Tuesday 9th September 2014

[rebeccariots2]

Morning all.

[rebeccariots2]

CameronsTinyMajority.jpg (57.39 KiB) Viewed 24298 times

Sophy Ridge ‏@SophyRidgeSky 53m
Just to wake you up over your cereal - here's Dear Deirdre in Sun, giving advice on how to win your partner back pic.twitter.com/tq7OuIq1wy

Sorry.

[Spacedone]

Sorry.

MY EYES!

[rebeccariots2]

Sorry.

MY EYES!

I know. And they've given Dave 'cleavage'. Can't see the sick emoticon or I would use it.

[refitman]

Morning all. Labour lead at 5 points Yougov:

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 8th Sept -

Con 31%, (-2)
Lab 36%, (+1)
LD 8%, (+1)
UKIP 16%; (+1)

APP -27 (-6)

[Lonewolfie]

Sorry.

MY EYES!

'kin Ada...my eyes too (and surely his majority is so small as to be inverse? In that he hasn't got one?)

On my normal obsession of Murkydochia, not sure if this has been linked...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... CMP=twt_gu

....so the vindictiveness goes on...the poor oppressed soul

...and Newcorpse, Uncle Rupert and his minions (Gove/Hunt/Gidiot etc) continue to run the country (into the ground..or more accurately, break it into pieces)

[yahyah]

This is why it's best to steer clear of anything on Cif that's infested by cybernats.

Mobysick
08 September 2014 11:03pm Recommend 30

That's Brown the mass kidnapper, mass torturer and mass murderer, if you please.

More nuts than the top of a Dundee cake.

[JackPranker]

I can never unsee that.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Morning all. Labour lead at 5 points Yougov:

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 8th Sept -

Con 31%, (-2)
Lab 36%, (+1)
LD 8%, (+1)
UKIP 16%; (+1)

APP -27 (-6)

It is NickyB I feel sorry for, waiting for the elusive Legendary Five.

[AnatolyKasparov]

It is good that the Murdoch/Salmond thing is doing the rounds now - it is so at odds with Nat rhetoric that some must wonder.......

[TechnicalEphemera]

Sorry.

MY EYES!

I know. And they've given Dave 'cleavage'. Can't see the sick emoticon or I would use it.

Our Dave has a fine pair of moobs.

They are called Osborne and Gove.

[minch]

In the beginning there was a suggestion of a 3 way vote (with Devomax). This was rejected in favour of just a yes and no (with the implication that a no vote was to continue as now). Now that the no camp are saying that a no vote devolves more powers how do you vote if you want things to stay the same?

[Lonewolfie]

MY EYES!

'kin Ada...my eyes too (and surely his majority is so small as to be inverse? In that he hasn't got one?)

On my normal obsession of Murkydochia, not sure if this has been linked...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... CMP=twt_gu

....so the vindictiveness goes on...the poor oppressed soul

Interesting, especially in the light of Wallis' comments after the trial (i.e. that the whole thing was a witch hunt and waste of taxpayers' money). Presumably the same 'Rolls Royce' defence will be available? It's definitely worth reading the Peter Jukes book on the trial to see how the process worked.

Well he would say that, wouldn't he? Can't have people looking into his connectivity to the Met and certain high ranking officers implicated in cover-ups and general nefarious goings-on, now can we?

I haven't been able to read 'Beyond Contempt' yet...but will also read 'Hack Attack'...I haven't linked these in the 'new' place yet - any excuse

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/j ... CMP=twt_gu

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/ ... ick-davies

...and the Radio 4 Afternoon Play on the 10th of October is (as yet untitled, as far as I can see (or maybe I'm just being dim...and it's called '#hackingtrial'!)) about the hacking trial, with Neil Pearson as Peter Jukes

https://twitter.com/hashtag/hackingtrial?src=hash

...drip drip drip

[pk1]

This is why it's best to steer clear of anything on Cif that's infested by cybernats.

Mobysick
08 September 2014 11:03pm Recommend 30

That's Brown the mass kidnapper, mass torturer and mass murderer, if you please.

More nuts than the top of a Dundee cake.

Jesus !!

WTF are the mods ? I'm convinced they allow those threads to go unmoderated because they must be such a revenue gatherer but aren't they legally responsible for the stuff posted on their site ? Such a clear case of libel.

(Hope you're both ok today )

[pk1]

Sky news has been advertising the Scottish Referendum coverage with amusing videos.

The Poke has put them together into one single video:

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2014/09/07/the ... mix-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Enjoy

[pk1]

This is why it's best to steer clear of anything on Cif that's infested by cybernats.

Mobysick
08 September 2014 11:03pm Recommend 30

That's Brown the mass kidnapper, mass torturer and mass murderer, if you please.

More nuts than the top of a Dundee cake.

