Tuesday 9th September 2014
Posted: Tue 09 Sep, 2014 7:01 am
Morning all.
Sorry.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
MY EYES!rebeccariots2 wrote:
Sorry.
I know. And they've given Dave 'cleavage'. Can't see the sick emoticon or I would use it.Spacedone wrote:MY EYES!rebeccariots2 wrote:
Sorry.
'kin Ada...my eyes too (and surely his majority is so small as to be inverse? In that he hasn't got one?)Spacedone wrote:MY EYES!rebeccariots2 wrote:
Sorry.
More nuts than the top of a Dundee cake.Mobysick
08 September 2014 11:03pm Recommend 30
That's Brown the mass kidnapper, mass torturer and mass murderer, if you please.
It is NickyB I feel sorry for, waiting for the elusive Legendary Five.refitman wrote: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)
Our Dave has a fine pair of moobs.rebeccariots2 wrote:I know. And they've given Dave 'cleavage'. Can't see the sick emoticon or I would use it.Spacedone wrote:MY EYES!rebeccariots2 wrote:
Sorry.
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?RobertSnozers wrote: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.Lonewolfie wrote:'kin Ada...my eyes too (and surely his majority is so small as to be inverse? In that he hasn't got one?)Spacedone wrote: MY EYES!
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
Jesus !!yahyah wrote:This is why it's best to steer clear of anything on Cif that's infested by cybernats.
More nuts than the top of a Dundee cake.Mobysick
08 September 2014 11:03pm Recommend 30
That's Brown the mass kidnapper, mass torturer and mass murderer, if you please.
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:yahyah wrote:This is why it's best to steer clear of anything on Cif that's infested by cybernats.
More nuts than the top of a Dundee cake.Mobysick
08 September 2014 11:03pm Recommend 30
That's Brown the mass kidnapper, mass torturer and mass murderer, if you please.
If I get banned, well fuck 'em, I will do what the trolls do & re-register under a new identity.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 !
Nope, not Clegg. He's going north as party leader.letsskiptotheleft wrote: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 wrote:Sorry, not cancelled, stand ins instead, so I assume that is Clegg, such joy.
This man is not living in Osbourne's pocket? ha sure. Spring to him will be May 9th or 10th. /cynical head on/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.
letsskiptotheleft wrote: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.
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Clegg is going as well (to make sure Dave is kept topped up with coffee, I think).letsskiptotheleft wrote:Sorry, not cancelled, stand ins instead, so I assume that is Clegg, such joy.
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.HindleA wrote:TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Clegg is going as well (to make sure Dave is kept topped up with coffee, I think).letsskiptotheleft wrote:Sorry, not cancelled, stand ins instead, so I assume that is Clegg, such joy.
Apparently it's Hague versus Harman
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.minch wrote: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?
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".Eric_WLothian wrote: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.minch wrote: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?
Well, if the Scots have any sense of right or wrong, they'll give Cleggy a hard time when he gets up to speak.letsskiptotheleft wrote:Christ, do they really want to save the Union?
snap - I was just going to say the same .PorFavor wrote: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".Eric_WLothian wrote: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.minch wrote: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 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.AnatolyKasparov wrote: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?
With an admission the Barnett formula will almost certainly be adjusted or, indeed, removed.PorFavor wrote: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".Eric_WLothian wrote: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.minch wrote: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?
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?PorFavor wrote: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".Eric_WLothian wrote: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.minch wrote: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 note that DFH is loyally doing his best on that frontPorFavor wrote: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.AnatolyKasparov wrote: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?
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.minch wrote:snap - I was just going to say the same .PorFavor wrote: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".Eric_WLothian wrote: 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.
I think they are sailing very close to the wind with regard to making last minute proposals as I thought they were not allowed.
Eric_WLothian wrote: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?PorFavor wrote: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".Eric_WLothian wrote: 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.
Could this be a subject for an academic thesis?
As opposed to the 5th Century BC Athens that is the Scottish Parliament.RobertSnozers wrote: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.TheGrimSqueaker wrote: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.HindleA wrote:
Apparently it's Hague versus Harman
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.
They have a 'previous conviction' - remember them blocking GB's IMF application?AnatolyKasparov wrote: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
That pensions lark in the budget was a right gamechanger.refitman wrote: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)
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)?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.
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.)minch wrote:Is it me or is this, from Clegg, just silly.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)?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.
Or if they are different then the 2nd answer makes no sense.
I suppose to be fair to Clegg as long as they made any announcement in August he wasn't lying in his answer!PorFavor wrote: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.)minch wrote:Is it me or is this, from Clegg, just silly.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)?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.
Or if they are different then the 2nd answer makes no sense.