FlyTheNest

PorFavor wrote:Is anyone else as uninterested as I am in what Mohammed Emwazi's Nan had for breakfast? By comparison, I'm riveted by the reportage of William's trip to China in spite of the absence of Mrs William and the offspring (who are, nevertheless, very much in the thoughts of the BBC).

citizenJA wrote:

PorFavor wrote:Is anyone else as uninterested as I am in what Mohammed Emwazi's Nan had for breakfast? By comparison, I'm riveted by the reportage of William's trip to China in spite of the absence of Mrs William and the offspring (who are, nevertheless, very much in the thoughts of the BBC).

I'm uninterested on the topic you're uninterested in - perhaps more so. I look at some of these nonsense headlines & ask myself, 'What's going on I should know about but isn't broadcast?'.

discordantharmony wrote:Good Evening everyone.

Not really sure of the FTN protocol for PM'ing, so........

Ernst. Would you mind if I PM'd you with a question please?

Kind Regards.

Leaked SNP plan to gag nationalist MPs from speaking out against party policy
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... st-5260840
... Roberston wants to give SNP party whips greater power to stop any new MPs criticising party policy.

The draft rules call on MPs to “accept that no member shall within, or outwith the parliament, publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group.”

MPs would also have to “abide by and support the SNP’s policies”.

Members would be instructed to treat their position “as a full-time commitment”.

Labour MP Anne McGuire said: “These new rules look like an attempt from Angus Robertson to gag a returning Alex Salmond if he gets elected in May.

“Now we know why prospective SNP candidates were asked if they would back the bedroom tax if they were told to by their party.

“One wonders what the SNP are planning if they are demanding absolute loyalty from their MPs.”...

frightful_oik wrote:

discordantharmony wrote:Good Evening everyone.

Not really sure of the FTN protocol for PM'ing, so........

Ernst. Would you mind if I PM'd you with a question please?

Kind Regards.

Hi DH. If it were me I'd just send the PM. If Ernst doesn't want to answer he won't.

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 15m 15 minutes ago
Tomorrow there's the latest batch of @LordAshcroft marginals polling

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 4m 4 minutes ago
CORRECTION - latest round of @LordAshcroft marginals polling being released on Wednesday at about 5pm.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Leaked SNP plan to gag nationalist MPs from speaking out against party policy
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... st-5260840
... Roberston wants to give SNP party whips greater power to stop any new MPs criticising party policy.

The draft rules call on MPs to “accept that no member shall within, or outwith the parliament, publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group.”

MPs would also have to “abide by and support the SNP’s policies”.

Members would be instructed to treat their position “as a full-time commitment”.

Labour MP Anne McGuire said: “These new rules look like an attempt from Angus Robertson to gag a returning Alex Salmond if he gets elected in May.

“Now we know why prospective SNP candidates were asked if they would back the bedroom tax if they were told to by their party.

“One wonders what the SNP are planning if they are demanding absolute loyalty from their MPs.”...

Eric_WLothian wrote:
And the Tartan Tories jump on the bandwagon:

NICOLA Sturgeon has unveiled a £70 million scheme to help low and moderate income families in Scotland buy their first homes.
Under the plan eligible buyers will receive an interest free loan to help them get on the property ladder.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3706017

Anybody would think there was an election in the offing.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Leaked SNP plan to gag nationalist MPs from speaking out against party policy
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... st-5260840
... Roberston wants to give SNP party whips greater power to stop any new MPs criticising party policy.

The draft rules call on MPs to “accept that no member shall within, or outwith the parliament, publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group.”

MPs would also have to “abide by and support the SNP’s policies”.

Members would be instructed to treat their position “as a full-time commitment”.

Labour MP Anne McGuire said: “These new rules look like an attempt from Angus Robertson to gag a returning Alex Salmond if he gets elected in May.

“Now we know why prospective SNP candidates were asked if they would back the bedroom tax if they were told to by their party.

“One wonders what the SNP are planning if they are demanding absolute loyalty from their MPs.”...

Might be that they've so few MPs they don't have any formal whipping at the moment.

They're incredibly disciplined already.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Leaked SNP plan to gag nationalist MPs from speaking out against party policy
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... st-5260840
... Roberston wants to give SNP party whips greater power to stop any new MPs criticising party policy.

