I've never particularly liked Theresa May (she has never answered a single question directly that I can recollect - and I remember asking her a few back in 2002) and I can never forgive her for attacking her own party. But, if she's taking this line on immigration, she'll have a very clear pitch to the Conservative membership for a vote in 2019/2020 - of course, she'll actually have to first cut the net numbers too.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/
An Osborne/May direct fight? Could be close. Particularly if she coupled it with a negotiated BOO offering..
OT, May's speech baffles me. Rather than pointing out the bleeding obvious, what the hell has this government done for the last five years, and what is it proposing to do? Blaming the nasty Lib Dems for the failures of 2010-2015 cuts no mustard.0 -
I see the unionist press are tying themselves in knots , they even find it hard to copy each others tall tales correctly. Their smearing appears to be unraveling.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/once-more-for-the-folks-at-home/0 -
-
The wording may be wrong in tweet but in simple terms if Tories did not have a majority with no hope offered to Labour voters from Blairite vanilla Tory lites then Corbyn would not have won.DavidL said:
I disagree with that. The British public will have spoken and the Tories are pragmatists. Cameron's popularity may dip but he will have left the stage anyway.JEO said:
I disagree. If the majority of members vote out, while the country votes in, it will be an issue.david_herdson said:
BOO will not matter that much unless the referendum is a close In (which it might be). Any other result takes the issue off the table for a decade or so.Casino_Royale said:I've never particularly liked Theresa May (she has never answered a single question directly that I can recollect - and I remember asking her a few back in 2002) and I can never forgive her for attacking her own party. But, if she's taking this line on immigration, she'll have a very clear pitch to the Conservative membership for a vote in 2019/2020 - of course, she'll actually have to first cut the net numbers too.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/
An Osborne/May direct fight? Could be close. Particularly if she coupled it with a negotiated BOO offering..
0 -
Labour only ever wins office. Power is always with the Tories, whether in Parliamentary majorities, boardrooms or both.SouthamObserver said:
If Labour wins, the Tories don't. Your argument only makes sense if you seriously believe that there really was no difference between the Tories and labour from 2001 onwards.Oliver_PB said:Labour moved too far to the right from the second Blair term onwards. This was electorally successful, but the latter two terms didn't manage to accomplish any left-wing goals, making many people to begin to wonder what's the point of winning for the sake of winning.
Indeed, I'd argue the biggest long-term consequence of last two terms is making the current Conservative government seem moderate.
I have never met a boss whom I did not find personally repulsive. And, to be fair, vice versa.
0 -
Equally the 2010 thing - the polls suggested a hung parliament for a long time. What people tended not to expect was a Lib Dem/Tory coalition.justin124 said:@ Antifrank
'•In three elections (’45, ’66 and ’97) there was a Labour victory of totally unexpected proportions'
That is not accurate. In both 1966 and 1997 the polls were implying a bigger Labour majority than actually occurred. In the run-up to the March 1966 election the pollsters were consistently giving Labour a lead of between 10 and 20%. The final predictions were of Labour leads of 9% (NOP) - 11% (Gallup) - 17.6% ( Daily Express). The actual result was a Labour lead in GB of 7.3% - and a majority of 97 rather than the circa 150 implied by the polls.0 -
The Dignitas Party - has a certain ring to it.CD13 said:
Jonathan,
"They are a Koreshian death cult."
And Labour who have decided to euthenase themselves are the way forward?0 -
Many of the left like being victims, and feeling they are victimised, a tory government is perfect for that.JohnLilburne said:That is a quite bizarre thing to say. In effect, he prefers a Tory government to a Labour one that is not quite of his liking.
0 -
Just one story, in one paper?malcolmg said:I see the unionist press are tying themselves in knots , they even find it hard to copy each others tall tales correctly. Their smearing appears to be unraveling.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/once-more-for-the-folks-at-home/
By the way, have Wings Over Somerset complied with the law yet & filed their spending with the Electoral Commission? (since you're so keen on accurate reporting?)0 -
And for the Nothing Better To Do party members
10.30 – 11.45 - Home Affairs and Justice
Secretary of State for Justice
Police and Crime Commissioners
Secretary of State for Home Affairs
11.50 – 12.30 - The Mayor of London and Mayoral Candidate
14.30 – 16.15 - Education, Health, Work and Pensions
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Secretary of State for Education
Secretary of State for Health0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/uber/11911100/Uber-is-doing-a-terrific-job-but-it-has-to-play-by-the-rules.html
Sadly, I will now never be able to vote for Boris Johnson.
He has proved himself an enemy of innovation, an enemy of the consumer, and a friend of vested interests.0 -
People still read the Rev Batshit ?malcolmg said:I see the unionist press are tying themselves in knots , they even find it hard to copy each others tall tales correctly. Their smearing appears to be unraveling.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/once-more-for-the-folks-at-home/0 -
Good post. Articulates my feelings well. Doctrinal purity and democracy don't go together.
I've a lot of Corbynista friends who are still on the crest of a wave. As a person Of The [centrist, liberal] Left I'm staggered by their blindness to:
a) the realities of getting elected in the UK
b) the fact that they are a loud, Kipperesque minority, not a silent majority of the right-thinking
and
c) the understanding that democracy is all about compromising and making deals
How they sustain the doublethink of vilifying the LDs - who blocked things like the tax credits changes and the junior doctor contract - for 'getting into bed with the Tories', while simultaneously celebrating the fact they'll be out of power for a decade, I don't know.
0 -
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.0 -
Anyone heard of big hitter Terry Pullinger before this article?
In general aren't there always elements in any party that are glad that when under a particular leader it loses? Before my time, but I bet there were plenty of Tories happy that Heath wasn't able to form a government in '74, and even more ecstatic with the hindsight that it presaged the advent of the blessed Margaret.0 -
That was the SNP, the LDs under Clegg governed with the Tories contaminating them with much of the centre leftBannedInParis said:
With the Red Lib Dems, Ed Milliband will definitely be PMHYUFD said:
Labour only fell below 30% in 1983 and 2010 when the SDP and LDs were strong and offered a significant centre left alternative. The LDs are now at their weakest level for half a centuryInnocent_Abroad said:
The polls always overestimate Labour, because about 5% of the electorate tell pollsters they support that Party but are actually non-voters. For some reason I imagine that 5% to be grossly obese...HYUFD said:
UKIP may see an increased vote share post EU ref especially if a narrow In. Labour will probably have replaced Corbyn with Hillary Benn by 2020 and anyway no poll has shown even Corbyn Labour below 30% so 150 is too lowPhilip_Thompson said:
Zero UKIP is more likely than 50.Innocent_Abroad said:
Absolutely.david_herdson said:
I agree with that analysis. Indeed, I'd go further. I'd argue that if Labour succumbs to prolonged Corbynitis, whether under him or another far-left leader, they *won't* be the other main party. The electorate will give them this parliament as an indulgence but will expect them to come to their senses after another defeat. If they don't, expect either UKIP or the Lib Dems, possibly bolstered by an SDP2, to start making serious running.AndyJS said:One theory to explain Pullinger´s comments goes something like this: since the UK isn´t a one party state, the Labour Party are going to get back into power eventually and so it´s worth having Corbyn as leader even if he loses an election or two en route to eventual victory. The only problem with this analysis is that it assumes Labour will continue to be one of the main two parties no matter what happens.
Things can change quickly. They don't often. Indeed, they do rarely. But as the Liberals of the 1920s or Scottish Labour this last decade. Parties that lose their purpose to the public lose their place at the top table if an alternative is ready and able to take it from them.
