Monday 6th February 2017

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 4:26 pm

StephenDolan wrote:So that's Nandy added to the Kinnock, Umunna, Cooper, Kendall cluster

It is a genuine shame in her case, too.

Rumoured that she was very close to returning to the SC after Jez's re-election last year, only to be talked out of it (by who, I wonder?) at the last minute.

Could prove a fateful moment, both for her and Labour more generally.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 4:28 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:So @EmilyThornberry complaining to speaker after @theresa_may calls her Lady Nugee

But she's soooooo prime ministerial...

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 4:30 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:So that's Nandy added to the Kinnock, Umunna, Cooper, Kendall cluster
It is a genuine shame in her case, too.

Rumoured that she was very close to returning to the SC after Jez's re-election last year, only to be talked out of it (by who, I wonder?) at the last minute.

Could prove a fateful moment, both for her and Labour more generally.

What do you mean by "and Labour more generally" in relation to Nandy's intervention?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 4:46 pm

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/ ... rmer-boss/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Prisons in crisis because of ‘absolutely crazy’ reforms, says former boss

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 4:47 pm

Willow904 wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-388 ... ce=twitter

Free nursery hours subsidising the rich, report says
The Tories have taken a good idea, misunderstood it, changed the elements that made it work, and are now on the brink of causing chaos in two separate sectors because of a deliberate shift of help from the poorest to the richest.

The 15 hours of free nursery school introduced by Labour was never meant to be "childcare" to allow parents to work. Help to pay for childcare was dealt with completely separately in a form that allowed parents to use childminders to cover work shifts. The nursery school hours were purely to try to close the gap that had previously opened up between wealthier and poorer children before they had even started school. Those poor enough to qualify for help with childcare could use childminders to drop off and pick up from nursery school, combining the two. Richer parents had access to tax write off schemes or vouchers to help with childcare. The shift of emphasis to the latter from the former type of childcare funding has been obscured by pledges of extra unfunded nursery school hours, which were never meant to be a childcare solution. By asking childminders to act like nursery schools, they are making childcare too expensive and by asking nursery school to provide more and more hours at below cost they are making nursery school providers bankrupt. Completely incompetent.

Interesting information, Willow, thank you. I didn't know the history. The horror of what Tory government have done and are doing is clear.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 4:48 pm

Apologies for not saying good-afternoon, good-evening earlier.
Good-evening, everyone.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 4:49 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:So that's Nandy added to the Kinnock, Umunna, Cooper, Kendall cluster
It is a genuine shame in her case, too.

Rumoured that she was very close to returning to the SC after Jez's re-election last year, only to be talked out of it (by who, I wonder?) at the last minute.

Could prove a fateful moment, both for her and Labour more generally.
What do you mean by "and Labour more generally" in relation to Nandy's intervention?

Nandy has long been the soft left's hope to replace Corbyn.

Given the new character of the Lablour membership, unless you're prepared to serve under JC you won't have a hope of winning the leadership. Which is why Starmer has done it. He has performed really poorly though and done himself more harm than good IMO.

Of the other potential successors, you're looking at Lewis, Long-Bailey and Rayner. Long-Bailey's odds have shortened dramatically. None is up to it. Thornberry could be a stop-gap if Corbyn went quickly.

The women all have a disadvantage which I doubt the change in the composition of the membership has altered.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 4:51 pm

HindleA wrote:https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/ ... rmer-boss/

Prisons in crisis because of ‘absolutely crazy’ reforms, says former boss

You could simply replace "prisons" in that sentence with practically anything that this government has touched since 2010.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 4:53 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-so ... e-38884762

Jane Collins libel case: Three Labour Rotherham MPs awarded £54,000
Kippers saying this amounts to "an attack on free speech".

Someone tell them that freedom of speech does not include freedom to make unsubstantiated defamatory claims about individuals, please?

