Fri 3rd, Sat 4th, Sun 5th & Mon 6th April - Easter edition

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 10:14 am

@ TechnicalEphemera

Hello.

What's FFA, please? I knew what it was yesterday but I'm having a Natalie Bennett at present. I've only had one cup of tea, mind.

(I have tried to look it up, before you castigate me for bone-idleness, but I can't find anything.)

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 10:15 am

Shameless Clegg is now condemning the 'deeply dangerous' man he has helped for the last five years.

If he is that worried why not say now that the Liberals will not go into coalition with this reckless, dangerous extremist?

That would be 'doing all he can to stop' Osborne. What he really means, I suppose, is doing all he can to stop him right up to the doors of the Yes lobby.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 10:17 am

Can someone ask Clegg if he will support Osborne's budget in government? Or not? Simple enough question.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 10:20 am

Happy birthday yahyah & Mr Riots

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 10:27 am

Aftermorneveninoon!

Blimey - it's been busy in here the past few days

...let me see if I've got this right...SNP/Sturgeon (Green/Plaid/UKIP)

'We're breaking 'the 2 party Westmonster system'...umm...the coalition is 2 parties and Labour are a party...my adding up makes that 3 parties (but what do I know!)

The Torygraph says "you want Cameron for PM and don't think Milibands 'up to it'"...

the response is..."Show me where I said that" not "as I've said many times, we are focused on removing the Tories"

...but - in terms of shiny squirrels (no mention of the various 'reform in chaos' reports (Universal Credit/Victorian poverty levels etc) this has to be the biggest and shiniest yet...I can only assume they have (very much along the lines of The Valleys in the '70s', for fly halves) a factory for 'Shiny Squirrels' somewhere in the Home Counties and it's received some funding (probably from the EUSSR) for expansion

I know I live in Hope (just north of Peterborough, now less than a month from Landslide and in very bright sunshine) but even the combined efforts of Uncle Rupert (we (Murkydochia) love the SNP/Greens/UKIP/Conservatives and Milibands' WEAK, I tell you) and the Torygraph (look, look - a leaked document showing EVERYONE loves Dave really) will not be able to hold the line for the next 30 days. The sheer scale of 'doublethink' required to swallow the Crosby-Coulson Conservative Crapola will trouble even the most hard of thinking.

Joey Essex vs Russell Brand

Difficult really - this is the Joey Essex who (on one of the C4 panel shows) took some pride in the jokes made at his expense that he (as a 20-something modern Briton) was unable to tell the time on a clock or watch (either unbelievably dim or a b****y good actor!)...yet he seems personable and people genuinely seem to warm to him - so, good on him for getting involved.
I've offered support for Brand on here (and elsewhere) before, but I'm now starting to get a bit tired of the lack of actual thinking he seems to do (and apparently, he's the 4th most influential 'thinker' in the world - http://rt.com/uk/244225-brand-influenti ... ker-voted/ - just another establishment lackey? Pobably not, but easy to see how he could be). Yet...his original point (vs Paxo (Oxford/British American Project/possible K & C PPC/possible Tory successor to BoJo)) was (I believe(TM)) both valid and correct...but if he knew/knows, he's refusing to say. It is perfectly reasonable to hold the view that in Britain, in the vast majority of cases, your vote is pointless. To have that area of discussion shut down so successfully (thereby shutting down further discussions about how the system actually works, how unrepresentative it is and how it's been manipulated and corrupted) can only aid the Establishment.

OK....takes well-worn tin-foil hat from it's hiding place, settles on head to combat the worst effects of the Murkydochian Mist...

It's been a recurring theme of mine that there is indeed an international conspiracy afoot, at the very top of society. I've opined here about the Bilderbergers (I say again - if they have nothing to hide, why are Government Miniatures funded by the public purse to attend, and yet can state, in Parliament, that they are 'private' meetings?), the destruction of public services and support for the vulnerable in Canada and that that 'policy' links to the banking system/economy reformed by Mark Carney (as a 'dry run' to practice for the changes required in the British system), and many other aspects, up to and including CSA.

http://opdeatheaterscd.tumblr.com/

In light of the recent wave of attacks against the #OpDeathEaters Canada twitter accounts, and the #OpDeathEaters tag, we have written up the following statement, and reassure our comrades and enemies that a mere suspension will not end our work on #OpDeathEaters. The paradigm Canada employs for its Child Welfare Services treats children as if they are commodities, filling gaps in order to get more government funding. The less children there are in the Child Welfare System, the less funding that is allocated to organizations offering services to protect those children, turning the mandate on its head, turning children into the prey they sought to protect, allowing pedosadist activity to flourish.

Vulnerable people, the unemployed, poor, sick and disabled are referred to by Flawed Fraud as 'stock'...the Maximarse/ATOS/ tick box assessment culture is very much based around passing public service roles (protection of the citizens of the nation), under the radar, to multi-national corporations hiding behind 'commercial in confidence' agreements. Vulnerable Childrens Services South-West? Virgin? Really?...and there are many cases (and the number is increasing) of children taken by Child Protection Services in dubious circumstances....but how will we (the people) know, if looking after vulnerable children is an activity that is cloaked in mystery and information is actively hidden? (Commercial in confidence again)

I've said it before (and will continue to do so until it is disproved) that the start of this type of 'sleight of hand' governance was introduced in around 1981, when Murdoch/Goldsmith (Jimmy - one of Thatchers' 'close advisors and confidantes')/Ray-guns started the 'Successor Generation' and began the slow process of combatting adverse European public opinion by rendering it meaningless (public opinion, that is) - for example, we're all told to be worried about 'Yurrrp'....yet 56% in the last poll (months ago - due to its result, never repeated) stated solid support for remaining in Europe/reforming the Utilities would lead to 'better, more efficient, cheaper service'...none of which is true and polls consistently show 60%+ of British citizens opposed to the privatisation agenda and yet they continue...why? Because it strengthens 'the few' in their battle to control all production, money and the means of reporting 'news'.