I expect the next Parliament to be, in round numbers, 400 Tory, 50-odd each to Labour, SNP and UKIP and the odds-and-sods making up the number (600 IIRC). I just haven't worked out how to bet on it (since I don't trust myself on-line) but there is definitely money to be made in those numbers.
350 Tory, 150 Labour, 50 SNP (if Scotland keeps the many seats) and NI and odds and sods would be my ballpark.0 -
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"antifrank said:I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.0 -
The LDs have blocked nothing. At best they could claim to have delayed it. Arguably they enabled it by providing the Tories a stepping stone back to power.Ghedebrav said:
How they sustain the doublethink of vilifying the LDs - who blocked things like the tax credits changes and the junior doctor contract - for 'getting into bed with the Tories', while simultaneously celebrating the fact they'll be out of power for a decade, I don't know.
0 -
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.Jonathan said:The insularity is staggering. Mike Smithson
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
The problem for the LibDems is that they have been royally screwed by the electorate for actually doing what they said they would, which was to form a coalition with whichever party did best at the election. They really have three choices - to become a centre-left party, to become a centre-right Orange Book party, or continue to straddle the centre ground. I suspect which of these is best is not yet apparent, although the election of Corbyn maybe opens up room on the left. Certainly their dalliance with being a centre-right party during the Coalition hasn't done them any good.0 -
Apparently what she did was like in untelevised Kirstie Allsop show - asked for the best price on a property for clients.antifrank said:I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
Also the Rev tweeted that the cancer victim should have been grateful for the service provided.0 -
Immigration seems to be a particularly intractable problem, the system as it is seems to allow people to just wander in at will and, in many cases, live at our expense. What has been tried has either failed, or maybe has succeeded only in stopping immigration being even higher.John_M said:
Good morning all. I also disagree. If the majority of the people want to stay in the EU, then it's the responsibility of the BOOers - they will have failed to make the argument (which I think is compelling). I'll be sad, but the toys will remain in the pram.JEO said:
I disagree. If the majority of members vote out, while the country votes in, it will be an issue.david_herdson said:
BOO will not matter that much unless the referendum is a close In (which it might be). Any other result takes the issue off the table for a decade or so.Casino_Royale said:I've never particularly liked Theresa May (she has never answered a single question directly that I can recollect - and I remember asking her a few back in 2002) and I can never forgive her for attacking her own party. But, if she's taking this line on immigration, she'll have a very clear pitch to the Conservative membership for a vote in 2019/2020 - of course, she'll actually have to first cut the net numbers too.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/
An Osborne/May direct fight? Could be close. Particularly if she coupled it with a negotiated BOO offering..
OT, May's speech baffles me. Rather than pointing out the bleeding obvious, what the hell has this government done for the last five years, and what is it proposing to do? Blaming the nasty Lib Dems for the failures of 2010-2015 cuts no mustard.0 -
Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.0 -
HYUFD said:
That was the SNP, the LDs under Clegg governed with the Tories contaminating them with much of the centre leftBannedInParis said:
With the Red Lib Dems, Ed Milliband will definitely be PMHYUFD said:
Labour only fell below 30% in 1983 and 2010 when the SDP and LDs were strong and offered a significant centre left alternative. The LDs are now at their weakest level for half a centuryInnocent_Abroad said:
The polls always overestimate Labour, because about 5% of the electorate tell pollsters they support that Party but are actually non-voters. For some reason I imagine that 5% to be grossly obese...HYUFD said:
UKIP may see an increased vote share post EU ref especially if a narrow In. Labour will probably have replaced Corbyn with Hillary Benn by 2020 and anyway no poll has shown even Corbyn Labour below 30% so 150 is too lowPhilip_Thompson said:
Zero UKIP is more likely than 50.Innocent_Abroad said:
Absolutely.david_herdson said:
I agree with that analysis. Indeed, I'd go further. I'd argue that if Labour succumbs to prolonged Corbynitis, whether under him or another far-left leader, they *won't* be the other main party. The electorate will give them this parliament as an indulgence but will expect them to come to their senses after another defeat. If they don't, expect either UKIP or the Lib Dems, possibly bolstered by an SDP2, to start making serious running.AndyJS said:One theory to explain Pullinger´s comments goes something like this: since the UK isn´t a one party state, the Labour Party are going to get back into power eventually and so it´s worth having Corbyn as leader even if he loses an election or two en route to eventual victory. The only problem with this analysis is that it assumes Labour will continue to be one of the main two parties no matter what happens.
Things can change quickly. They don't often. Indeed, they do rarely. But as the Liberals of the 1920s or Scottish Labour this last decade. Parties that lose their purpose to the public lose their place at the top table if an alternative is ready and able to take it from them.
I expect the next Parliament to be, in round numbers, 400 Tory, 50-odd each to Labour, SNP and UKIP and the odds-and-sods making up the number (600 IIRC). I just haven't worked out how to bet on it (since I don't trust myself on-line) but there is definitely money to be made in those numbers.
350 Tory, 150 Labour, 50 SNP (if Scotland keeps the many seats) and NI and odds and sods would be my ballpark.
See a whole bunch of threads on here over the past five years. Jesus.0 -
Also. Sarcasm. Always filter for sarcasm.0
-
The problem for the LibDems is that they have been royally screwed by the electorate for actually doing what they said they would, which was to form a coalition with whichever party did best at the election. They really have three choices - to become a centre-left party, to become a centre-right Orange Book party, or continue to straddle the centre ground. I suspect which of these is best is not yet apparent, although the election of Corbyn maybe opens up room on the left. Certainly their dalliance with being a centre-right party during the Coalition hasn't done them any good.JohnLilburne said:
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.Jonathan said:The insularity is staggering. Mike Smithson
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
I think you're reading too much into the lib dem situation, in the wider electorate their demise can be summed up in two words: tuition fees.
Although to most it had little effect it showed they couldn't be trusted and wanted power at any price.
0 -
Stay in the EU anyone?antifrank said:Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.
0 -
If you thought digging up Mrs Thatcher a bit old hat.....antifrank said:I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
Even if Thomson is found guilty, the case is small fry next to Labour’s long record of promoting greedy and feckless business practices.
There’s Robert Maxwell, the ex-Labour MP and business mogul who swindled £440 million from his company’s pension scheme.
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/cat-boyd-labour-politicians-with-10-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones-over-michelle-thomson-affair.0 -
Then you have made some very poor employment choices in life.Innocent_Abroad said:
Labour only ever wins office. Power is always with the Tories, whether in Parliamentary majorities, boardrooms or both.SouthamObserver said:
If Labour wins, the Tories don't. Your argument only makes sense if you seriously believe that there really was no difference between the Tories and labour from 2001 onwards.Oliver_PB said:Labour moved too far to the right from the second Blair term onwards. This was electorally successful, but the latter two terms didn't manage to accomplish any left-wing goals, making many people to begin to wonder what's the point of winning for the sake of winning.
Indeed, I'd argue the biggest long-term consequence of last two terms is making the current Conservative government seem moderate.
