FlyTheNest

RobertSnozers wrote:I think the most egregious point Stuart Jackson made in his defence of Shapps was that saying he had used the pseudonym before he was elected wasn't a lie because he *had* used it before he was elected, he just hadn't *only* used it before he was elected.

Good summary of Shapps' tactics on Politics.co.uk - http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/03 ... hael-green" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

55DegreesNorth wrote:Curlew.
I know it's not in the list, but there's no more evocative sound than a curlew on the moors.

yahyah wrote:I'm just down the road from a Red Kite feeding station.
Sometimes get 20 or 30 over the fields.
Don't like the way they are watching the new lambs at the moment though.

ohsocynical wrote:

yahyah wrote:I'm just down the road from a Red Kite feeding station.
Sometimes get 20 or 30 over the fields.
Don't like the way they are watching the new lambs at the moment though.

I thought they were classed as scavengers?

Ofcom confirms it is not treating Greens as a 'major party' at the election

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... a395ef2739

ohsocynical wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:

yahyah wrote:I'm just down the road from a Red Kite feeding station.
Sometimes get 20 or 30 over the fields.
Don't like the way they are watching the new lambs at the moment though.

I thought they were classed as scavengers?

Waiting to see if there are any dead lambs perhaps?

The eight weirdest things we know about Grant Shapps
The Tory party chairman is in trouble again for his business alter ego, Michael Green, but that isn’t even the weirdest thing about him

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... ant-shapps

ohsocynical wrote:

55DegreesNorth wrote:Curlew.
I know it's not in the list, but there's no more evocative sound than a curlew on the moors.

I have to agree with you. The sound raises the hair on the back of my neck.

NeilBB wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:

55DegreesNorth wrote:Curlew.
I know it's not in the list, but there's no more evocative sound than a curlew on the moors.

I have to agree with you. The sound raises the hair on the back of my neck.

http://sounds.bl.uk/Environment/British ... 375-0600V0

Reminded me of The KLF's Chill Out album

An argument has broken out between Austin Mitchell MP for Grimsby and Karl Turner MP for Hull following the media interest in Ed Miliband’s two kitchens last week.

ErnstRemarx wrote:Afternoon all.

I suspect that Shapps business is far worse than we all suspected. Ever noticed he's never been seen in the presence of Robert Webb?

letsskiptotheleft wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:Afternoon all.

I suspect that Shapps business is far worse than we all suspected. Ever noticed he's never been seen in the presence of Robert Webb?

Or Warwick Davis?

A few years back Shapps was at pains to point out he had no involvement with a website, howtopickupwomen.com or something ridiculous, knowing him that could come back to bite him on the arse?

frightful_oik wrote:Blackbird. Garden's full of them, mostly scrapping at the moment and couldn't vote for 'red' anything other than socialism in tooth and claw.

Still chuffed at not having a TV licence any longer!

ohsocynical wrote:

tinybgoat wrote:

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Dead important this, vote for the national bird of Britain.

Torn between a blackbird, lovely song, red kite, see them while out in the garden, kingfisher, always a delight, though only see a flash of azure blue, or a robin, who always puts a smile on my chops.

Decisions, decisions.

http://www.votenationalbird.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I went for Mute Swan,
Would have gone for Great Crested Grebe, if in final,
or possibly Starlings for attitude.

I'd have to choose the Robin. There can't be a corner of the world that hasn't seen a Christmas card with snow and a Robin....

ohsocynical wrote:

frightful_oik wrote:Blackbird. Garden's full of them, mostly scrapping at the moment and couldn't vote for 'red' anything other than socialism in tooth and claw.

Still chuffed at not having a TV licence any longer!

Even though I put food out every day, I haven't seen a single blackbird in the last year. Ditto sparrows. A few blue tits down from dozens a couple of years ago and the same with various types of finch. One wagtail and an occasional robin. Haven't seen a thrush in years.
Wood pigeons and magpies mostly now.

letsskiptotheleft wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:Afternoon all.

I suspect that Shapps business is far worse than we all suspected. Ever noticed he's never been seen in the presence of Robert Webb?

Or Warwick Davis?