Have realised (following a rather withering look from Mrs Wolfie) that I'm now behind time, and that I've rambled on (possibly incoherently) - so the usual apologies apply (for bringing up CSA early in the day/for rambling incoherently etc)

TTFN (and Hippo Birdies to all celebrating birthdays

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 10:28 am

PorFavor wrote:@ TechnicalEphemera

Hello.

What's FFA, please? I knew what it was yesterday but I'm having a Natalie Bennett at present. I've only had one cup of tea, mind.

(I have tried to look it up, before you castigate me for bone-idleness, but I can't find anything.)

Full Fiscal Autonomy although I'm not so sure just how much they want that now that the price of oil has plummeted.....

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 10:30 am

when I have my next birthday, I now have two present requests:

- a rogue list
- a hippo birdy

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 10:50 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Stunningly naive piece by the execrable Zoe Williams on today's Graun. Why would she,and others purportedly of the left, think the SNP has any interest in a successful United Kingdom government of the left?

Might I suggest also that the likes of Ms Williams has the financial security that cushions her from the effects of a tory govt or s that just being too cynical by far....

I note she still spoke of a leak from the Foreign Office despite it being confirmed that the leak came from the Scottish Office.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 10:54 am

yahyah wrote:Morning, another lovely sunny one here.

Please have a share of my birthday cake - am 59 years old today and don't feel a day over 58.
Am convinced my 60th next year will be celebrated with Ed as PM.

Many happy returns, yahyah.

59 is good. I've been trying it out for a few months and I rather like it.

Cake is better than good.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 10:57 am

pk1 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Stunningly naive piece by the execrable Zoe Williams on today's Graun. Why would she,and others purportedly of the left, think the SNP has any interest in a successful United Kingdom government of the left?
Might I suggest also that the likes of Ms Williams has the financial security that cushions her from the effects of a tory govt or s that just being too cynical by far....

I note she still spoke of a leak from the Foreign Office despite it being confirmed that the leak came from the Scottish Office.

Yes - they surely must know by now that that's incorrect (not least because you've told them). It makes me wonder if they have a motive for persisting in giving out that particular piece of misinformation.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 10:57 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Happy Birthday yahyah - and may your dreams come true.

(PS - you and Mr Riots share a birthday - not sure if that will please you or not!)

Happy birthday Mr.Riots.

I trust you will be cooking the birthday meal, RR.

Mr.R's last outing as reported here was a riot in itself........

Post by **refitman** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 10:59 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:
Spacedone wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

AS is reporting a Tory PPC defection to UKIP in Hull.

Nigel Farage ✔ @Nigel_Farage
Follow
Just spoken to Tory parliamentary candidate for Hull West and Hessle, Mike Whitehead, who has now left the Conservatives and joined UKIP!

Nominations close on Thursday...

Edit
Happy Birthday yahyah! and Mr RR too...
What's the point? Electoral Calculus have that seat as an 88% chance of being Labour and predict Labour will get 46.6% of the vote. Unless they know something we don't he's just swapped a party with little chance for another party with little chance... unless of course the plan is to get all the Tory vote to swing behind UKIP?
The Tories are now saying they sacked him last week.

Interesting that wikipedia was changed to remove him as a Tory candidate three hours before the announcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =654758023

Looks like the wheels are falling off Farage's announcement already. PA have an email from CCHQ to Whitehead from Friday:

The Conservative Party has forwarded the Press Association a copy of an email it says was sent to defecting candidate Mike Whitehead on Friday.

It is from Conservative nominating officer Alan Mabbutt and bears Friday’s date.

He begins by repeating a response to a previous email from Mr Whitehead in which he confirmed his intention to stand for the party in Hull West and Hessle.

It reads: “As you have stated that you intend to stand in the local election, despite not having been selected for the party, and despite Mrs Clarke asking you to agree to support whoever is properly selected by the association to fight the Willerby and Kirkella ward, I am forced to act to protect the party by refusing to agree to you being nominated to represent the Conservative party at the 2015 general election as candidate for Hull West and Hessle.”

(Via AS Blog)

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 11:02 am

PorFavor wrote:
pk1 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Stunningly naive piece by the execrable Zoe Williams on today's Graun. Why would she,and others purportedly of the left, think the SNP has any interest in a successful United Kingdom government of the left?
Might I suggest also that the likes of Ms Williams has the financial security that cushions her from the effects of a tory govt or s that just being too cynical by far....

I note she still spoke of a leak from the Foreign Office despite it being confirmed that the leak came from the Scottish Office.
Yes - they surely must know by now that that's incorrect (not least because you've told them). It makes me wonder if they have a motive for persisting in giving out that particular piece of misinformation.

Occams Razor - no motive, just very lazy journalism. Zoe is, probably, one of the few half decent writers left on the Guardian but that piece reads like it was (as they say) dialled in, and that seems to have been a trend of late; I think pk1 has hit it on the head, Zoe is very comfortable thangyewsomuch, so why should she do anything to rock the boat.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 11:06 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Stunningly naive piece by the execrable Zoe Williams on today's Graun. Why would she,and others purportedly of the left, think the SNP has any interest in a successful United Kingdom government of the left?