I have never met a boss whom I did not find personally repulsive. And, to be fair, vice versa.0 -
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.Jonathan said:The insularity is staggering. Mike Smithson
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).0 -
In the UK can prisoners on remand vote?antifrank said:Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.0 -
That was the original ruling, though, wasn't it? The ECJ said that it would be possible for countries to impose a ban on voting right for particular cases, but a blanket ban on all prisoners was an unreasonable breach of rights.antifrank said:Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.0 -
You do know that it is perfectly possible to be a member of the ECJ without being a member of the EU (as Switzerland is), and to be a member of the EU without being subject to ECJ rulings (as we were before Labour changed things), don't you?blackburn63 said:
Stay in the EU anyone?antifrank said:Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.0 -
If you missed it - Dan's not happy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11913282/The-Left-has-become-locked-in-a-death-spiral.html
Nothing the Labour Party has done over the past five years – ... – has done it more damage than the embrace of the direct action movement.
If you call for insurrection, insurrection is what you will get. If you call for law breaking, law breaking is what you will get. And if leaders of the Labour movement continue to summon these furies, and these furies continue to swoop vengefully down, they will damn themselves in the eyes of the voters.0 -
The problem for the LibDems is that they have been royally screwed by the electorate for actually doing what they said they would, which was to form a coalition with whichever party did best at the election. They really have three choices - to become a centre-left party, to become a centre-right Orange Book party, or continue to straddle the centre ground. I suspect which of these is best is not yet apparent, although the election of Corbyn maybe opens up room on the left. Certainly their dalliance with being a centre-right party during the Coalition hasn't done them any good.JohnLilburne said:
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.Jonathan said:The insularity is staggering. Mike Smithson
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
The electoral purpose of the Lib Dems is to provide an alternative in seats where one of the two big parties have no reach.
This means that they are inherently centrist with local variations.
They cannot get off the fence. They are the fence.0 -
O/T
Sat next to someone who was very involved in the Twickenham campaign for the Tories.
Said that 4-6 weeks out they expected to make good progress but lose the seat.
2 weeks out canvass returns shifted rapidly. The big move was from Undecided to Tory (he noted that there were some wards which had a majority Undecided). He reckoned the SNP issue was the decisive factor0 -
My decision on whether to vote to stay in the EU will not be based on the terms on which prisoners can or cannot vote. Call me reckless and headstrong if you like.blackburn63 said:
Stay in the EU anyone?antifrank said:Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.
0 -
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.Ghedebrav said:
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.Jonathan said:The insularity is staggering. Mike Smithson
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).
12 -15 seats would be a reasonable target. The Lib Dems were absolutely swept away in the South West.0 -
As I understand it, it's a very artificial argument. The ECJ objects to a "blanket" ban, but you could limit the number of prisoners who get the vote to effectively zero by making it so that the only people who get the vote are those who: are convicted of a non-violent, first time offence, with a tariff of less than 14 days, who are more than 10 days into their sentence. Or some such.NickPalmer said:
That was the original ruling, though, wasn't it? The ECJ said that it would be possible for countries to impose a ban on voting right for particular cases, but a blanket ban on all prisoners was an unreasonable breach of rights.antifrank said:Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.
Of course, we wouldn't have this problem if you (and I specifically mean you, Nick Palmer ex-MP), had not signed us up to be bound by ECHR rulings.0 -
This is a new case (NB it's in the ECJ not the ECHR), it seems a blanket ban on prisoners serving more than five years is fine but not one on all prisoners. I'm sure there's a logic in there somewhere but I'm buggered if I can see it.NickPalmer said:
That was the original ruling, though, wasn't it? The ECJ said that it would be possible for countries to impose a ban on voting right for particular cases, but a blanket ban on all prisoners was an unreasonable breach of rights.antifrank said:Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.0 -
12 -15 seats would be a reasonable target. The Lib Dems were absolutely swept away in the South West.Sean_F said:
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.Ghedebrav said:
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.Jonathan said:The insularity is staggering. Mike Smithson
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).
Do the Lib Dems have any money?0 -
if the Conservatives do tack Left, then that vindicates the strategy of Corbyn's supporters.Casino_Royale said:
Neither do I. Osborne is using it to play political chess, as he loves to do, and I think is - consciously or otherwise - tacking the party to the Left.DavidL said:
We see in Japan, for example, that this does not lead to good government. That is why I don't find the self destruction of Labour, as evidenced by the thread header, at all funny.Sean_F said:
Alternatively, in the absence of any real opposition, the Conservatives stay in office for decades, gradually becoming corrupt and incompetent, as hegemonic political parties tend to.david_herdson said:
I agree with that analysis. Indeed, I'd go further. I'd argue that if Labour succumbs to prolonged Corbynitis, whether under him or another far-left leader, they *won't* be the other main party. The electorate will give them this parliament as an indulgence but will expect them to come to their senses after another defeat. If they don't, expect either UKIP or the Lib Dems, possibly bolstered by an SDP2, to start making serious running.AndyJS said:One theory to explain Pullinger´s comments goes something like this: since the UK isn´t a one party state, the Labour Party are going to get back into power eventually and so it´s worth having Corbyn as leader even if he loses an election or two en route to eventual victory. The only problem with this analysis is that it assumes Labour will continue to be one of the main two parties no matter what happens.
Things can change quickly. They don't often. Indeed, they do rarely. But as the Liberals of the 1920s or Scottish Labour this last decade. Parties that lose their purpose to the public lose their place at the top table if an alternative is ready and able to take it from them.
That's a high-risk strategy for his future leadership ambitions.0 -
I think there are two problems. On it is for a random length of time - you can vote as soon as you are out of prison - and it is not specifically imposed as part of the sentence.NickPalmer said:
That was the original ruling, though, wasn't it? The ECJ said that it would be possible for countries to impose a ban on voting right for particular cases, but a blanket ban on all prisoners was an unreasonable breach of rights.antifrank said:Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.
My suggestion would be to state that all prison sentences of six months or more should come with a concurrent sentence of loss of civic rights for that period , ie to continue even if let out earlier.0 -
Can I just say I was wrong. I thought the voting issue was ECHR, but it was ECJ.
Please ignore my postings in their entirety.
:-)0 -
CarlottaVance said:
If you thought digging up Mrs Thatcher a bit old hat.....antifrank said:I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
Even if Thomson is found guilty, the case is small fry next to Labour’s long record of promoting greedy and feckless business practices.
There’s Robert Maxwell, the ex-Labour MP and business mogul who swindled £440 million from his company’s pension scheme.
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/cat-boyd-labour-politicians-with-10-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones-over-michelle-thomson-affair.0 -
The LDs want credit for the coalition but in government they undermined it at every turn.
They got exactly what they advertised for 5 years - coalition held the Conservatives back.0 -
Alas, a career in lighthouse keeping is no longer available.MarqueeMark said:
Then you have made some very poor employment choices in life.Innocent_Abroad said:
Labour only ever wins office. Power is always with the Tories, whether in Parliamentary majorities, boardrooms or both.SouthamObserver said:
If Labour wins, the Tories don't. Your argument only makes sense if you seriously believe that there really was no difference between the Tories and labour from 2001 onwards.Oliver_PB said:Labour moved too far to the right from the second Blair term onwards. This was electorally successful, but the latter two terms didn't manage to accomplish any left-wing goals, making many people to begin to wonder what's the point of winning for the sake of winning.
Indeed, I'd argue the biggest long-term consequence of last two terms is making the current Conservative government seem moderate.