A few years back Shapps was at pains to point out he had no involvement with a website, howtopickupwomen.com or something ridiculous, knowing him that could come back to bite him on the arse?

utopiandreams wrote:I better read up on how to post links here... and whatever else you can do.

pk1 wrote:Ashcroft National Poll:

CON 31 (-3)
LAB 29 (-1)
LIB 8 (+3)
UKIP 15 (=)
GRN 8 (=)

pk1 wrote:

Breaking News

Posted at 13:21
Ed Miliband says Labour will not go into coalition government with the SNP. "There will be no SNP ministers in any government I lead," he adds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-31878269" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@bbclaurak

tweets: Difficulty for Ed M is that no-one really talking about an actual coalition btw the 2, he can't/hasn't/won't rule out relying on SNP support

No Laura, a coalition with the SNP is ALL you & your tory pals has gone on about for weeks !

letsskiptotheleft wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:Afternoon all.

I suspect that Shapps business is far worse than we all suspected. Ever noticed he's never been seen in the presence of Robert Webb?

Or Warwick Davis?

A few years back Shapps was at pains to point out he had no involvement with a website, howtopickupwomen.com or something ridiculous, knowing him that could come back to bite him on the arse?

pk1 wrote:Ladbrokes updated odds:

utopiandreams wrote:I've lurked here long enough but have refrained from joining because I've sometimes found this site too tribal. Anyway following is a link to <a href="http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files ... pdf">Never again? The story of the Health and Social Care Act 2012</a>published by the King's Fund, which I have posted three times today on the other place.

I accept it's a rather long read (148 pages) but worthy of being shared. My first post had a scathing account of Cameron's part in it, the second a link with no comment and the third just an indication that the King's Fund had published such document and that it may be found by searching online.

I haven't entirely given up with the Guardian as I expect it has greater coverage. Anyway this was my final comment on Andrew Sparrow's Blog today, which has so far stood the test of time..

I make no bones of my disdain for this government. Maybe it's because I'm an ex-LibDemmer who has seen Cameron and the Orange Bookers stymie everything I once thought good of the party, let alone how they have treated the citizens of this country. However I can understand being moderated or even when I was on pre-mod for overstepping the mark, but I shall not accept censorship. If the Tories want to cleanse the internet of their own publications then so be it, but please do not stifle open debate.

yahyah wrote:From bloggerheads:''We would be able to go to older versions of his websites and check if Shapps and/or his wife hadn’t deliberately excluded the howtocorp.com domain from the Web Archive,''

Is there really no way of getting to those older versions of his sites ?
Computer wizards....pretty please.

yahyah wrote:

pk1 wrote:Ashcroft National Poll:

CON 31 (-3)
LAB 29 (-1)
LIB 8 (+3)
UKIP 15 (=)
GRN 8 (=)

I just don't believe that Labour's vote is no better than 2010.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

yahyah wrote:

pk1 wrote:Ashcroft National Poll:

CON 31 (-3)
LAB 29 (-1)
LIB 8 (+3)
UKIP 15 (=)
GRN 8 (=)

I just don't believe that Labour's vote is no better than 2010.

Ashcroft poll, thus those figures are just those "absolutely certain to vote" - said questions almost invariably imply a turnout of barely 50% (even less than 2001)

Virtually everybody agrees its going to be a lot more than that in May (probably higher than 2010's 65%)

Will be very surprising if the good Lord's "unadjusted" result doesn't have Labour at least level. Its been the case the last two weeks.

yahyah wrote:

pk1 wrote:Ashcroft National Poll:

CON 31 (-3)
LAB 29 (-1)
LIB 8 (+3)
UKIP 15 (=)
GRN 8 (=)

I just don't believe that Labour's vote is no better than 2010.

Firstly, the £1.2 billion ‘savings’ figure never features in the DCLG report The Benefits of the Troubled Families Programme to the Taxpayer (hereafter called the Benefits report),or the accompanying Methodology report. In fact, the Methodology report states very clearly on p4 that ‘care should be taken when directly comparing results between local authorities’ and ‘the results reported are not results from the national programme as a whole’. If the advice to take care with the figures had been taken, the figure of £1.2 billion ‘savings’ surely wouldn’t have been featured so heavily in the press release and there must be a very good reason it didn’t feature in either official publication.

