Monday 9th February 2015
Posted: Mon 09 Feb, 2015 7:16 am
Morning all.
Wish there were far more MPs like him. His blog helped to keep me sane when we were going through dark times with the badger cull looming here. Hope there are many more birthdays for him to celebrate.Toby Latimer wrote:Happy Birthday to Paul Flynn MP, 80 years young today.
Just makes them look silly I reckonRogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.
I see David Gauke's taking after his boss's tactics of pointing the finger at Ed balls for anything that happened.
Never mind the fact that Balls was in Education by June 2007....wait...of course...he controlled the Treasury from there too. And HSBC!
Duncan Hothersall @dhothersall 13m13 minutes ago
Interesting. @davidtorrance in the Herald predicts a Tory/SNP coalition. http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/co ... .118014653" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
The article goes on to set out what happened in similar conditions in 1974 ... the SNP did deals with the Tories ... and current views from some in Whitehall re dealing with Sturgeon in the future.... If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England.
That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs. This means that the recent focus of most commentary, a Labour/SNP deal (formal or informal) is a bit of a red herring. Only very rarely has a party with fewer seats than its main rival formed a government, i.e. in 1923 and February 1974.
Which is why, as Iain Macwhirter wrote in yesterday's Sunday Herald, the SNP's decision to rule out unequivocally any deal with the Conservatives makes little sense. If the Nationalists genuinely want to maximise their influence in a "balanced" Parliament and hold, as Alex Salmond puts it, Unionist "feet to the fire", then such a stance reduces rather than increases their chances of doing so.
I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union...
I'm sure I saw something, somewhere, with the Tories moaning about lack of regulation in the banking sector.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Just makes them look silly I reckonRogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.
I see David Gauke's taking after his boss's tactics of pointing the finger at Ed balls for anything that happened.
Never mind the fact that Balls was in Education by June 2007....wait...of course...he controlled the Treasury from there too. And HSBC!
Adam Bienkov @AdamBienkov 19m19 minutes ago
Comres: Big business prioritise profits over ethics. Agree: 78%, Disagree: 10%. Next govt should improve big biz ethics. Agree: 72% dis: 12%
A normal and aware person would think that but this propaganda is being spread everywhere by the liars in control and being swallowed. I just can't see how Labour can counteract this propaganda when the MSM is all aiding it.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Just makes them look silly I reckonRogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.
I see David Gauke's taking after his boss's tactics of pointing the finger at Ed balls for anything that happened.
Never mind the fact that Balls was in Education by June 2007....wait...of course...he controlled the Treasury from there too. And HSBC!
rebeccariots2 wrote:Duncan Hothersall @dhothersall 13m13 minutes ago
Interesting. @davidtorrance in the Herald predicts a Tory/SNP coalition. http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/co ... .118014653" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …... If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England.
That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs. This means that the recent focus of most commentary, a Labour/SNP deal (formal or informal) is a bit of a red herring. Only very rarely has a party with fewer seats than its main rival formed a government, i.e. in 1923 and February 1974.
Which is why, as Iain Macwhirter wrote in yesterday's Sunday Herald, the SNP's decision to rule out unequivocally any deal with the Conservatives makes little sense. If the Nationalists genuinely want to maximise their influence in a "balanced" Parliament and hold, as Alex Salmond puts it, Unionist "feet to the fire", then such a stance reduces rather than increases their chances of doing so.
I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union...
The article goes on to set out what happened in similar conditions in 1974 ... the SNP did deals with the Tories ... and current views from some in Whitehall re dealing with Sturgeon in the future.
Can't help feeling that a Tory government would probably suit the SNP agenda very well.
I agree with you on just about all of that. Just to be clear the article in full doesn't say a Tory/SNP coalition is on the cards - it suggests a lot more back room dealing will go on. The point I was trying to make - not very well - with my last sentence is that the Tories getting back in to power will probably further the SNP's cause in Scotland ... and make bargainings over referenda - Europe and Scottish Independence - more likely. So I can see how it could suit them.howsillyofme1 wrote:rebeccariots2 wrote:Duncan Hothersall @dhothersall 13m13 minutes ago
Interesting. @davidtorrance in the Herald predicts a Tory/SNP coalition. http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/co ... .118014653" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …... If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England.
That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs. This means that the recent focus of most commentary, a Labour/SNP deal (formal or informal) is a bit of a red herring. Only very rarely has a party with fewer seats than its main rival formed a government, i.e. in 1923 and February 1974.