It's more than that, I think. Abusive, sustained verbal attacks against a person are intimidating. It's against the law because of the fear it engenders as well as risking damage to a professional reputation.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 4:56 pm

Looks like we can relax and vote for the Labour party as it will be voting against triggering Art 50.

If you happen to live in Scotland anyway, where Labour is voting against it in Holyrood.

I agree with Scottish Labour.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 5:03 pm

Excellent - well done John Bercow!

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 5:05 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Excellent - well done John Bercow!

I completely agree with Bercow on Trump.

But he should never have said it.

The Speaker is supposed to be in the Chair. He isn't supposed to be an active participant in politics. Denouncing the US President like that is inconsistent with his job, which is why it is surprising. This undermines the role.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 5:15 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
I completely agree with Bercow on Trump.

But he should never have said it.

The Speaker is supposed to be in the Chair. He isn't supposed to be an active participant in politics. Denouncing the US President like that is inconsistent with his job, which is why it is surprising. This undermines the role.

No, best get it out of the way now before he arrives. At least everyone knows the position.

More embarrassing to have to have to turn down a request later or even when he was here.

What's the point of a Speaker if he doesn't "speak for" the House of Commons?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 5:19 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
I completely agree with Bercow on Trump.

But he should never have said it.

The Speaker is supposed to be in the Chair. He isn't supposed to be an active participant in politics. Denouncing the US President like that is inconsistent with his job, which is why it is surprising. This undermines the role.
No, best get it out of the way now before he arrives. At least everyone knows the position.

More embarrassing to have to have to turn down a request later or even when he was here.

What's the point of a Speaker if he doesn't "speak for" the House of Commons?

He didn't have to do it on the floor of the Commons. Bercow has always had a mistaken impression of both the Speaker's importance and his own. By speaking out against Trump he has taken sides. Which damages his role.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 5:33 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:So that's Nandy added to the Kinnock, Umunna, Cooper, Kendall cluster
It is a genuine shame in her case, too.

Rumoured that she was very close to returning to the SC after Jez's re-election last year, only to be talked out of it (by who, I wonder?) at the last minute.

Could prove a fateful moment, both for her and Labour more generally.
What do you mean by "and Labour more generally" in relation to Nandy's intervention?

That it is highly unlikely she will be a serious contender for leader now.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 5:49 pm

Leaking sewage and rotten floorboards: life on a ‘flagship’ housing estate

Orchard Village in east London was built in 2014 as a bold replacement for the notorious Mardyke estate, which provided the setting for the gritty film Fish Tank. But conditions are so bad that some residents think it should be demolished

‘Substandard’ housing association scheme faces hundreds of complaints
(Guardian)

I knew the Mardyke Estate well (in old the days when it was still in Essex; that is to say, before it was transplanted to East London).

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 5:49 pm

Good morfternoon.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 5:49 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Excellent - well done John Bercow!

I completely agree with Bercow on Trump.

But he should never have said it.

The Speaker is supposed to be in the Chair. He isn't supposed to be an active participant in politics. Denouncing the US President like that is inconsistent with his job, which is why it is surprising. This undermines the role.

The Speaker of the HoC is non partisan in all domoestic political issues, he is an active participant in politics because his role is an active one. As key holder to Westminster Hall it is - and has been for 800 years - his responsibility to offer invitations to dignitaries both foreign and domestic, to speak
to the house - not the government of the day.

Not only is it his right to do so, but it is also his constitutional duty to do so, and the wording of his oath makes that very clear. Juest because you think the role of the speaker is limited to chairing debates in the house, does not make it so...

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 6:15 pm

Temulkar wrote:[

Not only is it his right to do so, but it is also his constitutional duty to do so, and the wording of his oath makes that very clear. .

Which oath would that be? Genuine question not having a dig. I don't share the same view as you, but I am wondering what oath you're relying on.

This one

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elec ... wearingin/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

?