I don't believe Sturgeon has the slightest interest in a bigger UK picture. But then, I think it's far more naive that the Telegraph - which had been rightly savaged for its editorial decisions and money-based journalism - suddenly became a trusted source because people liked the story in it. That story is most important as a piece of narrative management.

And that's (one of two reasons) why I think you've taken exception to Zoe's article. Firstly, she's argued against the "it doesn't matter if it's a true story because the narrative tells us something honest" line which I saw you make yesterday. It does matter if the story's true, because it's that story that's being used to give credence to an opinion about her. Secondly, the whole article is about challenging the massaged narratives of elections - that leaders who know they'll lose seats can't admit they'll lose them and that evidence of many kinds of self-awareness are verboten in an election. Which is bafflingly and depressingly true. Now Hugo, you to your credit like to challenge the SNP narrative, but you are loath to see your own electoral narratives challenged.

I detest Sturgeon and the SNP, and I don't for one second think they offer any opportunity for better politics on either side of the border. But Williams is spot on about how the (pseudo) story has been conveniently misused, mis-argued and how broken political narrative-making is. The only shame is she gives credit to someone like Sturgeon who is involved in breaking politics - but Sturgeon's not to blame for the convenient fictions that have been authored using her in the Telegraph and by those who want the stories to be true.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 11:11 am

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Stunningly naive piece by the execrable Zoe Williams on today's Graun. Why would she,and others purportedly of the left, think the SNP has any interest in a successful United Kingdom government of the left?
I don't believe Sturgeon has the slightest interest in a bigger UK picture. But then, I think it's far more naive that the Telegraph - which had been rightly savaged for its editorial decisions and money-based journalism - suddenly became a trusted source because people liked the story in it. That story is most important as a piece of narrative management.

And that's (one of two reasons) why I think you've taken exception to Zoe's article. Firstly, she's argued against the "it doesn't matter if it's a true story because the narrative tells us something honest" line which I saw you make yesterday. It does matter if the story's true, because it's that story that's being used to give credence to an opinion about her. Secondly, the whole article is about challenging the massaged narratives of elections - that leaders who know they'll lose seats can't admit they'll lose them and that evidence of many kinds of self-awareness are verboten in an election. Which is bafflingly and depressingly true. Now Hugo, you to your credit like to challenge the SNP
narrative, but you are loath to see your own electoral narratives challenged.

I detest Sturgeon and the SNP, and I don't for one second think they offer any opportunity for better politics on either side of the border. But Williams is spot on about how the (pseudo) story has been conveniently misused, mis-argued and how broken political narrative-making is. The only shame is she gives credit to someone like Sturgeon who is involved in breaking politics - but Sturgeon's not to blame for the convenient fictions that have been authored using her in the Telegraph and by those who want the stories to be true.

I've been waiting for you to show up!

My daughter spotted your avatar thingy the other day and asked me to say "Kingdom of Loathing" to you. Means nothing to me. Nevertheless, I mention it as requested.

giselle97 · Post by **giselle97** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 11:25 am

Happy Birthday Yahyah and Mr RR2 - and many more of them.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 11:30 am

Hello all.

Thanks for the comments about Immigration re- the O'Brien/telly thing. I've not replied, but I have been lurking and thinking over the last few days and appreciated the comments people left. I knew I wasn't going to get to say much, so it was as much making sure I had some perspectives and lots of stuff in my head in the hope that when I opened my face something useful might come out.

And yesterday, I was over in MediaCity (which is impossible not to read more accurately as MendaCity) doing filming. Which is how I ended up sat on a couch between Christine Hamilton and Jim Davidson (for once in my life I could say with absolute accuracy that I was to the right of Jim Davidson). And we did the recording and it was shallow and fun. I had to explain (off camera) to Christine Hamilton that no, Jim hadn't been a drug "pusher" (her words) in the 70s, he'd been a drug runner, which is rather different. I was then introduced to Nadine Dorries. It was, as I say, a very amusing day. Davidson is not quite as you'd imagine while being exactly as you'd imagine. Hamilton radiated a very strange kind of brittleness.

It was a strange day. No one got to say much in the show but I had a quick rant about two big anti-immigration myths (that the island is full and why there isn't any infrastructure). If anyone wants to watch it (it's an ITV Kilroy knock-off) then I think it's being aired tomorrow around 1. I didn't say anything on the Legal High part (they ran out of time) but then, that had been needlessly emotive and sidetracked by nonsense, so I think I was well out of it.

Right. I'm going to shovel chocolate down my neck and nod off in the sun. Because I need a break. Thanks again for the comments on Thursday night and since...

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 11:32 am

PorFavor wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Stunningly naive piece by the execrable Zoe Williams on today's Graun. Why would she,and others purportedly of the left, think the SNP has any interest in a successful United Kingdom government of the left?
I don't believe Sturgeon has the slightest interest in a bigger UK picture. But then, I think it's far more naive that the Telegraph - which had been rightly savaged for its editorial decisions and money-based journalism - suddenly became a trusted source because people liked the story in it. That story is most important as a piece of narrative management.

And that's (one of two reasons) why I think you've taken exception to Zoe's article. Firstly, she's argued against the "it doesn't matter if it's a true story because the narrative tells us something honest" line which I saw you make yesterday. It does matter if the story's true, because it's that story that's being used to give credence to an opinion about her. Secondly, the whole article is about challenging the massaged narratives of elections - that leaders who know they'll lose seats can't admit they'll lose them and that evidence of many kinds of self-awareness are verboten in an election. Which is bafflingly and depressingly true. Now Hugo, you to your credit like to challenge the SNP
narrative, but you are loath to see your own electoral narratives challenged.