Which is why, as Iain Macwhirter wrote in yesterday's Sunday Herald, the SNP's decision to rule out unequivocally any deal with the Conservatives makes little sense. If the Nationalists genuinely want to maximise their influence in a "balanced" Parliament and hold, as Alex Salmond puts it, Unionist "feet to the fire", then such a stance reduces rather than increases their chances of doing so.
I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union...
The article goes on to set out what happened in similar conditions in 1974 ... the SNP did deals with the Tories ... and current views from some in Whitehall re dealing with Sturgeon in the future.
Can't help feeling that a Tory government would probably suit the SNP agenda very well.
Good morning to you all
Just to follow on from this - the idea that the SNP being criticised for ruling out a deal with the Tories just exemplifies the problem looking at it from a politicians tactical view and forgets that important person - the voter!
The Lib Dems thought that their love-in with the Tories would be okay because it showed them as being 'mature politicians' - what they forgot that a lot of their voters were virulently anti-Tory, more so than pro anyone else. Those voters went and will not come back in a hurry!
The SNP have taken the vast majority of their votes from the Labour Party if the polls are correct. Even the sniff that they would do a deal with the Tories would cause them a lot of issues and their response to the idea is based on knowing that.
The only way a Tory coalition would make sense for the SNP would be a referendum in the next Parliament that they win. If they don't get one, or they lost then and the result is 5 more years of this bunch of lunatics then I could see the SNP getting a nasty backdraft from the Scottish voters, setting them back a generation.
I think Sturgeon is far too smart to be seduced by any idea of a Tory Coalition - a Labour one would probably make more sense as it would not cause them any problems in Scotland, and would annoy the English! She is also more left-wing than Salmond and probably hates the Tories as much as we do.
It is a bit more complex when you get in the details but I can see no benefit for the SNP as a party from propping up Tories in Westminster
That's where our voices on social media can make a difference though. Nobody can shut us up or drown us out over there.giselle97 wrote: A normal and aware person would think that but this propaganda is being spread everywhere by the liars in control and being swallowed. I just can't see how Labour can counteract this propaganda when the MSM is all aiding it.
Hmmm, maybe try talking to more people than DFH & Ren-tool ?? #justathoughtThat simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs.
I have absolutely no doubt the SNP will exploit any opportunities arising from the 2015 GE but the article does sayrebeccariots2 wrote:I agree with you on just about all of that. Just to be clear the article in full doesn't say a Tory/SNP coalition is on the cards - it suggests a lot more back room dealing will go on. The point I was trying to make - not very well - with my last sentence is that the Tories getting back in to power will probably further the SNP's cause in Scotland ... and make bargainings over referenda - Europe and Scottish Independence - more likely. So I can see how it could suit them.howsillyofme1 wrote:rebeccariots2 wrote:
The article goes on to set out what happened in similar conditions in 1974 ... the SNP did deals with the Tories ... and current views from some in Whitehall re dealing with Sturgeon in the future.
Can't help feeling that a Tory government would probably suit the SNP agenda very well.
Good morning to you all
Just to follow on from this - the idea that the SNP being criticised for ruling out a deal with the Tories just exemplifies the problem looking at it from a politicians tactical view and forgets that important person - the voter!
The Lib Dems thought that their love-in with the Tories would be okay because it showed them as being 'mature politicians' - what they forgot that a lot of their voters were virulently anti-Tory, more so than pro anyone else. Those voters went and will not come back in a hurry!
The SNP have taken the vast majority of their votes from the Labour Party if the polls are correct. Even the sniff that they would do a deal with the Tories would cause them a lot of issues and their response to the idea is based on knowing that.
The only way a Tory coalition would make sense for the SNP would be a referendum in the next Parliament that they win. If they don't get one, or they lost then and the result is 5 more years of this bunch of lunatics then I could see the SNP getting a nasty backdraft from the Scottish voters, setting them back a generation.
I think Sturgeon is far too smart to be seduced by any idea of a Tory Coalition - a Labour one would probably make more sense as it would not cause them any problems in Scotland, and would annoy the English! She is also more left-wing than Salmond and probably hates the Tories as much as we do.
It is a bit more complex when you get in the details but I can see no benefit for the SNP as a party from propping up Tories in Westminster
Indeed, that statement screams "I've only talked to people who I know will agree with me" at best - bull***t at worst.pk1 wrote:Hmmm, maybe try talking to more people than DFH & Ren-tool ?? #justathoughtThat simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs.
http://www.independentaction.net/2015/0 ... _term=hereWhere are voluntary services heading and what can be done to stop this?