You know, that comment has made me so angry that I tracked it down (no mean feat with the Graun's nesting feature & crap IT !) and reported it with the following remark in the comments box:

Come on Mods - you must know this is libellous ? If you don't, perhaps you should be employed elsewhere !

Seriously, the Guardian is legally responsible for the comments it hosts on it's site - serves you right if you get sued !

If I get banned, well fuck 'em, I will do what the trolls do & re-register under a new identity.

[letsskiptotheleft]

I don't know who is more condescending Angus Robertson or Salmond, tough one to call?!

PMQs cancelled tomorrow, Cameron and Miliband flying up to Scotland, wish the desperation wasn't showing so obviously.

[letsskiptotheleft]

Sorry, not cancelled, stand ins instead, so I assume that is Clegg, such joy.

[refitman]

Sorry, not cancelled, stand ins instead, so I assume that is Clegg, such joy.

Nope, not Clegg. He's going north as party leader.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Sorry, not cancelled, stand ins instead, so I assume that is Clegg, such joy.

Clegg is going as well (to make sure Dave is kept topped up with coffee, I think).

[letsskiptotheleft]

Christ, do they really want to save the Union?

[AngryAsWell]

Speaking at the TUC's annual meeting, Carney said interest rates could start to climb from their record low of 0.5% next spring, while inflation-proof pay rises are not expected before next summer, at the earliest.

This man is not living in Osbourne's pocket? ha sure. Spring to him will be May 9th or 10th. /cynical head on/

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... rest-rates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PorFavor]

I don't know who is more condescending Angus Robertson or Salmond, tough one to call?!

PMQs cancelled tomorrow, Cameron and Miliband flying up to Scotland, wish the desperation wasn't showing so obviously.

Is David Cameron going to Scotland to point at things (a relatively safe option for him) or to shake hands with people? (The latter being not such a sure-fire bet?)

Either way, he'll surely undo any good that an impressive Gordon Brown may have done yesterday, although I can see that he'll (DC) want to share (or rather take total credit for) any good that he (GB) may have done. David Cameron's an idiot. He's stayed away to date (ie "leading" from behind) - he'd be well advised to keep it that way at this late stage of the proceedings if he truly wants a "No" outcome.


Good afternoon, everyone.

[HindleA]

Sorry, not cancelled, stand ins instead, so I assume that is Clegg, such joy.

Clegg is going as well (to make sure Dave is kept topped up with coffee, I think).

Apparently it's Hague versus Harman

[letsskiptotheleft]

Some things never change, the kids go back to school and we have a min heat-wave, I put a black top on and drop tooth-paste down my front, two days running now, and Hodges blames Labour for what is happening in Scotland.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Sorry, not cancelled, stand ins instead, so I assume that is Clegg, such joy.

Clegg is going as well (to make sure Dave is kept topped up with coffee, I think).

Apparently it's Hague versus Harman

A battle of wits between two unarmed opponents, should be scintillating stuff. Actually that is slightly unfair to Harriet, she should easily have the best of the encounter.

[Eric_WLothian]

In the beginning there was a suggestion of a 3 way vote (with Devomax). This was rejected in favour of just a yes and no (with the implication that a no vote was to continue as now). Now that the no camp are saying that a no vote devolves more powers how do you vote if you want things to stay the same?

I don't think that 'no' has ever meant that the status quo would continue. The Scotland Act 2012 (which predates the referendum question) is scheduled to be implemented next year, putting more taxation in the hands of the Scottish Parliament.

[PorFavor]

In the beginning there was a suggestion of a 3 way vote (with Devomax). This was rejected in favour of just a yes and no (with the implication that a no vote was to continue as now). Now that the no camp are saying that a no vote devolves more powers how do you vote if you want things to stay the same?

I don't think that 'no' has ever meant that the status quo would continue. The Scotland Act 2012 (which predates the referendum question) is scheduled to be implemented next year, putting more taxation in the hands of the Scottish Parliament.

Surely the taxation thing does come under the heading of "staying the same" - as in: things already in place\agreed upon would stay that way. Maybe that's a bit pedantic but that's how I see "staying the same".

[AnatolyKasparov]

My, admittedly cynical, view is that Cameron and Clegg are going to Scotland because they can't bear the thought of Labour (whether Brown or Miliband) getting credit for "saving" the union - and yes, I really do think they can be that petty minded

And no, the PM doesn't "secretly" want a yes vote - the thought of being "the man who lost the union" genuinely spooks him. Just a shame he has made himself so toxic, eh?

[ohsocynical]

Christ, do they really want to save the Union?

Well, if the Scots have any sense of right or wrong, they'll give Cleggy a hard time when he gets up to speak.

[ohsocynical]

And have some nice squishy tomatoes for Cameron.