I detest Sturgeon and the SNP, and I don't for one second think they offer any opportunity for better politics on either side of the border. But Williams is spot on about how the (pseudo) story has been conveniently misused, mis-argued and how broken political narrative-making is. The only shame is she gives credit to someone like Sturgeon who is involved in breaking politics - but Sturgeon's not to blame for the convenient fictions that have been authored using her in the Telegraph and by those who want the stories to be true.
I've been waiting for you to show up!

My daughter spotted your avatar thingy the other day and asked me to say "Kingdom of Loathing" to you. Means nothing to me. Nevertheless, I mention it as requested.

Kingdom of Loathing is a brilliant little game that gently mocks lots of other games - the avatar's the spiky-haired protagonist with a big sword which is a reference to hundreds of Japanese videogames of a type I love. I used to play it years ago; also, I couldn't compress my monkey picture enough to get it loaded on the site here, hence a different cartoon bit of self-mockery.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 11:36 am

Whilst the Guardian (Election Blog) makes no specific reference to the Scottish Office in today's Nicola Sturgeon saga instalment, they do quote Alistair Carmichael and refer to him as the the Scottish Secretary. So they've finally caught up with events (albeit a bit through the back door - ie they haven't acknowledged their previous errors). Progress of a sort.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 11:56 am

PorFavor wrote:Whilst the Guardian (Election Blog) makes no specific reference to the Scottish Office in today's Nicola Sturgeon saga instalment, they do quote Alistair Carmichael and refer to him as the the Scottish Secretary. So they've finally caught up with events (albeit a bit through the back door - ie they haven't acknowledged their previous errors). Progress of a sort.

Probably worth a reasoned summary as to where this has finished.

- The meeting happened, the subject was discussed.
- The memo is genuine and originated from a branch of UK government.
- The UK Civil Service have not claimed any irregularity in its content. So it does say what is claimed.
- It was probably leaked by the Lib Dems.
- The denials are strong from Sturgeon, but very equivocal from the French.
- given the provenance of the letter, trained diplomatic civil servants on both sides of the channel the odds of the note being a true reflection of the conversation must be upwards of 90%.

So Nicola Sturgeon-Clegg it is, and the public will get fooled again.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:03 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Whilst the Guardian (Election Blog) makes no specific reference to the Scottish Office in today's Nicola Sturgeon saga instalment, they do quote Alistair Carmichael and refer to him as the the Scottish Secretary. So they've finally caught up with events (albeit a bit through the back door - ie they haven't acknowledged their previous errors). Progress of a sort.
Probably worth a reasoned summary as to where this has finished.

- The meeting happened, the subject was discussed.
- The memo is genuine and originated from a branch of UK government.
- The UK Civil Service have not claimed any irregularity in its content. So it does say what is claimed.
- It was probably leaked by the Lib Dems.
- The denials are strong from Sturgeon, but very equivocal from the French.
- given the provenance of the letter, trained diplomatic civil servants on both sides of the channel the odds of the note being a true reflection of the conversation must be upwards of 90%.

So Nicola Sturgeon-Clegg it is, and the public will get fooled again.

Why do you say that the denials from the French are "very equivocal", please? What am I missing?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:06 pm

BBC:

Posters stolen
Posted at 11:35
Conservative candidate for Great Yarmouth Brandon Lewis says he has reported the "theft and vandalism" of his campaign posters to the police. On Twitter, the housing minister said: "Sad to see opponents in #GreatYarmouth resorting to poster theft & vandalism. Says much about them. Reported to police due to scale."

Going to the police over damage to their posters seems to be something they are keen to do. Last week our local paper reported a man was kept in the cells overnight & charged with criminal damage for defacing a tory poster.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/12865807 ... on_poster/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Everybody knows our police have nothing better to do than round up anti-tory poster defacers........

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:08 pm

pk1 wrote:BBC:

Posters stolen
Posted at 11:35
Conservative candidate for Great Yarmouth Brandon Lewis says he has reported the "theft and vandalism" of his campaign posters to the police. On Twitter, the housing minister said: "Sad to see opponents in #GreatYarmouth resorting to poster theft & vandalism. Says much about them. Reported to police due to scale."
Going to the police over damage to their posters seems to be something they are keen to do. Last week our local paper reported a man was kept in the cells overnight & charged with criminal damage for defacing a tory poster.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/12865807 ... on_poster/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Everybody knows our police have nothing better to do than round up anti-tory poster defacers........

Who can we get arrested for defacing our neighbourhoods with insulting nonsense in poster form?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:15 pm

@ pk1

These posters might be ripe for a bit of a make-over, too -

Complaints after Caroline Dinenage campaign posters appear at former army site (News)

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/ ... -1-6674217

Feathers have been ruffled (understandable when you look at the 'photos) and those feathers do not, at first glance, seem to be attached to the usual suspects in this safe Conservative seat.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:34 pm

yahyah wrote:Morning, another lovely sunny one here.

Please have a share of my birthday cake - am 59 years old today and don't feel a day over 58.
Am convinced my 60th next year will be celebrated with Ed as PM.

Many happy returns, and have a lovely day.

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:34 pm

Defaced election posters are one of the small joys of election period. Always fun seeing what the local wits can come up with to undermine the message.