The fortunes of voluntary services now hang on the coat tails of privatisation, the shrinking of collective responsibility for social protection and the future for public services. The future is looking bleak
This seems to be the direction the EU is moving on TTIP. I believe the negotiations on ISDS have been suspended, as it is looking less and less likely TTIP will get voted through by the EU parliament with ISDS in. How the Americans feel about this is unclear. Earlier attempts at an EU/US trade deal have come to nothing in the past. An opportunity to push one through with many EU countries voting in right-wing governments, and Eurozone troubles providing a handy distraction, rather depended on an element of speed. I think the results of last year's EU elections has changed the composition of the EU parliament, giving more clout to the socialists and democrats bloc, to a degree that makes TTIP much harder to push through in a form that would be agreeable to the US.giselle97 wrote:Some news from 4 February 2015 on TTIP:
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade- ... sds-311823
I'd like to see Alan Johnson have a go at DWP. At least he's got some personal experience.StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.
This is why Reeves should be treasury based. Short, precise and on the money (no pun intended ).
Politics Live - Campaign countdown - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-31155200" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Any hints as to what Robinson has said would be useful for those of us not listening to TV or radio.StephenDolan wrote:When Nick Robinson is questioning the Blame Balls strategy you know ToryTreasury have a problem.
I think any party entering into an agreement with the SNP will have to watch its back. Any idea that they would roll over like the LibDems is just wishful thinking. The SNP are, and will undoubtedly remain, a one-policy party with the single aim of breaking up the UK. Whether they are left or right wing is, I think, largely irrelevant (although Sturgeon is probably further left than Salmond). However, Sturgeon will not be in Westminster and I don't see her having any control over Salmond, should he be elected.howsillyofme1 wrote: Personally, I think we are seeing the high water mark of the SNP and it will be very tricky to manage it from hereon in - Sturgeon is a bright politician though, I would have her in a Labour cabinet, and could manage her way through it as long as Mr S behaves himself
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/ ... -1-3684137In a scathing letter to the Prime Minister, Nicola Sturgeon criticised the amount of time the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) was taking with its investigation and condemned their refusal to pass information and early findings to the Crown Office in Scotland.
The question for ToryTreasurypk1 wrote:Any hints as to what Robinson has said would be useful for those of us not listening to TV or radio.StephenDolan wrote:When Nick Robinson is questioning the Blame Balls strategy you know ToryTreasury have a problem.
Simplistically (at least this is what I gleaned from his Twitter feed) he is questioning the Treasury line that Ed Balls knew about this as Treasury Minister in 2007 yet, apparently, nobody in the Treasury knew about it in 2010. Associated bits about when info emerged later, and the dodginess of this vis a vis Minsterial appointments made & peerages given, but pretty much he is saying this is a heap of steaming hooey.pk1 wrote:Any hints as to what Robinson has said would be useful for those of us not listening to TV or radio.StephenDolan wrote:When Nick Robinson is questioning the Blame Balls strategy you know ToryTreasury have a problem.
The EU Social Democrat Group have long said ISDS is unacceptable, this is from June.giselle97 wrote:Some news from 4 February 2015 on TTIP:
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade- ... sds-311823
Times journo that wouldn't be complaining about Labour's paternity policy then.Back from 2 weeks paternity leave today. Have to admit, wouldn't have said no to another two weeks...
Eric_WLothian wrote:I think any party entering into an agreement with the SNP will have to watch its back. Any idea that they would roll over like the LibDems is just wishful thinking. The SNP are, and will undoubtedly remain, a one-policy party with the single aim of breaking up the UK. Whether they are left or right wing is, I think, largely irrelevant (although Sturgeon is probably further left than Salmond). However, Sturgeon will not be in Westminster and I don't see her having any control over Salmond, should he be elected.howsillyofme1 wrote: Personally, I think we are seeing the high water mark of the SNP and it will be very tricky to manage it from hereon in - Sturgeon is a bright politician though, I would have her in a Labour cabinet, and could manage her way through it as long as Mr S behaves himself
I'm not even sure of her being too bright after seeing this (referring to the police helicopter crash in Glasgow):
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/ ... -1-3684137In a scathing letter to the Prime Minister, Nicola Sturgeon criticised the amount of time the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) was taking with its investigation and condemned their refusal to pass information and early findings to the Crown Office in Scotland.
Using a tragedy to pick a fight with Cameron about something he has no control over is imo stooping lower than low ...but of course the independent (and well respected) AAIB is based in England.
(Edited to correct punctuation & grammar).