The Benefits report suggests that, across the seven local authority areas used for the analysis, the average cost of the ‘troubled families’ they worked with (in the 12 months prior to intervention) was just £26,200 (p4). So the new ‘actual’ figure is around a third of the first ‘actual’ figure of £75,000 that the Prime Minister gave when he launched the TFP.

utopiandreams wrote:I've lurked here long enough but have refrained from joining because I've sometimes found this site too tribal. Anyway following is a link to <a href="http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files ... pdf">Never again? The story of the Health and Social Care Act 2012</a>published by the King's Fund, which I have posted three times today on the other place.

I accept it's a rather long read (148 pages) but worthy of being shared. My first post had a scathing account of Cameron's part in it, the second a link with no comment and the third just an indication that the King's Fund had published such document and that it may be found by searching online.

I haven't entirely given up with the Guardian as I expect it has greater coverage. Anyway this was my final comment on Andrew Sparrow's Blog today, which has so far stood the test of time..

I make no bones of my disdain for this government. Maybe it's because I'm an ex-LibDemmer who has seen Cameron and the Orange Bookers stymie everything I once thought good of the party, let alone how they have treated the citizens of this country. However I can understand being moderated or even when I was on pre-mod for overstepping the mark, but I shall not accept censorship. If the Tories want to cleanse the internet of their own publications then so be it, but please do not stifle open debate.

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Some thoughts on "tribalism".

In the entirety of the MSM, and very much including the Guardian the Labour Party is subjected to a constant barrage of attacks. Twitter is much the same, I have watched one person (who very much fits the Narxist description) hurl a constant stream of spittle flecked invective at Labours MPs, any poster who has dared to pick him up on it and a number of people he has identified as "traitors" pretty much nonstop for 48 hours; we're subjected to attacks by cybernats, from people who claim to be Green Party supporters (although not all are genuine), by the likes of Julie Bailey & her coterie and by run of the mill Tories.

FTN is the one place I thought I could express my views openly, without being subjected to attack, but it seems if I then I am being partisan. So if not here, where can I speak openly?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

yahyah wrote:

pk1 wrote:Ashcroft National Poll:

CON 31 (-3)
LAB 29 (-1)
LIB 8 (+3)
UKIP 15 (=)
GRN 8 (=)

I just don't believe that Labour's vote is no better than 2010.

Ashcroft poll, thus those figures are just those "absolutely certain to vote" - said questions almost invariably imply a turnout of barely 50% (even less than 2001)

Virtually everybody agrees its going to be a lot more than that in May (probably higher than 2010's 65%)

Will be very surprising if the good Lord's "unadjusted" result doesn't have Labour at least level. Its been the case the last two weeks.

pk1 wrote:

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Some thoughts on "tribalism".

In the entirety of the MSM, and very much including the Guardian the Labour Party is subjected to a constant barrage of attacks. Twitter is much the same, I have watched one person (who very much fits the Narxist description) hurl a constant stream of spittle flecked invective at Labours MPs, any poster who has dared to pick him up on it and a number of people he has identified as "traitors" pretty much nonstop for 48 hours; we're subjected to attacks by cybernats, from people who claim to be Green Party supporters (although not all are genuine), by the likes of Julie Bailey & her coterie and by run of the mill Tories.

FTN is the one place I thought I could express my views openly, without being subjected to attack, but it seems if I then I am being partisan. So if not here, where can I speak openly?

Hey buddy, you sound downhearted. Don't.

Be assured, your posts are very welcome. I would miss you if you weren't here !

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Some thoughts on "tribalism".

In the entirety of the MSM, and very much including the Guardian the Labour Party is subjected to a constant barrage of attacks. Twitter is much the same, I have watched one person (who very much fits the Narxist description) hurl a constant stream of spittle flecked invective at Labours MPs, any poster who has dared to pick him up on it and a number of people he has identified as "traitors" pretty much nonstop for 48 hours; we're subjected to attacks by cybernats, from people who claim to be Green Party supporters (although not all are genuine), by the likes of Julie Bailey & her coterie and by run of the mill Tories.

FTN is the one place I thought I could express my views openly, without being subjected to attack, but it seems if I then I am being partisan. So if not here, where can I speak openly?