That said my favourite defaced poster ever wasn't an election poster, it was a poster featuring a huge pig that was put up a few hundred yards away from Sheffield Wednesday's football ground. Historically Sheffield Wednesday and Sheffield United fans refer to each others teams as "The Pigs" so as soon as that poster went up someone painted the United red and white stripes on it.

You've not lived until you've seen an entire busload of people, driver included, spontaneously burst out laughing at the sight of it.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:35 pm

PorFavor wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Whilst the Guardian (Election Blog) makes no specific reference to the Scottish Office in today's Nicola Sturgeon saga instalment, they do quote Alistair Carmichael and refer to him as the the Scottish Secretary. So they've finally caught up with events (albeit a bit through the back door - ie they haven't acknowledged their previous errors). Progress of a sort.
Probably worth a reasoned summary as to where this has finished.

- The meeting happened, the subject was discussed.
- The memo is genuine and originated from a branch of UK government.
- The UK Civil Service have not claimed any irregularity in its content. So it does say what is claimed.
- It was probably leaked by the Lib Dems.
- The denials are strong from Sturgeon, but very equivocal from the French.
- given the provenance of the letter, trained diplomatic civil servants on both sides of the channel the odds of the note being a true reflection of the conversation must be upwards of 90%.

So Nicola Sturgeon-Clegg it is, and the public will get fooled again.
Why do you say that the denials from the French are "very equivocal", please? What am I missing?

A spokesman for the French Ambassador has told ITV News that the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon did not ''touch on her personal political preferences with regards to the future Prime Minister'' during a meeting in February.

(My bold)
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-04- ... reference/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although she may not have expressed a personal choice, she may have mentioned which outcome would suit the SNP's independence agenda better. In other words the French denial is very specific, to the point it still allows the gist of the memo to be correct. Not that it proves anything one way or the other. The thing I come back to is why so many Scottish voters are convinced the SNP will be more left-wing in Westminster than Labour. I'm not sure their voting record there supports this. But then again, Scottish voters might not be as left-wing as we are led to believe anyway, in which case it's just the ones the SNP are poaching from Labour that are in danger of being taken for a ride:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... ink-it-is/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:36 pm

Hahahahahahahahahhaha, the Scum & Charlie Elphick whinging about political impartiality !!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:41 pm

mikems wrote:Shameless Clegg is now condemning the 'deeply dangerous' man he has helped for the last five years.

If he is that worried why not say now that the Liberals will not go into coalition with this reckless, dangerous extremist?

That would be 'doing all he can to stop' Osborne. What he really means, I suppose, is doing all he can to stop him right up to the doors of the Yes lobby.

I'm reminded of five years ago when Clegg was overheard saying to Cameron, We'll have to be careful, there won't be anything left to disagree about --- or words to that effect.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:43 pm

@RebeccaRiots

And a very happy birthday to our Mr Riots...

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:52 pm

pk1 wrote:Hahahahahahahahahhaha, the Scum & Charlie Elphick whinging about political impartiality !!

Elphicke's a pillock - he's the one always banging on about the apparently left leaning thinktanks being granted charitable status...while completely ignoring the ones like Policy Exchange which has an open door into the Tory party and the DfE.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:55 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Although she may not have expressed a personal choice, she may have mentioned which outcome would suit the SNP's independence agenda better. In other words the French denial is very specific, to the point it still allows the gist of the memo to be correct. Not that it proves anything one way or the other. The thing I come back to is why so many Scottish voters are convinced the SNP will be more left-wing in Westminster than Labour. I'm not sure their voting record there supports this. But then again, Scottish voters might not be as left-wing as we are led to believe anyway, in which case it's just the ones the SNP are poaching from Labour that are in danger of being taken for a ride:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... ink-it-is/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is exactly the thing. Why not attack the SNP on their record? Why not say, "honestly, all this newspaper speculation is irrelevant. Let's just look at what the SNP's record tells us about the difference between what they say and what they do." We know what the SNP are like. I don't care what a says b said to c that was overheard by d and then written by e and then edited by e and then squabbled about by thnikpiece writers f and g and then jumped on by commenters h through z. Let's differentiate between opinion and argument and have a campaign about what we know, not which stories most fit our version of a truth we can't know.

Equally, the endless, "this party are going to with this party." "No we're not. And anyway, you haven't ruled out going to bed with that party," is so facile, I'm sick of it. And parties who say, "we're not speculating on that, really," are just as guilty of then speculating about what the other lot might do. If the ambition is to make everyone look as grubby and unworthy of voting for, it's not so much a success for politics as a very cynical pyrrhic victory.

It's almost as if there's a campaign to be fought on policies and records that most people involved in devising or reporting the campaign have no interest in having.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:55 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Stunningly naive piece by the execrable Zoe Williams on today's Graun. Why would she,and others purportedly of the left, think the SNP has any interest in a successful United Kingdom government of the left?
I don't believe Sturgeon has the slightest interest in a bigger UK picture. But then, I think it's far more naive that the Telegraph - which had been rightly savaged for its editorial decisions and money-based journalism - suddenly became a trusted source because people liked the story in it. That story is most important as a piece of narrative management.

And that's (one of two reasons) why I think you've taken exception to Zoe's article. Firstly, she's argued against the "it doesn't matter if it's a true story because the narrative tells us something honest" line which I saw you make yesterday. It does matter if the story's true, because it's that story that's being used to give credence to an opinion about her. Secondly, the whole article is about challenging the massaged narratives of elections - that leaders who know they'll lose seats can't admit they'll lose them and that evidence of many kinds of self-awareness are verboten in an election. Which is bafflingly and depressingly true. Now Hugo, you to your credit like to challenge the SNP narrative, but you are loath to see your own electoral narratives challenged.