[minch]

In the beginning there was a suggestion of a 3 way vote (with Devomax). This was rejected in favour of just a yes and no (with the implication that a no vote was to continue as now). Now that the no camp are saying that a no vote devolves more powers how do you vote if you want things to stay the same?

I don't think that 'no' has ever meant that the status quo would continue. The Scotland Act 2012 (which predates the referendum question) is scheduled to be implemented next year, putting more taxation in the hands of the Scottish Parliament.

Surely the taxation thing does come under the heading of "staying the same" - as in: things already in place\agreed upon would stay that way. Maybe that's a bit pedantic but that's how I see "staying the same".

snap - I was just going to say the same .
I think they are sailing very close to the wind with regard to making last minute proposals as I thought they were not allowed.

[PorFavor]

My, admittedly cynical, view is that Cameron and Clegg are going to Scotland because they can't bear the thought of Labour (whether Brown or Miliband) getting credit for "saving" the union - and yes, I really do think they can be that petty minded

And no, the PM doesn't "secretly" want a yes vote - the thought of being "the man who lost the union" genuinely spooks him. Just a shame he has made himself so toxic, eh?

I feel that he is quite torn on the issue. Hence the twitching about. I think his ideal scenario would be to lose Scotland whilst being able to blame someone else for the loss.

[JackPranker]

In the beginning there was a suggestion of a 3 way vote (with Devomax). This was rejected in favour of just a yes and no (with the implication that a no vote was to continue as now). Now that the no camp are saying that a no vote devolves more powers how do you vote if you want things to stay the same?

I don't think that 'no' has ever meant that the status quo would continue. The Scotland Act 2012 (which predates the referendum question) is scheduled to be implemented next year, putting more taxation in the hands of the Scottish Parliament.

Surely the taxation thing does come under the heading of "staying the same" - as in: things already in place\agreed upon would stay that way. Maybe that's a bit pedantic but that's how I see "staying the same".

With an admission the Barnett formula will almost certainly be adjusted or, indeed, removed.

I think the increased support for "Yes" can be attributed, in part, to the reality that the Scotland Act 2012's increased powers are not viewed as worth the paper they're printed on. The situation must be at tipping point as if all the powers being asked for are delivered then indepedence is gained in all but name.

[letsskiptotheleft]

Whatever I think of Cameron, and trust it isn't a bloody lot, **** all in-fact, I also don't think he wants to go down in history as the man who lost the union.

[Eric_WLothian]

In the beginning there was a suggestion of a 3 way vote (with Devomax). This was rejected in favour of just a yes and no (with the implication that a no vote was to continue as now). Now that the no camp are saying that a no vote devolves more powers how do you vote if you want things to stay the same?

I don't think that 'no' has ever meant that the status quo would continue. The Scotland Act 2012 (which predates the referendum question) is scheduled to be implemented next year, putting more taxation in the hands of the Scottish Parliament.

Surely the taxation thing does come under the heading of "staying the same" - as in: things already in place\agreed upon would stay that way. Maybe that's a bit pedantic but that's how I see "staying the same".

Interesting point. Does the term 'status quo' not imply the current (static) situation whereas 'staying the same' could imply the current (changing) situation of more powers in the future? Can the status quo be a dynamic situation?

Could this be a subject for an academic thesis?

[AnatolyKasparov]

My, admittedly cynical, view is that Cameron and Clegg are going to Scotland because they can't bear the thought of Labour (whether Brown or Miliband) getting credit for "saving" the union - and yes, I really do think they can be that petty minded

And no, the PM doesn't "secretly" want a yes vote - the thought of being "the man who lost the union" genuinely spooks him. Just a shame he has made himself so toxic, eh?

I feel that he is quite torn on the issue. Hence the twitching about. I think his ideal scenario would be to lose Scotland whilst being able to blame someone else for the loss.

I note that DFH is loyally doing his best on that front

(but he's still "tribally loyal" to Labour, you know!)

[Eric_WLothian]

I don't think that 'no' has ever meant that the status quo would continue. The Scotland Act 2012 (which predates the referendum question) is scheduled to be implemented next year, putting more taxation in the hands of the Scottish Parliament.

Surely the taxation thing does come under the heading of "staying the same" - as in: things already in place\agreed upon would stay that way. Maybe that's a bit pedantic but that's how I see "staying the same".

snap - I was just going to say the same .
I think they are sailing very close to the wind with regard to making last minute proposals as I thought they were not allowed.

The SNP were quoted on the news last night as saying that the latest proposals were just a reiteration of what had been said before - so they've presumably given up any chance of claiming foul-play under the 'purdah' rules.

[PorFavor]

I don't think that 'no' has ever meant that the status quo would continue. The Scotland Act 2012 (which predates the referendum question) is scheduled to be implemented next year, putting more taxation in the hands of the Scottish Parliament.