The draft rules call on MPs to “accept that no member shall within, or outwith the parliament, publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group.”

MPs would also have to “abide by and support the SNP’s policies”.

Members would be instructed to treat their position “as a full-time commitment”.

Labour MP Anne McGuire said: “These new rules look like an attempt from Angus Robertson to gag a returning Alex Salmond if he gets elected in May.

“Now we know why prospective SNP candidates were asked if they would back the bedroom tax if they were told to by their party.

“One wonders what the SNP are planning if they are demanding absolute loyalty from their MPs.”...

Might be that they've so few MPs they don't have any formal whipping at the moment.

They're incredibly disciplined already.

Documents obtained by BuzzFeed News show the SNP leadership is going to require strict loyalty from its Westminster MPs in advance of potential coalition negotiations. The party is also going to break with tradition and introduce all-women shortlists.

...Under the proposed changes to internal rules, all of the party’s MPs would be required to sign up to a code of conduct pledging they would not “publicly criticise a decision, policy or another member” of the SNP’s Westminster group, either in parliament or in other venues such as the media.

RobertSnozers wrote:@Tubby

In answer to your question from last night, CCG boards are 'assured' by NHS England 'sub regions' (SHAs in all but name) to make sure they are fit for purpose , and commissioning decisions are scrutinised by LA overview and scrutiny committees. This scrutiny should be to make sure the decisions are made in the correct way, not get involved in the decisions themselves. I've seen OSCs get hi-jacked for partisan political purposes but it's rare, mercifully. It was these occasions that persuaded me that politicians must not be involved in decisions about the shape and nature of health services, because they make decisions for narrow political reasons. If local politicians were left in charge, even the better ones, the NHS would have collapsed by now because we'd have ended up with no hospital, ward or bed ever closing and there wouldn't be money for anything else.

LAs already have a degree of involvement in health through OSCs and Health and Wellbeing Boards, and that is plenty.

HindleA wrote:Dismissing the quiet view is very perilous.No less impassioned,no less credible,too often taken as that. To be quiet is not to be wrong.When inconvenient facts act as a conduit for all manner of misinterpretations and accusations on no evidence beyond their outlining,this place is unreasonable.No discussion can be made To that end with some sadness,particularly at this juncture,it is time to leave,energies are wasted in such diversionary pursuits.Far better to utilise them in more productive ways.It is a game for some,not for me I am afraid.

discordantharmony wrote:Good Evening everyone.

Not really sure of the FTN protocol for PM'ing, so........

Ernst. Would you mind if I PM'd you with a question please?

Kind Regards.

frightful_oik wrote:

discordantharmony wrote:Good Evening everyone.

Not really sure of the FTN protocol for PM'ing, so........

Ernst. Would you mind if I PM'd you with a question please?

Kind Regards.

Hi DH. If it were me I'd just send the PM. If Ernst doesn't want to answer he won't.

discordantharmony wrote:

frightful_oik wrote:

discordantharmony wrote:Good Evening everyone.

Not really sure of the FTN protocol for PM'ing, so........

Ernst. Would you mind if I PM'd you with a question please?

Kind Regards.

Hi DH. If it were me I'd just send the PM. If Ernst doesn't want to answer he won't.

Now therein lies the voice of common sense. Spend my whole life worrying I might offend someone etc etc over something so trivial. Thankyou

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

citizenJA wrote:How can we protect ourselves from fear in order to act in the best interests of ourselves, family, friends & country?

I recommend a large number of specially trained guard Aardvarks.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

citizenJA wrote:How can we protect ourselves from fear in order to act in the best interests of ourselves, family, friends & country?

I recommend a large number of specially trained guard Aardvarks.

Guaardvarks?

It could have been the punchline of a scene from the BBC political satire In the Thick Of It.

Gawain Towler, the press spokesman for the UK Independence Party, ended up hauling Sam Gould, one of its parliamentary candidates, off the beach in Margate on Saturday.

Perhaps eager to curry favour with the party’s leader Nigel Farage, Mr Gould had leapt onto the beach near the venue for the party's spring conference and scrawled a message: “We love Nige”.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote: I recommend a large number of specially trained guard Aardvarks.

Guaardvarks?

Love it.