I detest Sturgeon and the SNP, and I don't for one second think they offer any opportunity for better politics on either side of the border. But Williams is spot on about how the (pseudo) story has been conveniently misused, mis-argued and how broken political narrative-making is. The only shame is she gives credit to someone like Sturgeon who is involved in breaking politics - but Sturgeon's not to blame for the convenient fictions that have been authored using her in the Telegraph and by those who want the stories to be true.

Of course it matters a bit whether the memo is real or not. Just not very much in relative terms. What matters far far more is that the sentiments expressed are without doubt true.

Williams represents for me all that is worst about the Grain.

First she is a truly awful writer. A high percentage of pieces have NP discernible argument, just being quickly written mood music pieces for the unthinking to nod along to.

Second, like John Harris (author of the anti-Labour Who Do I Vote for Now) she is a representative of the sentimental left, unwilling to acct the compromises being in power brings.

She is a Green voter.

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:56 pm

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 15 mins15 minutes ago
In terms of winning most seats gains from CON count for double for LAB compared with gains from other parties. Many haven't twigged that yet

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 1 min1 minute ago
In terms of CON winning most seats every ONE loss to LAB will have to be offset by TWO gains from other parties

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 12:57 pm

Willow904 wrote:
A spokesman for the French Ambassador has told ITV News that the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon did not ''touch on her personal political preferences with regards to the future Prime Minister'' during a meeting in February.
(My bold)
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-04- ... reference/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although she may not have expressed a personal choice, she may have mentioned which outcome would suit the SNP's independence agenda better. In other words the French denial is very specific, to the point it still allows the gist of the memo to be correct. Not that it proves anything one way or the other. The thing I come back to is why so many Scottish voters are convinced the SNP will be more left-wing in Westminster than Labour. I'm not sure their voting record there supports this. But then again, Scottish voters might not be as left-wing as we are led to believe anyway, in which case it's just the ones the SNP are poaching from Labour that are in danger of being taken for a ride:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... ink-it-is/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With reference to the bit of your post that I have bolded -

As Ed Miliband pointed out during the 7-way thing when he referred to the SNP MPs not having turned up for the Bedroom Tax vote.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 1:01 pm

Spacedone wrote:
Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 15 mins15 minutes ago
In terms of winning most seats gains from CON count for double for LAB compared with gains from other parties. Many haven't twigged that yet

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 1 min1 minute ago
In terms of CON winning most seats every ONE loss to LAB will have to be offset by TWO gains from other parties

Please will you deconstruct that into simple terms for me ?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 1:06 pm

SH is basically correct.

The ones in the left-liberal chatterati ululating over Sturgeon/the SNP now are generally the same ones who were swept away by "Cleggmania" five years ago. They have learned nothing.

I don't think Harris is as bad as Williams generally tbf - and he is a better writer - but he has had some awful moments (cherry picking ONE YouGov subsample to "prove" that all young people were selfish Thatcherite hedonists being amongst the most egregious) And you get the feeling any praise for Labour/Ed is through gritted teeth

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 1:09 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:SH is basically correct.

The ones in the left-liberal chatterati ululating over Sturgeon/the SNP now are generally the same ones who were swept away by "Cleggmania" five years ago. They have learned nothing.

As I proposed from my position of total ignorance yesterday.
Any chance of a showing off icon, for rare moments such as this?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 1:10 pm

Today's Monday, so it must be south west London . . . .

Nick Clegg heckled in south-west London (Guardian)

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 1:11 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Stunningly naive piece by the execrable Zoe Williams on today's Graun. Why would she,and others purportedly of the left, think the SNP has any interest in a successful United Kingdom government of the left?
I don't believe Sturgeon has the slightest interest in a bigger UK picture. But then, I think it's far more naive that the Telegraph - which had been rightly savaged for its editorial decisions and money-based journalism - suddenly became a trusted source because people liked the story in it. That story is most important as a piece of narrative management.

And that's (one of two reasons) why I think you've taken exception to Zoe's article. Firstly, she's argued against the "it doesn't matter if it's a true story because the narrative tells us something honest" line which I saw you make yesterday. It does matter if the story's true, because it's that story that's being used to give credence to an opinion about her. Secondly, the whole article is about challenging the massaged narratives of elections - that leaders who know they'll lose seats can't admit they'll lose them and that evidence of many kinds of self-awareness are verboten in an election. Which is bafflingly and depressingly true. Now Hugo, you to your credit like to challenge the SNP narrative, but you are loath to see your own electoral narratives challenged.

I detest Sturgeon and the SNP, and I don't for one second think they offer any opportunity for better politics on either side of the border. But Williams is spot on about how the (pseudo) story has been conveniently misused, mis-argued and how broken political narrative-making is. The only shame is she gives credit to someone like Sturgeon who is involved in breaking politics - but Sturgeon's not to blame for the convenient fictions that have been authored using her in the Telegraph and by those who want the stories to be true.

Of course it matters a bit whether the memo is real or not. Just not very much in relative terms. What matters far far more is that the sentiments expressed are without doubt true.

Williams represents for me all that is worst about the Grain.

First she is a truly awful writer. A high percentage of pieces have NP discernible argument, just being quickly written mood music pieces for the unthinking to nod along to.

Second, like John Harris (author of the anti-Labour Who Do I Vote for Now) she is a representative of the sentimental left, unwilling to acct the compromises being in power brings.