Perfectly possible for him not to have invited Trump without his taking sides like that on the floor of the Commons. I am pretty sure he doesn't invite lots of people.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 6:40 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Temulkar wrote:[

Not only is it his right to do so, but it is also his constitutional duty to do so, and the wording of his oath makes that very clear. .
Which oath would that be? Genuine question not having a dig. I don't share the same view as you, but I am wondering what oath you're relying on.

This one

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elec ... wearingin/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

?

Perfectly possible for him not to have invited Trump without his taking sides like that on the floor of the Commons. I am pretty sure he doesn't invite lots of people.

You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty, as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will, in all things to be moved, treated, and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God.

Privy council oath. not the MPs oath with relevant sections highlighted.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 6:50 pm

Temulkar wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Temulkar wrote:[

Not only is it his right to do so, but it is also his constitutional duty to do so, and the wording of his oath makes that very clear. .
Which oath would that be? Genuine question not having a dig. I don't share the same view as you, but I am wondering what oath you're relying on.

This one

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elec ... wearingin/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

?

Perfectly possible for him not to have invited Trump without his taking sides like that on the floor of the Commons. I am pretty sure he doesn't invite lots of people.
You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty, as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will, in all things to be moved, treated, and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God.

Privy council oath. not the MPs oath with relevant sections highlighted.

That is about giving advice to the Queen. It isn't relevant to how he should behave as Speaker.

He is a very odd character Bercow. I am never quite sure whether he is any good. Clearly it is good to have someone with a certain presence, and force of personality in that role. But, he isn't a dignified holder of the post, and can appear deeply silly. I think he lacks judgement.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 6:55 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: Which oath would that be? Genuine question not having a dig. I don't share the same view as you, but I am wondering what oath you're relying on.

This one

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elec ... wearingin/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

?

Perfectly possible for him not to have invited Trump without his taking sides like that on the floor of the Commons. I am pretty sure he doesn't invite lots of people.
You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty, as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will, in all things to be moved, treated, and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God.

Privy council oath. not the MPs oath with relevant sections highlighted.

That is about giving advice to the Queen. It isn't relevant to how he should behave as Speaker.

He is a very odd character Bercow. I am never quite sure whether he is any good. Clearly it is good to have someone with a certain presence, and force of personality in that role. But, he isn't a dignified holder of the post, and can appear deeply silly. I think he lacks judgement.

Of course it is, we're constitutional monarchy not a democracy - parliament's official role is an advisory one to the monarch, or did you miss the glorious revolution in school and our constitutional settlement? Bercow's role as speaker makes him a privy coucillor - he is only a privy coucillor because of his role as speaker, it is in that role he has spoken, and in that role he must adhere to the oath he took upon taking up the office.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 6:56 pm

Temulkar wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Temulkar wrote: You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty, as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will, in all things to be moved, treated, and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God.

Privy council oath. not the MPs oath with relevant sections highlighted.

That is about giving advice to the Queen. It isn't relevant to how he should behave as Speaker.

He is a very odd character Bercow. I am never quite sure whether he is any good. Clearly it is good to have someone with a certain presence, and force of personality in that role. But, he isn't a dignified holder of the post, and can appear deeply silly. I think he lacks judgement.
Of course it is, we're constitutional monarchy not a democracy - parliament's official role is an advisory one to the monarch, or did you miss the glorious revolution in school and our constitutional settlement? Bercow's role as speaker makes him a privy coucillor - he is only a privy coucillor because of his role as speaker, it is in that role he has spoken, and in that role he must adhere to the oath he took upon taking up the office.

Well, we'll just have to disagree. I am sure you'll cope. All best.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 6:57 pm

And I should add that I have been highly critical of Bercow's failure to adhere to his constitutional role in the house, going so far as to write to him, and his response was pathetic, but that doesnt make him wrong in this instance.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 7:02 pm

The claim that his duties as Speaker would vary if he were not a PC is very curious. I can't see it myself.