David Cameron will today announce plans to extend the government's "starter home" policy to 200,000 new discounted homes.

The policy appears superficially attractive. New homes will be offered at a 20% discount, saving the average first-time buyer £43,000. However, this significant saving comes at a much wider cost.

In return for offering the discount, developers no longer have to pay for the new infrastructure to support this new housing, including schools, hospitals, roads and flood defences. This infrastructure still needs to be paid for of course, it's just that developers are no longer the ones paying for it.

Developers will also be stripped of the need to sign section 106 agreements. These agreements oblige developers to either provide new affordable homes, school places or other contributions to the local area.

The exact scale of the subsidy to developers is unclear. Asked about the policy on Sky News yesterday, Conservative chairman Grant Shapps was unable or unwilling to explain how the 20% discount would be paid for and who by. It's quite possible that he simply didn't know the answer to the question. It's also possible that the truth - that this amounts to a significant handout to landowners from taxpayers - isn't electorally palatable.

Under the proposals, developers will also be stripped of the requirement to make developments zero carbon. This will have the dubious benefit of allowing developers to build less energy efficient and poorer quality homes. Whichever way you look at it, this amounts to yet another windfall for developers.

Indeed the closer you look at the policy, the clearer it becomes that this is a straight up transfer of wealth from the public sector to the private and from local people to landowners, rather than a genuine attempt to provide new homes.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Empty seems to have got away without the sort of media open season on Miliband's tuition fees policy last week.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Gisela Stuart.

"Stuart told the Financial Times (£):

“If on May 8 you had a position where Labour had more seats than the Tories but not enough to form a government — but the Tories had more votes than Labour — I think you should not dismiss the possibility of a grand coalition in terms of regrouping of the main”

Stuart, who was born in Germany, went on to compare the UK to Germany, where there is currently a left/right coalition between the CDU and the Social Democrats:

“When you have to make very difficult decisions, the broader the baseline from which you work, the more you are able to do these things. If no party has won an overall majority then it will have to work with another party. And as you work through the options, do not rule out that you have a grand coalition.”

Needless to say, this isn’t likely to be a popular suggestion among most Labour supporters or MPs…"

http://labourlist.org/2015/03/labour-mp ... he-tories/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell wrote:Real devolution has to come from public consent, not Whitehall diktat
Devolution has to be about more than transferring power from one unaccountable structure in London to another in Manchester, Lisa Nandy argues
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... all-diktat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Gisela Stuart.

"Stuart told the Financial Times (£):

“If on May 8 you had a position where Labour had more seats than the Tories but not enough to form a government — but the Tories had more votes than Labour — I think you should not dismiss the possibility of a grand coalition in terms of regrouping of the main”

Stuart, who was born in Germany, went on to compare the UK to Germany, where there is currently a left/right coalition between the CDU and the Social Democrats:

“When you have to make very difficult decisions, the broader the baseline from which you work, the more you are able to do these things. If no party has won an overall majority then it will have to work with another party. And as you work through the options, do not rule out that you have a grand coalition.”

Needless to say, this isn’t likely to be a popular suggestion among most Labour supporters or MPs…"

http://labourlist.org/2015/03/labour-mp ... he-tories/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She's been called, 'independent-minded'.

diGriz wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

What an image.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

citizenJA wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Gisela Stuart.

"Stuart told the Financial Times (£):

“If on May 8 you had a position where Labour had more seats than the Tories but not enough to form a government — but the Tories had more votes than Labour — I think you should not dismiss the possibility of a grand coalition in terms of regrouping of the main”

Stuart, who was born in Germany, went on to compare the UK to Germany, where there is currently a left/right coalition between the CDU and the Social Democrats:

“When you have to make very difficult decisions, the broader the baseline from which you work, the more you are able to do these things. If no party has won an overall majority then it will have to work with another party. And as you work through the options, do not rule out that you have a grand coalition.”

Needless to say, this isn’t likely to be a popular suggestion among most Labour supporters or MPs…"

http://labourlist.org/2015/03/labour-mp ... he-tories/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She's been called, 'independent-minded'.

Bonkers.

Why on earth would anyone vote Labour - and presumably on the basis of not wanting the Tories anywhere near government - only to see them calmly waltz back in in a coalition?