I have never met a boss whom I did not find personally repulsive. And, to be fair, vice versa.0 -
These days a typical boss is the Polish guy who comes round to regrout your bathroom.Innocent_Abroad said:
Labour only ever wins office. Power is always with the Tories, whether in Parliamentary majorities, boardrooms or both.SouthamObserver said:
If Labour wins, the Tories don't. Your argument only makes sense if you seriously believe that there really was no difference between the Tories and labour from 2001 onwards.Oliver_PB said:Labour moved too far to the right from the second Blair term onwards. This was electorally successful, but the latter two terms didn't manage to accomplish any left-wing goals, making many people to begin to wonder what's the point of winning for the sake of winning.
Indeed, I'd argue the biggest long-term consequence of last two terms is making the current Conservative government seem moderate.
I have never met a boss whom I did not find personally repulsive. And, to be fair, vice versa.
What exactly is so repulsive about him?
Edit: although they seem to be good judges of character.0 -
Absolutely. That's precisely why I didn't cheer on Tories who thought it was amusing to register to vote for him.Sean_F said:
if the Conservatives do tack Left, then that vindicates the strategy of Corbyn's supporters.Casino_Royale said:
Neither do I. Osborne is using it to play political chess, as he loves to do, and I think is - consciously or otherwise - tacking the party to the Left.DavidL said:
We see in Japan, for example, that this does not lead to good government. That is why I don't find the self destruction of Labour, as evidenced by the thread header, at all funny.Sean_F said:
Alternatively, in the absence of any real opposition, the Conservatives stay in office for decades, gradually becoming corrupt and incompetent, as hegemonic political parties tend to.david_herdson said:
I agree with that analysis. Indeed, I'd go further. I'd argue that if Labour succumbs to prolonged Corbynitis, whether under him or another far-left leader, they *won't* be the other main party. The electorate will give them this parliament as an indulgence but will expect them to come to their senses after another defeat. If they don't, expect either UKIP or the Lib Dems, possibly bolstered by an SDP2, to start making serious running.AndyJS said:One theory to explain Pullinger´s comments goes something like this: since the UK isn´t a one party state, the Labour Party are going to get back into power eventually and so it´s worth having Corbyn as leader even if he loses an election or two en route to eventual victory. The only problem with this analysis is that it assumes Labour will continue to be one of the main two parties no matter what happens.
Things can change quickly. They don't often. Indeed, they do rarely. But as the Liberals of the 1920s or Scottish Labour this last decade. Parties that lose their purpose to the public lose their place at the top table if an alternative is ready and able to take it from them.
That's a high-risk strategy for his future leadership ambitions.
Incidentally, I'm befuddled why Osborne can't see this. Politics isn't a game.0 -
I guess Innocent Abroad would recognise me instantly.. and vice versa....and then I would fire him..her..it..0
-
Re the EU, EcHR, ECJ etc etc etc
I think we should just revert back to Benelux and with the benefit of hindsight start again by not doing it.0 -
The LDs and Tories should both get credit, or blame, for different aspects of the Coalition government. If you mean that the LDs held back the Tories (and vice versa) you'd be right. That's what coalition government means.TGOHF said:The LDs want credit for the coalition but in government they undermined it at every turn.
They got exactly what they advertised for 5 years - coalition held the Conservatives back.0 -
As the Uniondivvie observes, Pullinger isn't exactly a household name. I've looked him up (having never heard of him) and he's, um, deputy general secretary of the postal arm of the CWU. But Oliver is right that most Labour people see politics as two-dimensional (what we want to do + the chance of doing it), not just about beating the Tories.SouthamObserver said:
If Labour wins, the Tories don't. Your argument only makes sense if you seriously believe that there really was no difference between the Tories and labour from 2001 onwards.Oliver_PB said:Labour moved too far to the right from the second Blair term onwards. This was electorally successful, but the latter two terms didn't manage to accomplish any left-wing goals, making many people to begin to wonder what's the point of winning for the sake of winning.
Indeed, I'd argue the biggest long-term consequence of last two terms is making the current Conservative government seem moderate.0 -
In the end only minuscule numbers did. The Labour Party own this 100% (Ok, maybe 99.9999999%)Casino_Royale said:
Absolutely. That's precisely why I didn't cheer on Tories who thought it was amusing to register to vote for him.Sean_F said:
if the Conservatives do tack Left, then that vindicates the strategy of Corbyn's supporters.Casino_Royale said:
Neither do I. Osborne is using it to play political chess, as he loves to do, and I think is - consciously or otherwise - tacking the party to the Left.DavidL said:
We see in Japan, for example, that this does not lead to good government. That is why I don't find the self destruction of Labour, as evidenced by the thread header, at all funny.Sean_F said:
Alternatively, in the absence of any real opposition, the Conservatives stay in office for decades, gradually becoming corrupt and incompetent, as hegemonic political parties tend to.david_herdson said:
I agree with that analysis. Indeed, I'd go further. I'd argue that if Labour succumbs to prolonged Corbynitis, whether under him or another far-left leader, they *won't* be the other main party. The electorate will give them this parliament as an indulgence but will expect them to come to their senses after another defeat. If they don't, expect either UKIP or the Lib Dems, possibly bolstered by an SDP2, to start making serious running.AndyJS said:One theory to explain Pullinger´s comments goes something like this: since the UK isn´t a one party state, the Labour Party are going to get back into power eventually and so it´s worth having Corbyn as leader even if he loses an election or two en route to eventual victory. The only problem with this analysis is that it assumes Labour will continue to be one of the main two parties no matter what happens.
Things can change quickly. They don't often. Indeed, they do rarely. But as the Liberals of the 1920s or Scottish Labour this last decade. Parties that lose their purpose to the public lose their place at the top table if an alternative is ready and able to take it from them.
That's a high-risk strategy for his future leadership ambitions.
0 -
You do evidently.TGOHF said:
People still read the Rev Batshit ?malcolmg said:I see the unionist press are tying themselves in knots , they even find it hard to copy each others tall tales correctly. Their smearing appears to be unraveling.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/once-more-for-the-folks-at-home/
Must be all the plastic Jocks, bigots, SNPouters and MI5 that are artificially inflating his rankings.
Alexa.
How popular is wingsoverscotland.com?
Global Rank
52,149
Rank in United Kingdom
1,806
How popular is politicalbetting.com?
Global Rank
205,286
Rank in United Kingdom
5,5610 -
The Michelle Thopmpson story is pretty clear. All it tells us is what many have suspected for a long time. The SNP (who are now supporting her actions as smart business) are just Scottish Tories in disguise
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/04/there-is-a-property-boom-especially-for-the-snp0 -
But the LDs spent 5 years shouting "we are holding the Cons back"logical_song said:
The LDs and Tories should both get credit, or blame, for different aspects of the Coalition government. If you mean that the LDs held back the Tories (and vice versa) you'd be right. That's what coalition government means.TGOHF said:The LDs want credit for the coalition but in government they undermined it at every turn.
They got exactly what they advertised for 5 years - coalition held the Conservatives back.