Funny bloke, but then the Commons is full of these beta people

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 7:16 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:The claim that his duties as Speaker would vary if he were not a PC is very curious. I can't see it myself.

Funny bloke, but then the Commons is full of these beta people

I never claimed that, so dont misrepresent me. He is only a PC because of his role as speaker, the speaker is automatically a PC, it really isnt that difficult to grasp.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 7:19 pm

Sorry - good morfternoon.

I typed it ages ago but have just discovered that I failed to send it!

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 7:20 pm

"move jelly"

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 7:30 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ion-limits" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Europe escalates action against UK for breaching air pollution limits

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 7:36 pm

Temulkar wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:The claim that his duties as Speaker would vary if he were not a PC is very curious. I can't see it myself.

Funny bloke, but then the Commons is full of these beta people
I never claimed that, so dont misrepresent me. He is only a PC because of his role as speaker, the speaker is automatically a PC, it really isnt that difficult to grasp.

Indeed it is not difficult to grasp.

What is difficult to grasp, indeed impossible, is why you think the oath he gives as a PC would alter his duties as Speaker.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 7:49 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Israel likely to pass bill retroactively legalising Jewish settlements

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 7:50 pm

On why Labour will win easily in Copeland and Stoke

http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2017/0 ... opularity/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've placed a small wager on the double. Corbyn is utterly useless, but Labour can't lose these.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 7:50 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... on-protest" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Restaurants across America square up to fight Donald Trump on immigration

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 7:51 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nd-climate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Repeal without replace: a dangerous GOP strategy on Obamacare and climate

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 7:55 pm

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... ember-2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Latest benefit cap stats.
87% not expected to work.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 7:58 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... censorship" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Australia's chief scientist compares Trump to Stalin over climate censorship
Alan Finkel warns that forcing EPA data to undergo political review before publication will ‘cause long-term harm’

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 7:59 pm

SpinningHugo wrote: He is a very odd character Bercow. I am never quite sure whether he is any good. Clearly it is good to have someone with a certain presence, and force of personality in that role. But, he isn't a dignified holder of the post, and can appear deeply silly. I think he lacks judgement.

The reason that he is a good Speaker, and incidentally the reason why government benches try to undermine him with assistance from idiotic right wing writers like Quentin Letts, is that he upholds the rights of backbenchers to hold the executive to account.

Remember there was an alleged move to get rid of Bercow a couple of years back? It didn't amount to anything at all. Have a think as to why...

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 8:05 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: He is a very odd character Bercow. I am never quite sure whether he is any good. Clearly it is good to have someone with a certain presence, and force of personality in that role. But, he isn't a dignified holder of the post, and can appear deeply silly. I think he lacks judgement.
The reason that he is a good Speaker, and incidentally the reason why government benches try to undermine him with assistance from idiotic right wing writers like Quentin Letts, is that he upholds the rights of backbenchers to hold the executive to account.

Remember there was an alleged move to get rid of Bercow a couple of years back? It didn't amount to anything at all. Have a think as to why...

I am quite sure the government doesn't like him much. A point in his favour I'm sure. I am not sure that is enough to show he is good.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 8:07 pm

https://www.bma.org.uk/news/media-centr ... mgdoctors=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BMA response to government plans to introduce upfront charges based on eligibility for NHS care

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 8:09 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:The claim that his duties as Speaker would vary if he were not a PC is very curious. I can't see it myself.

Funny bloke, but then the Commons is full of these beta people
I never claimed that, so dont misrepresent me. He is only a PC because of his role as speaker, the speaker is automatically a PC, it really isnt that difficult to grasp.

Indeed it is not difficult to grasp.

What is difficult to grasp, indeed impossible, is why you think the oath he gives as a PC would alter his duties as Speaker.

I give up, deliberate or unintended the stupidity is strong in Convulvolus today...