Surely the taxation thing does come under the heading of "staying the same" - as in: things already in place\agreed upon would stay that way. Maybe that's a bit pedantic but that's how I see "staying the same".

Interesting point. Does the term 'status quo' not imply the current (static) situation whereas 'staying the same' could imply the current (changing) situation of more powers in the future? Can the status quo be a dynamic situation?

Could this be a subject for an academic thesis?

Ha - good question!

[Tubby Isaacs]

What a farce.

Cameron had a nasty PMQs heading his way about Crosby.

Miliband ought to have turned up to the chamber and asked questions to an empty chair.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Apparently it's Hague versus Harman

A battle of wits between two unarmed opponents, should be scintillating stuff. Actually that is slightly unfair to Harriet, she should easily have the best of the encounter.

IIRC Hague has always been pretty good at the dispatch box - arguably it was the only thing he was ever good at, and basically the reason he was elected leader. To be fair, I've no idea if that still holds, and if his heart isn't in it, maybe he won't have the same sharpness.

It's a shame. I think now was the time for a more conciliatory and serious PMQs, but I dare say the SNP etc will be able to point to the same old party political punch and judy knockabout taking place back in Westminster.

As opposed to the 5th Century BC Athens that is the Scottish Parliament.

[Eric_WLothian]

My, admittedly cynical, view is that Cameron and Clegg are going to Scotland because they can't bear the thought of Labour (whether Brown or Miliband) getting credit for "saving" the union - and yes, I really do think they can be that petty minded

They have a 'previous conviction' - remember them blocking GB's IMF application?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Morning all. Labour lead at 5 points Yougov:

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 8th Sept -

Con 31%, (-2)
Lab 36%, (+1)
LD 8%, (+1)
UKIP 16%; (+1)

APP -27 (-6)

That pensions lark in the budget was a right gamechanger.
See also the EU veto, the return of growth etc.

[Tubby Isaacs]

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Say what you like about the Hitchingbrooke decision by Burnham, he did at least drive a reasonable bargain. Doesn't look like the easy money they thought.

Not to say it was right of course.

[minch]

Is it me or is this, from Clegg, just silly.

Q: Why is there not a Commons statement on the agreement offering Scotland more devolution?

Because that’s an agreement between three parties, he says. It is not a government announcement. That’s because the election purdah rules apply.

Q: So why didn’t you make an announcment before purdah was applied?

We did, says Clegg. It was in August.

So if they are the same then if an announcement was made in August why cannot a Commons statement be made now (as there would me nothing new)?
Or if they are different then the 2nd answer makes no sense.

[Temulkar]

Hmmm if Scotland votes yes, I think that means we might get the dragon back as a supporter on the rUK coat of arms. Just sayin' a dragon is waaay cooler than a unicorn.

[PorFavor]

Is it me or is this, from Clegg, just silly.

Q: Why is there not a Commons statement on the agreement offering Scotland more devolution?

Because that’s an agreement between three parties, he says. It is not a government announcement. That’s because the election purdah rules apply.

Q: So why didn’t you make an announcment before purdah was applied?

We did, says Clegg. It was in August.

So if they are the same then if an announcement was made in August why cannot a Commons statement be made now (as there would me nothing new)?
Or if they are different then the 2nd answer makes no sense.

Perhaps he's just referring to the "three-party agreement" bit? But I agree that there's nothing stopping the government from talking just about their own, previously announced one-party plans. Except they are no doubt aware that anything emanating from them is toxic and thus feel the need to dilute their input. (And Labour has different ideas about the measures to be taken in the event of a "No" vote so, in that sense, it isn't really a fully rounded agreement.)

[letsskiptotheleft]

Rather good this:

http://labourlist.org/2014/09/a-message ... icked-lie/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

True also.

[minch]

Is it me or is this, from Clegg, just silly.

Q: Why is there not a Commons statement on the agreement offering Scotland more devolution?

Because that’s an agreement between three parties, he says. It is not a government announcement. That’s because the election purdah rules apply.

Q: So why didn’t you make an announcment before purdah was applied?

We did, says Clegg. It was in August.

So if they are the same then if an announcement was made in August why cannot a Commons statement be made now (as there would me nothing new)?
Or if they are different then the 2nd answer makes no sense.

Perhaps he's just referring to the "three-party agreement" bit? But I agree that there's nothing stopping the government from talking just about their own, previously announced one-party plans. Except they are no doubt aware that anything emanating from them is toxic and thus feel the need to dilute their input. (And Labour has different ideas about the measures to be taken in the event of a "No" vote so, in that sense, it isn't really a fully rounded agreement.)

I suppose to be fair to Clegg as long as they made any announcement in August he wasn't lying in his answer!

[ohsocynical]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09 ... 90436.html

Dearie me nothing goes right for Dave, does it