She is a Green voter.

I know you're no fan of her writing (a matter of opinion), her opinions (she's a paid columnist; some are better or worse than others) and you are rather patronising about the value of mood pieces (they have their place; it's no worse than a mood opinion discounting the factual accuracy of a story simply because it fits your own mood).

What baffles me is why you imagine some more over-familiar anti-Williams ad hominem would make any difference? The arguments are (a) the Sturgeon story is more about what can be done with it than whether there's any truth in it; (b) trying to say the truth of it is irrelevant is at best dangerous. If newspapers simply have to print their opinion as stories and the inaccuracy doesn't matter because it's really what they think, we're doomed; (c) is your problem with her the fact she often writes pieces that challenge your own preferred narrative as much as a matter of personal taste?

You love taking apart others' narratives with your own; you've always been far more defensive of your own narrative than you allow others to be over theirs...

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 1:11 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
Although she may not have expressed a personal choice, she may have mentioned which outcome would suit the SNP's independence agenda better. In other words the French denial is very specific, to the point it still allows the gist of the memo to be correct. Not that it proves anything one way or the other. The thing I come back to is why so many Scottish voters are convinced the SNP will be more left-wing in Westminster than Labour. I'm not sure their voting record there supports this. But then again, Scottish voters might not be as left-wing as we are led to believe anyway, in which case it's just the ones the SNP are poaching from Labour that are in danger of being taken for a ride:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... ink-it-is/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is exactly the thing. Why not attack the SNP on their record? Why not say, "honestly, all this newspaper speculation is irrelevant. Let's just look at what the SNP's record tells us about the difference between what they say and what they do." We know what the SNP are like. I don't care what a says b said to c that was overheard by d and then written by e and then edited by e and then squabbled about by thnikpiece writers f and g and then jumped on by commenters h through z. Let's differentiate between opinion and argument and have a campaign about what we know, not which stories most fit our version of a truth we can't know.

Equally, the endless, "this party are going to with this party." "No we're not. And anyway, you haven't ruled out going to bed with that party," is so facile, I'm sick of it. And parties who say, "we're not speculating on that, really," are just as guilty of then speculating about what the other lot might do. If the ambition is to make everyone look as grubby and unworthy of voting for, it's not so much a success for politics as a very cynical pyrrhic victory.

It's almost as if there's a campaign to be fought on policies and records that most people involved in devising or reporting the campaign have no interest in having.

The Labour Party are attacking the SNP on issues and their record. However the SNP pitch is we are left wing, Labour are red Tories and - bizarrely- the only way to get a Labour government you want is to vote SNP. Under these circumstances pointing out that the SNP would prefer to have a Tory government is critical to countering that argument. I would think their record on centralisation, big brother government and privatisation of NHS Scotland will also be used. Plus that lovely quote saying they weren't opposed to the privatisation of NHS England.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 1:14 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:SH is basically correct.

The ones in the left-liberal chatterati ululating over Sturgeon/the SNP now are generally the same ones who were swept away by "Cleggmania" five years ago. They have learned nothing.

I don't think Harris is as bad as Williams generally tbf - and he is a better writer - but he has had some awful moments (cherry picking ONE YouGov subsample to "prove" that all young people were selfish Thatcherite hedonists being amongst the most egregious) And you get the feeling any praise for Labour/Ed is through gritted teeth

I hate Clegg, I detest Sturgeon and consistently have railed against the disingenuity of the SNP. I just fail to see why the fact we don't like Sturgeon or Williams means it's ok to spin a wildly self-serving narrative about her because it currently suits us. It makes us as bad as the people the left looks down on.

Oh, Harris, to me, is a better writer which is why it tends to hurt more when he criticises things I believe in - both in terms of style and content; he's also often not quite as wrong as some of his left wing critics would like him to be.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 1:15 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
yahyah wrote:Morning, another lovely sunny one here.

Please have a share of my birthday cake - am 59 years old today and don't feel a day over 58.
Am convinced my 60th next year will be celebrated with Ed as PM.
Many happy returns, and have a lovely day.

Happy birthday from me as well yahyah, hope you have a great day

(edit to add - and to Mr Riots as well - and all todays birthdays!)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 1:17 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:SH is basically correct.

The ones in the left-liberal chatterati ululating over Sturgeon/the SNP now are generally the same ones who were swept away by "Cleggmania" five years ago. They have learned nothing.

I don't think Harris is as bad as Williams generally tbf - and he is a better writer - but he has had some awful moments (cherry picking ONE YouGov subsample to "prove" that all young people were selfish Thatcherite hedonists being amongst the most egregious) And you get the feeling any praise for Labour/Ed is through gritted teeth
I hate Clegg, I detest Sturgeon and consistently have railed against the disingenuity of the SNP. I just fail to see why the fact we don't like Sturgeon or Williams means it's ok to spin a wildly self-serving narrative about her because it currently suits us. It makes us as bad as the people the left looks down on.

Oh, Harris, to me, is a better writer which is why it tends to hurt more when he criticises things I believe in - both in terms of style and content; he's also often not quite as wrong as some of his left wing critics would like him to be.

I agree -

Except I believe the opposite on this - "I don't think Harris is as bad as Williams generally".

Edited to add

Except I don't think we're (both of us) really comparing like with like.