So the voters remedied that situation.0 -
I had this discussion with a Corbyn supporter on another site. He agreed it was unlikely that Corbyn could win an election, but felt economic policy had moved too far right, and Corbyn could shift the consensus leftwards.Casino_Royale said:
Absolutely. That's precisely why I didn't cheer on Tories who thought it was amusing to register to vote for him.Sean_F said:
if the Conservatives do tack Left, then that vindicates the strategy of Corbyn's supporters.Casino_Royale said:
Neither do I. Osborne is using it to play political chess, as he loves to do, and I think is - consciously or otherwise - tacking the party to the Left.DavidL said:
We see in Japan, for example, that this does not lead to good government. That is why I don't find the self destruction of Labour, as evidenced by the thread header, at all funny.Sean_F said:
Alternatively, in the absence of any real opposition, the Conservatives stay in office for decades, gradually becoming corrupt and incompetent, as hegemonic political parties tend to.david_herdson said:
I agree with that analysis. Indeed, I'd go further. I'd argue that if Labour succumbs to prolonged Corbynitis, whether under him or another far-left leader, they *won't* be the other main party. The electorate will give them this parliament as an indulgence but will expect them to come to their senses after another defeat. If they don't, expect either UKIP or the Lib Dems, possibly bolstered by an SDP2, to start making serious running.AndyJS said:One theory to explain Pullinger´s comments goes something like this: since the UK isn´t a one party state, the Labour Party are going to get back into power eventually and so it´s worth having Corbyn as leader even if he loses an election or two en route to eventual victory. The only problem with this analysis is that it assumes Labour will continue to be one of the main two parties no matter what happens.
Things can change quickly. They don't often. Indeed, they do rarely. But as the Liberals of the 1920s or Scottish Labour this last decade. Parties that lose their purpose to the public lose their place at the top table if an alternative is ready and able to take it from them.
That's a high-risk strategy for his future leadership ambitions.
Incidentally, I'm befuddled why Osborne can't see this. Politics isn't a game.
A win is a win. The Conservatives have an effective majority of 30 or so (given the way Douglas Carswell and unionists will usually vote). Why move onto Labour's territory just to get a bigger majority?
0 -
A common view thesedays. A non ideal labour government is worse than a Tory one (if it was merely no better, presumably they'd like to win on a tribal basis at least). Therefore the Tories are bad, but clearly not so bad that the country can out up with it. It's a wonder they are worth spitting on when they are apparently better than a blairite.JohnLilburne said:That is a quite bizarre thing to say. In effect, he prefers a Tory government to a Labour one that is not quite of his liking.
0 -
As it happens, I wouldn't necessarily object to such a law prima facie, as you suggest there.rcs1000 said:
As I understand it, it's a very artificial argument. The ECJ objects to a "blanket" ban, but you could limit the number of prisoners who get the vote to effectively zero by making it so that the only people who get the vote are those who: are convicted of a non-violent, first time offence, with a tariff of less than 14 days, who are more than 10 days into their sentence. Or some such.NickPalmer said:
That was the original ruling, though, wasn't it? The ECJ said that it would be possible for countries to impose a ban on voting right for particular cases, but a blanket ban on all prisoners was an unreasonable breach of rights.antifrank said:Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.
Of course, we wouldn't have this problem if you (and I specifically mean you, Nick Palmer ex-MP), had not signed us up to be bound by ECHR rulings.
What I fundamentally object to is the sheer arrogance of a foreign court thinking it has the right (and unfortunately it often does) to legislate to override the wishes of our domestic parliament.
What on earth does this have to do with the common market?
This is absolutely none of the EU's business. If we've signed up so it is, we should leave.0 -
And you do realise that the larger electorate hears of rulings coming from Brussels and Strasbourg that they absolutely disagree with don't you. You seem to want to cherry pick the best bits, such as they are, of the EU, I want nothing to do with the EU, ECJ, ECHR or any other of these bloated self serving bureaucracies.rcs1000 said:
You do know that it is perfectly possible to be a member of the ECJ without being a member of the EU (as Switzerland is), and to be a member of the EU without being subject to ECJ rulings (as we were before Labour changed things), don't you?blackburn63 said:
Stay in the EU anyone?antifrank said:Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.
0 -
The problem for the LibDems is that they have been royally screwed by the electorate for actually doing what they said they would, which was to form a coalition with whichever party did best at the election. They really have three choices - to become a centre-left party, to become a centre-right Orange Book party, or continue to straddle the centre ground. I suspect which of these is best is not yet apparent, although the election of Corbyn maybe opens up room on the left. Certainly their dalliance with being a centre-right party during the Coalition hasn't done them any good.JohnLilburne said:
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.Jonathan said:The insularity is staggering. Mike Smithson
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
A fair assessment I think.0 -
Roger please try to stay on message in this new age of politics of ours.Roger said:The Michelle Thopmpson story is pretty clear. All it tells us is what many have suspected for a long time. The SNP (who are now supporting her actions as smart business) are just Scottish Tories in disguise
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/04/there-is-a-property-boom-especially-for-the-snp
It's "Scottish Tory Scum."0 -
I think one of the key things learned from the Thomson affair are that most of these Yesser entities like "business for Scotland" and "Lawyers for Yes" are controlled by the SNP heidyins - wonder who handles Stu ?Theuniondivvie said:
You do evidently.TGOHF said:
People still read the Rev Batshit ?malcolmg said:I see the unionist press are tying themselves in knots , they even find it hard to copy each others tall tales correctly. Their smearing appears to be unraveling.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/once-more-for-the-folks-at-home/
Must be all the plastic Jocks, bigots, SNPouters and MI5 that are artificially inflating his rankings.0 -
Nor mine, but its all power to the OUT campaign, its message that will resonate strongly.antifrank said:
My decision on whether to vote to stay in the EU will not be based on the terms on which prisoners can or cannot vote. Call me reckless and headstrong if you like.blackburn63 said:
Stay in the EU anyone?antifrank said:Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.0 -
Is this a joke? Has anyone here met "Innocent_Abroad"Innocent_Abroad said:
.....I have never met a boss whom I did not find personally repulsive. And, to be fair, vice versa.SouthamObserver said:
If Labour wins, the Tories don't. Your argument only makes sense if you seriously believe that there really was no difference between the Tories and labour from 2001 onwards.Oliver_PB said:Labour moved too far to the right from the second Blair term onwards. This was electorally successful, but the latter two terms didn't manage to accomplish any left-wing goals, making many people to begin to wonder what's the point of winning for the sake of winning.
Indeed, I'd argue the biggest long-term consequence of last two terms is making the current Conservative government seem moderate.
0 -
That's assuming your assumptions are correct. Many people will not see 12bn of welfare cuts as the Tories moving to the left.Casino_Royale said:
Absolutely. That's precisely why I didn't cheer on Tories who thought it was amusing to register to vote for him.Sean_F said:
if the Conservatives do tack Left, then that vindicates the strategy of Corbyn's supporters.Casino_Royale said:
Neither do I. Osborne is using it to play political chess, as he loves to do, and I think is - consciously or otherwise - tacking the party to the Left.DavidL said:
We see in Japan, for example, that this does not lead to good government. That is why I don't find the self destruction of Labour, as evidenced by the thread header, at all funny.Sean_F said:
Alternatively, in the absence of any real opposition, the Conservatives stay in office for decades, gradually becoming corrupt and incompetent, as hegemonic political parties tend to.david_herdson said:
I agree with that analysis. Indeed, I'd go further. I'd argue that if Labour succumbs to prolonged Corbynitis, whether under him or another far-left leader, they *won't* be the other main party. The electorate will give them this parliament as an indulgence but will expect them to come to their senses after another defeat. If they don't, expect either UKIP or the Lib Dems, possibly bolstered by an SDP2, to start making serious running.AndyJS said:One theory to explain Pullinger´s comments goes something like this: since the UK isn´t a one party state, the Labour Party are going to get back into power eventually and so it´s worth having Corbyn as leader even if he loses an election or two en route to eventual victory. The only problem with this analysis is that it assumes Labour will continue to be one of the main two parties no matter what happens.