Commenting on reports HSBC ‘helped clients dodge millions in tax’, shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury Cathy Jamieson MP said:
"HMRC were made fully aware of these practices back in 2010. There are serious questions for the Chancellor to answer about why just one person out of over a thousand have been prosecuted in five years. And why the Government’s Swiss tax deal has been such an embarrassing flop, raising a fraction of the amounts initially boasted of by ministers.”
"Tax avoidance and evasion harms every taxpayer in Britain, and undermines public services like the NHS.
“The Chancellor also needs to urgently explain how the then chairman of HSBC, Stephen Green, could have been appointed a Conservative peer and a Minister by David Cameron just eight months after the Government was made aware of these activities taking place on his watch at HSBC.
"Once again the Tories have been exposed as unable and unwilling to take real action on tax avoidance – little wonder that under them the tax gap has risen year on year."
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1104868 ... ents-dodge
https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/stat ... 6648875008House of Commons @HouseofCommons · 5m 5 minutes ago
At 3.30pm there will be an Urgent Question from @ShabanaMahmood on tax avoidance by HSBC. More details to follow. No statements today.
Good!Willow904 wrote:This seems to be the direction the EU is moving on TTIP. I believe the negotiations on ISDS have been suspended, as it is looking less and less likely TTIP will get voted through by the EU parliament with ISDS in. How the Americans feel about this is unclear. Earlier attempts at an EU/US trade deal have come to nothing in the past. An opportunity to push one through with many EU countries voting in right-wing governments, and Eurozone troubles providing a handy distraction, rather depended on an element of speed. I think the results of last year's EU elections has changed the composition of the EU parliament, giving more clout to the socialists and democrats bloc, to a degree that makes TTIP much harder to push through in a form that would be agreeable to the US.giselle97 wrote:Some news from 4 February 2015 on TTIP:
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade- ... sds-311823
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... hsbc-filesAsked on Sky News whether Balls should explain what he knew about the Swiss accounts, Clegg said: “I think it would be great if Ed Balls, or indeed [Labour leader] Ed Miliband, for once were just to get up and admit that they let the banks run riot on their watch.
“Ed Balls went on a prawn cocktail charm offensive to suck up to the banks and they now have the brass neck to somehow constantly accuse this government of not doing enough when we’ve done considerably more to straighten out the banks than Labour ever did.”
A source close to Balls said: “The information was first given to the government in 2010, so of course he was not aware of it. This is transparent and desperate stuff by the Tories to distract attention from this government’s appointment of the chairman of HSBC as a Tory minister eight months after they were given this information and the fact just one of 1,100 individuals has since been prosecuted.”
It's one way Tories spend other peoples' money.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Invasion of Tory trolls at the other place today
I read a while back that when Murdoch first came over here, he was humiliated by Thatchers government, so I can understand him wanting control of them. Then he helped her break the print unions. It must give him the greatest satisfaction to gain control over those who looked down their noses at him and still would if he had less money.Lonewolfie wrote:Morning all...happy Monday everyone (sorry - can't help feeling upbeat having found these reports from 'down under')
RUPERT MURDOCH'S GRIP on newspapers is collapsing. Described as the most powerful owner of news in the English speaking world, his shareholders are building a revolt against the use of his personal power over their investments in his company.
https://independentaustralia.net/busine ... -grip,7350
For at least another year, the company will be subject to a continuing series of revelations as the new investigation team, Operation Weeting, sorts through thousands of pages of evidence of the company's corrupt practices. The Murdoch saga has begun a whole new chapter in its history. But panic in the family has reached a point where a professional counsellor has been hired to keep order at family meetings.
https://independentaustralia.net/busine ... winds,7261
We have a proud freedom of the press, unwritten and unspoken. And we have a Murdoch press that exploits that freedom by telling lies, and in Britain engages in raw criminality and bribery and fear. There are regulations which affect television and radio, but no regulation of our press. Rupert Murdoch began to abuse the freedom of the press as no one before him had ever done.
https://independentaustralia.net/busine ... media,7238
Now Abbott's name will appear in Australia's history as the leader who could not lead; a man who is untrustworthy, unreliable and dishonest; who shamed himself and the country he should never have been allowed to lead because he was totally unqualified by birth and by incompetence.
https://independentaustralia.net/politi ... -line,7334
The last one had me reeling as though I'd arrived in some alternative universe - could've sworn it was written to describe Empty Dave - and I'm well aware it's not 'earth-shattering' and that IndependentAustralia is a small online news agency....but...every little helps (now where've I heard that before?) - all these reports are from 2015, so new 'news'...I continue to live in Hope (just north of Peterborough)