And again -
Edited to remove an "are"

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 1:25 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
Although she may not have expressed a personal choice, she may have mentioned which outcome would suit the SNP's independence agenda better. In other words the French denial is very specific, to the point it still allows the gist of the memo to be correct. Not that it proves anything one way or the other. The thing I come back to is why so many Scottish voters are convinced the SNP will be more left-wing in Westminster than Labour. I'm not sure their voting record there supports this. But then again, Scottish voters might not be as left-wing as we are led to believe anyway, in which case it's just the ones the SNP are poaching from Labour that are in danger of being taken for a ride:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... ink-it-is/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is exactly the thing. Why not attack the SNP on their record? Why not say, "honestly, all this newspaper speculation is irrelevant. Let's just look at what the SNP's record tells us about the difference between what they say and what they do." We know what the SNP are like. I don't care what a says b said to c that was overheard by d and then written by e and then edited by e and then squabbled about by thnikpiece writers f and g and then jumped on by commenters h through z. Let's differentiate between opinion and argument and have a campaign about what we know, not which stories most fit our version of a truth we can't know.

Equally, the endless, "this party are going to with this party." "No we're not. And anyway, you haven't ruled out going to bed with that party," is so facile, I'm sick of it. And parties who say, "we're not speculating on that, really," are just as guilty of then speculating about what the other lot might do. If the ambition is to make everyone look as grubby and unworthy of voting for, it's not so much a success for politics as a very cynical pyrrhic victory.

It's almost as if there's a campaign to be fought on policies and records that most people involved in devising or reporting the campaign have no interest in having.
The Labour Party are attacking the SNP on issues and their record. However the SNP pitch is we are left wing, Labour are red Tories and - bizarrely- the only way to get a Labour government you want is to vote SNP. Under these circumstances pointing out that the SNP would prefer to have a Tory government is critical to countering that argument. I would think their record on centralisation, big brother government and privatisation of NHS Scotland will also be used. Plus that lovely quote saying they weren't opposed to the privatisation of NHS England.

I think this whole desperation for the Sturgeon memo to be true will backfire. And, equally, I don't think anyone who's already convinced in the SNP's "we're leftwing" lies will care anyway. It is a situation where there appears to be precisely nothing to gain, which is one reason why those who are mostly talking about it are those who already like Sturgeon and believe her or hate her and want the Telegraph to be true. It's a battle between those with their minds made up.

And let's face it - for all I absolutely hate the SNP both for their real agenda and the way they lie about it, the people most responsible for dismantling Labour's reputation in Scotland is the Scottish Labour party. Some of them bloody are Red Tories. The way to rebuild that isn't primarily to go, "look, we said they were shit, too!" It's to demonstrate how much better they now are.

I don't know. I'm one of the people too left wing for the Labour party simply because I believe in the same kind of things I believed in in the 80s and 90s - that might have made things much better had there been a place in parliament for them then, I might add. I don't believe the SNP will be part of helping Labour rediscover a progressive agenda (I don't think any politician currently claiming to be progressive could define what they mean by that honestly), but I certainly see the value in Labour having to listen to pressure thought to be from the left, rather than carrying on its drift to the right. It's slowed since Miliband but we still have an austerity chancellor, a hawk proposed for the DWP and a lot of anti-immigration and pro-security-at-any-price guff coming from our would be Home Secretary. There's compromise, which a lot of lefties have been doing for 30 years. And then there's being compromised, which kind of makes it all a waste of time.

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 1:26 pm

pk1 wrote:
Spacedone wrote:
Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 15 mins15 minutes ago
In terms of winning most seats gains from CON count for double for LAB compared with gains from other parties. Many haven't twigged that yet

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 1 min1 minute ago
In terms of CON winning most seats every ONE loss to LAB will have to be offset by TWO gains from other parties
Please will you deconstruct that into simple terms for me ?

Basically he's saying that every seat the Tories lose to Labour means that the Tories have their seat total reduced by 1 and Labour have it increased by 1 (so if they both have 100 seats it becomes Lab 101 and Con 99) but if the Tories take a Lib-Dem seat it has no effect on the Labour total so they have to take twice as many Lib-Dem seats to offset losses to Labour.

Or as someone eloquently put on Twitter in reply to his post...

as they say in football, "it's really a six-pointer Jeff"

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 1:30 pm

Indy trying to smear Douglas Alexander over the Nikigate tweets

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 57871.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 1:32 pm

@ Spacedone

Thank you

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 1:39 pm

PorFavor wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:SH is basically correct.

The ones in the left-liberal chatterati ululating over Sturgeon/the SNP now are generally the same ones who were swept away by "Cleggmania" five years ago. They have learned nothing.

I don't think Harris is as bad as Williams generally tbf - and he is a better writer - but he has had some awful moments (cherry picking ONE YouGov subsample to "prove" that all young people were selfish Thatcherite hedonists being amongst the most egregious) And you get the feeling any praise for Labour/Ed is through gritted teeth
I hate Clegg, I detest Sturgeon and consistently have railed against the disingenuity of the SNP. I just fail to see why the fact we don't like Sturgeon or Williams means it's ok to spin a wildly self-serving narrative about her because it currently suits us. It makes us as bad as the people the left looks down on.

Oh, Harris, to me, is a better writer which is why it tends to hurt more when he criticises things I believe in - both in terms of style and content; he's also often not quite as wrong as some of his left wing critics would like him to be.
I agree -

Except I believe the opposite on this - "I don't think Harris is as bad as Williams generally".

Edited to add

Except I don't think we're (both of us) really comparing like with like.

And again -
Edited to remove an "are"

Have you been reading ee cummings?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 06 Apr, 2015 1:42 pm

Lib Dem Voice seems to have completely ignored the Sturgeon leak story.
I wonder why?