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 8:10 pm

HindleA wrote:http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1568907 ... d-deal-for

Labour Press
Sale of the student loan book is a bad deal for students and the tax-payer - Angela Rayner

I was wondering about that, but the Press release didn't tell me anything new !

My first job in accountancy nearly 50 years ago was credit control in a publishing Co, which meant chasing up debtors . Normal stuff, no great aggro.

My immediate suspicion on this deal is that the only interested buyer might be, or must be, the sort of Vulture Fund which buys distressed sovereign debt, eg Argentinian Government bonds . And then applies the thumbscrews .

Selling on debt is often the beginning of a slippery slope .

( MBS's -- mortgage backed securities -- were a significant contributor to the 2007/8 GFC ... )

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 8:19 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: He is a very odd character Bercow. I am never quite sure whether he is any good. Clearly it is good to have someone with a certain presence, and force of personality in that role. But, he isn't a dignified holder of the post, and can appear deeply silly. I think he lacks judgement.
The reason that he is a good Speaker, and incidentally the reason why government benches try to undermine him with assistance from idiotic right wing writers like Quentin Letts, is that he upholds the rights of backbenchers to hold the executive to account.

Remember there was an alleged move to get rid of Bercow a couple of years back? It didn't amount to anything at all. Have a think as to why...

Roger, from the little I've seen of him, the odd youtube, he does have presence and force of personality , as Hugo said . I haven't seen him being silly, and I DO remember the (rumoured) moves to get rid of him .

As for judgement, pretending that the advent of Trump is Bizness As Usual
is not my favoured option either .

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 8:21 pm

frog222

Some discussion here,if you haven't seen:-

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... -loan-book" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 8:28 pm

Temulkar wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Temulkar wrote: I never claimed that, so dont misrepresent me. He is only a PC because of his role as speaker, the speaker is automatically a PC, it really isnt that difficult to grasp.

Indeed it is not difficult to grasp.

What is difficult to grasp, indeed impossible, is why you think the oath he gives as a PC would alter his duties as Speaker.
I give up, deliberate or unintended the stupidity is strong in Convulvolus today...

All the best. I'll just have to remain in a cloud of ignorant stupidity as to why his oath as PC determines his duties as speaker I suppose.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 8:44 pm

Now @Anna_Soubry says she will vote against the Govt if it doesn't agree to amendment 110

[Rentoul]

Post by **refitman** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 8:47 pm

frog222 wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: He is a very odd character Bercow. I am never quite sure whether he is any good. Clearly it is good to have someone with a certain presence, and force of personality in that role. But, he isn't a dignified holder of the post, and can appear deeply silly. I think he lacks judgement.
The reason that he is a good Speaker, and incidentally the reason why government benches try to undermine him with assistance from idiotic right wing writers like Quentin Letts, is that he upholds the rights of backbenchers to hold the executive to account.

Remember there was an alleged move to get rid of Bercow a couple of years back? It didn't amount to anything at all. Have a think as to why...
Roger, from the little I've seen of him, the odd youtube, he does have presence and force of personality , as Hugo said . I haven't seen him being silly, and I DO remember the (rumoured) moves to get rid of him .

As for judgement, pretending that the advent of Trump is Bizness As Usual
is not my favoured option either .

This is when the attempt to get rid of him failed:
[youtube]5-bTTeBdVe0[/youtube]
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **refitman** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 8:49 pm

And this is Bercow's comments on Trump:
[youtube]k7x7LIlMIcw[/youtube]
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 8:50 pm

Kylie MacLellanVerified account ‏@kyliemaclellan

MPs now voting on the first of many proposed amendments to #article50bill

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 8:51 pm

Labour WhipsVerified account ‏@labourwhips

MPs are now voting on @UKLabour NC3 to the #article50bill - this calls for regular reports on progress of Brexit negotiations - result 9.05

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 06 Feb, 2017 8:53 pm

Amendments here:-

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/201 ... ments.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;