Things can change quickly. They don't often. Indeed, they do rarely. But as the Liberals of the 1920s or Scottish Labour this last decade. Parties that lose their purpose to the public lose their place at the top table if an alternative is ready and able to take it from them.
That's a high-risk strategy for his future leadership ambitions.
Incidentally, I'm befuddled why Osborne can't see this. Politics isn't a game.0 -
The key EU reform that Cameron should have focussed IMHO on is the ability to reverse previous EU opt-ins taken by previous UK governments. I.e. A UK Parliament cannot bind its successor by ceding powers for good, and re opt-outs are possible.rcs1000 said:
You do know that it is perfectly possible to be a member of the ECJ without being a member of the EU (as Switzerland is), and to be a member of the EU without being subject to ECJ rulings (as we were before Labour changed things), don't you?blackburn63 said:
Stay in the EU anyone?antifrank said:Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.
If he'd got that, practical threshold limits for free movement, as well as protections for the UK as a non-eurozone member within a reformed single market, then there might be a renegotiation to sell.0 -
So many repeat visits from loons such as MalcolmG, hitting the Rev Jock's site for their fix of tartan porn. One click for every strum.Theuniondivvie said:
You do evidently.TGOHF said:
People still read the Rev Batshit ?malcolmg said:I see the unionist press are tying themselves in knots , they even find it hard to copy each others tall tales correctly. Their smearing appears to be unraveling.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/once-more-for-the-folks-at-home/
Must be all the plastic Jocks, bigots, SNPouters and MI5 that are artificially inflating his rankings.
Alexa.
How popular is wingsoverscotland.com?
Global Rank
52,149
Rank in United Kingdom
1,806
How popular is politicalbetting.com?
Global Rank
205,286
Rank in United Kingdom
5,5610 -
Depends how far "left" we are talking.Sean_F said:
I had this discussion with a Corbyn supporter on another site. He agreed it was unlikely that Corbyn could win an election, but felt economic policy had moved too far right, and Corbyn could shift the consensus leftwards.Casino_Royale said:
Absolutely. That's precisely why I didn't cheer on Tories who thought it was amusing to register to vote for him.Sean_F said:
if the Conservatives do tack Left, then that vindicates the strategy of Corbyn's supporters.Casino_Royale said:
Neither do I. Osborne is using it to play political chess, as he loves to do, and I think is - consciously or otherwise - tacking the party to the Left.DavidL said:
We see in Japan, for example, that this does not lead to good government. That is why I don't find the self destruction of Labour, as evidenced by the thread header, at all funny.Sean_F said:
Alternatively, in the absence of any real opposition, the Conservatives stay in office for decades, gradually becoming corrupt and incompetent, as hegemonic political parties tend to.david_herdson said:
I agree with that analysis. Indeed, I'd go further. I'd argue that if Labour succumbs to prolonged Corbynitis, whether under him or another far-left leader, they *won't* be the other main party. The electorate will give them this parliament as an indulgence but will expect them to come to their senses after another defeat. If they don't, expect either UKIP or the Lib Dems, possibly bolstered by an SDP2, to start making serious running.AndyJS said:...
Things can change quickly. They don't often. Indeed, they do rarely. But as the Liberals of the 1920s or Scottish Labour this last decade. Parties that lose their purpose to the public lose their place at the top table if an alternative is ready and able to take it from them.
That's a high-risk strategy for his future leadership ambitions.
Incidentally, I'm befuddled why Osborne can't see this. Politics isn't a game.
A win is a win. The Conservatives have an effective majority of 30 or so (given the way Douglas Carswell and unionists will usually vote). Why move onto Labour's territory just to get a bigger majority?
By extending a hand to Blairites (that is, a leftwards move without losing the support of the right) Osborne annexes a sufficient cohort of voters that Corbyn could unite everything to the left and still lose. I think it's fair to plan for that eventuality.0 -
Because a small win is easier to overturn. A larger win is more difficult.Sean_F said:
I had this discussion with a Corbyn supporter on another site. He agreed it was unlikely that Corbyn could win an election, but felt economic policy had moved too far right, and Corbyn could shift the consensus leftwards.Casino_Royale said:
Absolutely. That's precisely why I didn't cheer on Tories who thought it was amusing to register to vote for him.Sean_F said:
if the Conservatives do tack Left, then that vindicates the strategy of Corbyn's supporters.Casino_Royale said:
Neither do I. Osborne is using it to play political chess, as he loves to do, and I think is - consciously or otherwise - tacking the party to the Left.DavidL said:
We see in Japan, for example, that this does not lead to good government. That is why I don't find the self destruction of Labour, as evidenced by the thread header, at all funny.Sean_F said:
Alternatively, in the absence of any real opposition, the Conservatives stay in office for decades, gradually becoming corrupt and incompetent, as hegemonic political parties tend to.david_herdson said:
I agree with that analysis. Indeed, I'd go further. I'd argue that if Labour succumbs to prolonged Corbynitis, whether under him or another far-left leader, they *won't* be the other main party. The electorate will give them this parliament as an indulgence but will expect them to come to their senses after another defeat. If they don't, expect either UKIP or the Lib Dems, possibly bolstered by an SDP2, to start making serious running.AndyJS said:One theory to explain Pullinger´s comments goes something like this: since the UK isn´t a one party state, the Labour Party are g.....
Things can change quickly. They don't often. Indeed, they do rarely. But as the Liberals of the 1920s or Scottish Labour this last decade. Parties that lose their purpose to the public lose their place at the top table if an alternative is ready and able to take it from them.
That's a high-risk strategy for his future leadership ambitions.
Incidentally, I'm befuddled why Osborne can't see this. Politics isn't a game.
A win is a win. The Conservatives have an effective majority of 30 or so (given the way Douglas Carswell and unionists will usually vote). Why move onto Labour's territory just to get a bigger majority?
Getting more votes, especially when it is in the right places to win more seats, whilst at the same time reducing the role of the state in people's lives, would be a wonderful achievement. It would allow this country and its people to prosper.0 -
That is the game Osborne is playing. Hopefully it will be his downfall at the Leadership election.Sean_F said:
I had this discussion with a Corbyn supporter on another site. He agreed it was unlikely that Corbyn could win an election, but felt economic policy had moved too far right, and Corbyn could shift the consensus leftwards.Casino_Royale said:
Absolutely. That's precisely why I didn't cheer on Tories who thought it was amusing to register to vote for him.Sean_F said:
if the Conservatives do tack Left, then that vindicates the strategy of Corbyn's supporters.Casino_Royale said:
Neither do I. Osborne is using it to play political chess, as he loves to do, and I think is - consciously or otherwise - tacking the party to the Left.DavidL said:
We see in Japan, for example, that this does not lead to good government. That is why I don't find the self destruction of Labour, as evidenced by the thread header, at all funny.Sean_F said:
Alternatively, in the absence of any real opposition, the Conservatives stay in office for decades, gradually becoming corrupt and incompetent, as hegemonic political parties tend to.david_herdson said:
I agree with that analysis. Indeed, I'd go further. I'd argue that if Labour succumbs to prolonged Corbynitis, whether under him or another far-left leader, they *won't* be the other main party. The electorate will give them this parliament as an indulgence but will expect them to come to their senses after another defeat. If they don't, expect either UKIP or the Lib Dems, possibly bolstered by an SDP2, to start making serious running.AndyJS said:One theory to explain Pullinger´s comments goes something like this: since the UK isn´t a one party state, the Labour Party are going to get back into power eventually and so it´s worth having Corbyn as leader even if he loses an election or two en route to eventual victory. .....
Things can change quickly. They don't often. Indeed, they do rarely. But as the Liberals of the 1920s or Scottish Labour this last decade. Parties that lose their purpose to the public lose their place at the top table if an alternative is ready and able to take it from them.
That's a high-risk strategy for his future leadership ambitions.
Incidentally, I'm befuddled why Osborne can't see this. Politics isn't a game.
A win is a win. The Conservatives have an effective majority of 30 or so (given the way Douglas Carswell and unionists will usually vote). Why move onto Labour's territory just to get a bigger majority?
0 -
As opposed to doing what? A 'rainbow coalition' with Brown? Impotent opposition to a Tory minority gov? They blocked plenty, as I'm sure the PB Tories will agree, and enacted significant policies which are unlikely to be reversed, despite not being Tory policies (pupil premium, income tax threshold).Jonathan said:
The LDs have blocked nothing. At best they could claim to have delayed it. Arguably they enabled it by providing the Tories a stepping stone back to power.Ghedebrav said:
How they sustain the doublethink of vilifying the LDs - who blocked things like the tax credits changes and the junior doctor contract - for 'getting into bed with the Tories', while simultaneously celebrating the fact they'll be out of power for a decade, I don't know.
0 -
Now that is a class A put down.bravo, sir.Theuniondivvie said:
You do evidently.TGOHF said:
People still read the Rev Batshit ?malcolmg said:I see the unionist press are tying themselves in knots , they even find it hard to copy each others tall tales correctly. Their smearing appears to be unraveling.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/once-more-for-the-folks-at-home/
Must be all the plastic Jocks, bigots, SNPouters and MI5 that are artificially inflating his rankings.
Alexa.
How popular is wingsoverscotland.com?
Global Rank
52,149
Rank in United Kingdom
1,806
How popular is politicalbetting.com?
Global Rank
205,286
Rank in United Kingdom
5,5610 -
It baffles me why the Conservatives haven't brought back Primary Purpose and an end to automatic residency rights to non-EU spouses (who should be assessed on points like everyone else - UK citizens can marry whomever they like in the world, but why should that confer an automatic right of abode back in the UK?)JohnLilburne said:
Immigration seems to be a particularly intractable problem, the system as it is seems to allow people to just wander in at will and, in many cases, live at our expense. What has been tried has either failed, or maybe has succeeded only in stopping immigration being even higher.John_M said:
Good morning all. I also disagree. If the majority of the people want to stay in the EU, then it's the responsibility of the BOOers - they will have failed to make the argument (which I think is compelling). I'll be sad, but the toys will remain in the pram.JEO said:
I disagree. If the majority of members vote out, while the country votes in, it will be an issue.david_herdson said:
BOO will not matter that much unless the referendum is a close In (which it might be). Any other result takes the issue off the table for a decade or so.Casino_Royale said:I've never particularly liked Theresa May (she has never answered a single question directly that I can recollect - and I remember asking her a few back in 2002) and I can never forgive her for attacking her own party. But, if she's taking this line on immigration, she'll have a very clear pitch to the Conservative membership for a vote in 2019/2020 - of course, she'll actually have to first cut the net numbers too.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/
An Osborne/May direct fight? Could be close. Particularly if she coupled it with a negotiated BOO offering..
OT, May's speech baffles me. Rather than pointing out the bleeding obvious, what the hell has this government done for the last five years, and what is it proposing to do? Blaming the nasty Lib Dems for the failures of 2010-2015 cuts no mustard.
This is an easy win* for them, would cut numbers by tens of thousands, and wouldn't upset their voting coalition.
[*unless the problem is an interpretation of the Right to Family life under the HRA, which has scuppered the above]
0 -
TCP
"Is this a joke? Has anyone here met "Innocent_Abroad""
Yes. Nice man with a sense of humour....
0 -
You'd never guess he's i_a is self-employed! Shaving must be hell.Innocent_Abroad said:SouthamObserver said:
If Labour wins, the Tories don't. Your argument only makes sense if you seriously believe that there really was no difference between the Tories and labour from 2001 onwards.Oliver_PB said:Labour moved too far to the right from the second Blair term onwards. This was electorally successful, but the latter two terms didn't manage to accomplish any left-wing goals, making many people to begin to wonder what's the point of winning for the sake of winning.
Indeed, I'd argue the biggest long-term consequence of last two terms is making the current Conservative government seem moderate.
I have never met a boss whom I did not find personally repulsive. And, to be fair, vice versa.0 -
Even without knowing the market nuances of the entire Scottish Nationalist property empire, it seems reasonable to conclude that the self-styled most radical, fair and inclusive party in the known universe nevertheless likes to turn a profit, wherever it may, on Scotland’s little squares of sod.Roger said:The Michelle Thopmpson story is pretty clear. All it tells us is what many have suspected for a long time. The SNP (who are now supporting her actions as smart business) are just Scottish Tories in disguise
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/04/there-is-a-property-boom-especially-for-the-snp
Last month, Nicola Sturgeon volunteered Scotland to take at least 1,000 Syrian refugees as David Cameron prevaricated on what might be the fewest that he could get away with morally and politically. If the SNP’s landed empire gets any bigger, it could probably house Sturgeon’s refugee quota at a stroke.0 -
Because, presumably, if there is a GE every 5 years then two convicts sentenced to 3 years each for an identical crime would be treated differently depending solely on *when* they committed the offence (ie offend in year 1 & get 3 years; offend in year 4 & get 3 years & lose your right to vote)antifrank said:
This is a new case (NB it's in the ECJ not the ECHR), it seems a blanket ban on prisoners serving more than five years is fine but not one on all prisoners. I'm sure there's a logic in there somewhere but I'm buggered if I can see it.NickPalmer said:
That was the original ruling, though, wasn't it? The ECJ said that it would be possible for countries to impose a ban on voting right for particular cases, but a blanket ban on all prisoners was an unreasonable breach of rights.antifrank said:Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.0 -
Do the Lib Dems have any money?Jonathan said:
12 -15 seats would be a reasonable target. The Lib Dems were absolutely swept away in the South West.Sean_F said:
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.Ghedebrav said:
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.Jonathan said:The insularity is staggering. Mike Smithson
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).
They still owe Police Scotland £800k.0 -
It is imposed as part of sentance, the law states prisoners cannot vote. It seems very simple very clear and not in the least bit any infringement of human rights. As ever the only human rights infringed are those of the victims. The ECHR ruling seems bizarre to me. Why a blanket ban should be so unreasonable is plain stupid.JohnLilburne said:
I think there are two problems. On it is for a random length of time - you can vote as soon as you are out of prison - and it is not specifically imposed as part of the sentence.NickPalmer said:
That was the original ruling, though, wasn't it? The ECJ said that it would be possible for countries to impose a ban on voting right for particular cases, but a blanket ban on all prisoners was an unreasonable breach of rights.antifrank said:Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.
My suggestion would be to state that all prison sentences of six months or more should come with a concurrent sentence of loss of civic rights for that period , ie to continue even if let out earlier.0 -
But the vast majority of Tories can barely conceal their delight; you should be careful what you wish for.CarlottaVance said:
In the end only minuscule numbers did. The Labour Party own this 100% (Ok, maybe 99.9999999%)Casino_Royale said:
Absolutely. That's precisely why I didn't cheer on Tories who thought it was amusing to register to vote for him.Sean_F said:
if the Conservatives do tack Left, then that vindicates the strategy of Corbyn's supporters.Casino_Royale said:
Neither do I. Osborne is using it to play political chess, as he loves to do, and I think is - consciously or otherwise - tacking the party to the Left.DavidL said:
We see in Japan, for example, that this does not lead to good government. That is why I don't find the self destruction of Labour, as evidenced by the thread header, at all funny.Sean_F said:
Alternatively, in the absence of any real opposition, the Conservatives stay in office for decades, gradually becoming corrupt and incompetent, as hegemonic political parties tend to.david_herdson said:
I agree with that analysis. Indeed, I'd go further. I'd argue that if Labour succumbs to prolonged Corbynitis, whether under him or another far-left leader, they *won't* be the other main party. The electorate will give them this parliament as an indulgence but will expect them to come to their senses after another defeat. If they don't, expect either UKIP or the Lib Dems, possibly bolstered by an SDP2, to start making serious running.AndyJS said:One theory to explain Pullinger´s comments goes something like this: since the UK isn´t a one party state, the Labour Party are going to get back into power eventually and so it´s worth having Corbyn as leader even if he loses an election or two en route to eventual victory. The only problem with this analysis is that it assumes Labour will continue to be one of the main two parties no matter what happens.
Things can change quickly. They don't often. Indeed, they do rarely. But as the Liberals of the 1920s or Scottish Labour this last decade. Parties that lose their purpose to the public lose their place at the top table if an alternative is ready and able to take it from them.
That's a high-risk strategy for his future leadership ambitions.0 -
Topping
"Roger please try to stay on message in this new age of politics of ours.
It's "Scottish Tory Scum."
Thanks comrade. I've been away and missed have missed the latest communique from the front0 -
Because George Osborne is enthusiastically partisan and finds it fun.Sean_F said:
I had this discussion with a Corbyn supporter on another site. He agreed it was unlikely that Corbyn could win an election, but felt economic policy had moved too far right, and Corbyn could shift the consensus leftwards.Casino_Royale said:
Absolutely. That's precisely why I didn't cheer on Tories who thought it was amusing to register to vote for him.Sean_F said:
if the Conservatives do tack Left, then that vindicates the strategy of Corbyn's supporters.Casino_Royale said:
Neither do I. Osborne is using it to play political chess, as he loves to do, and I think is - consciously or otherwise - tacking the party to the Left.DavidL said:
We see in Japan, for example, that this does not lead to good government. That is why I don't find the self destruction of Labour, as evidenced by the thread header, at all funny.Sean_F said:
Alternatively, in the absence of any real opposition, the Conservatives stay in office for decades, gradually becoming corrupt and incompetent, as hegemonic political parties tend to.david_herdson said:
I agree with that analysis. Indeed, I'd go further. I'd argue that if Labour succumbs to prolonged Corbynitis, whether under him or another far-left leader, they *won't* be the other main party. The electorate will give them this parliament as an indulgence but will expect them to come to their senses after another defeat. If they don't, expect either UKIP or the Lib Dems, possibly bolstered by an SDP2, to start making serious running.AndyJS said:One theory to explain Pullinger´s comments goes something like this: since the UK isn´t a one party state, the Labour Party are going to get back into power eventually and so it´s worth having Corbyn as leader even if he loses an election or two en route to eventual victory. The only problem with this analysis is that it assumes Labour will continue to be one of the main two parties no matter what happens.
Things can change quickly. They don't often. Indeed, they do rarely. But as the Liberals of the 1920s or Scottish Labour this last decade. Parties that lose their purpose to the public lose their place at the top table if an alternative is ready and able to take it from them.
That's a high-risk strategy for his future leadership ambitions.
Incidentally, I'm befuddled why Osborne can't see this. Politics isn't a game.
A win is a win. The Conservatives have an effective majority of 30 or so (given the way Douglas Carswell and unionists will usually vote). Why move onto Labour's territory just to get a bigger majority?0 -
ONS
89k rise (3.8%) in number of businesses registered for VAT and/orPAYE, March 2014-March 2015 http://t.co/1ORdBzgMib0 -
And the SNP issue was one targeted right from the start by the Tories. It probably took a couple of weeks for the likely sweeping success of the SNP to filter down. This issue in turn was probably given a leg up by Cameron's link of EVEL to more devolution for Scotland.Charles said:O/T
Sat next to someone who was very involved in the Twickenham campaign for the Tories.
Said that 4-6 weeks out they expected to make good progress but lose the seat.
2 weeks out canvass returns shifted rapidly. The big move was from Undecided to Tory (he noted that there were some wards which had a majority Undecided). He reckoned the SNP issue was the decisive factor0 -
Is no one querying why Scottish law seems so weak on this?Scott_P said:
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"antifrank said:I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.0 -
I'm not too bothered either. But (a) we are subject to this as we signed up to it and (b) government should be subject to the rule of law, ie do what they are told by the courts. Governments have signally failed to come up with a proposal that might satisfy the court. OK that would probably mean some sort of compromise and tabloid angst, but five years from an election would be the right time to do it.flightpath01 said:
It is imposed as part of sentance, the law states prisoners cannot vote. It seems very simple very clear and not in the least bit any infringement of human rights. As ever the only human rights infringed are those of the victims. The ECHR ruling seems bizarre to me. Why a blanket ban should be so unreasonable is plain stupid.JohnLilburne said:
I think there are two problems. On it is for a random length of time - you can vote as soon as you are out of prison - and it is not specifically imposed as part of the sentence.NickPalmer said:
That was the original ruling, though, wasn't it? The ECJ said that it would be possible for countries to impose a ban on voting right for particular cases, but a blanket ban on all prisoners was an unreasonable breach of rights.antifrank said:Voting rights for prisoners, part 94:
@BrunoBrussels: ECJ rules that voting bans are 'possible' for people 'convicted of a serious crime' http://t.co/iYPopIVScK
What a complete horlicks this is becoming.
My suggestion would be to state that all prison sentences of six months or more should come with a concurrent sentence of loss of civic rights for that period , ie to continue even if let out earlier.0 -
It's hard to make a comparison. Did ever a PM ever inherit a worse situation? Offhand I can only think of Churchill in 1940 who inherited the German breakthrough on the Meuse.CarlottaVance said:
I think 'safety first' is the image Cameron projects......but look underneath the surface, as Ganesh argues, there is more radical stuff going on - it rarely breaks surface - but when it does - like with gay marriage - there is a huge fuss and Cameron does it anyway.....Casino_Royale said:
Seldon said in an article in the Sunday Times this week that the leader that Cameron most resembles is Stanley Baldwin.CarlottaVance said:Janan Ganesh:
Formed by the sylvan Home Counties, Mr Cameron was going to be another Harold Macmillan — the Tory grandee elegantly steering his country to no particular destination. Instead, he is turning out to be a disruptive prime minister. He will probably leave the state substantially smaller than he found it, and so tarnish the idea of increasing expenditure faster than economic growth as to make any re-expansion electorally untenable for some time. Already far fewer people work for the state or receive transfers from it.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/719ccd92-6b49-11e5-aca9-d87542bf8673.html#ixzz3nlcVE3M9
I think that's correct.
Andrew Roberts in the Spectator argues Cameron may be on track to rank around - or ahead of - MacMillan:
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/david-camerons-place-in-the-premier-league-of-tory-history/0 -
Well there's cheap, and there's 'so cheap, the seller is clearly being ripped off, as someone takes advantage of them, subsequently generating a huge profit in a back to back property deal'.Scott_P said:
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"antifrank said:I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.0
