Willow904 wrote:Hello all.
I'm not being ageist - it's just an observation - but I was just watching Cameron on the news and, blimey, didn't he get old all of a sudden?! Have you seen the bags under his eyes? He looks seriously ragged. It's hard to believe he's got another 5 years in him. For all the bravado and cheerleading from the right-wing press, he's starting to give off that all-washed-up aura of a man on borrowed time.
I do so sincerely hope you're right. And that he feels knackered, disheartened, angry, hopeless and thoroughly pissed off as well.Willow904 wrote:Hello all.
I'm not being ageist - it's just an observation - but I was just watching Cameron on the news and, blimey, didn't he get old all of a sudden?! Have you seen the bags under his eyes? He looks seriously ragged. It's hard to believe he's got another 5 years in him. For all the bravado and cheerleading from the right-wing press, he's starting to give off that all-washed-up aura of a man on borrowed time.
Not sure who they're asking the question to.yahyah wrote:Not so good from the HSJ
Few people seem desperate to keep it, though, so Labour's policy to repeal it isn't going to put them off, so I see that as a Tory fail. The Health & social care act was supposed to save the NHS. If people believed that, more of them would oppose reversing it (and I believe this is a survey of ordinary voters, not health professionals).tinybgoat wrote:Not sure who they're asking the question to.yahyah wrote:Not so good from the HSJ
Repealing act's probably not as straightforward as it sounds, and would require more change, so possibly "not sure" is a sensible answer.
I hate questionnaires !
Thanks for reposting,PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
Just in case you're wondering -
I deleted my first\last post as, distracted as I am, I completely mis-read the quote which I'd, er, quoted. I thought it was David Cameron saying that we needed a new plan!
Labour's
A BETTER PLAN FOR RURAL BRITAIN
http://www.labouremail.org.uk/files/upl ... c0e9c9.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Leave the Tories in office but not in power, as a minority government without the numbers to actually do anything (even with Clegg's ever willing support)RobertSnozers wrote:@fedup59 - A lot to agree with there, thanks for taking the time to set all that out.
I wonder what happens if the Tories are the largest party but cannot get the numbers for a majority?
Even if, under those circumstances, Labour can form a minority government, the media and a chunk of the population would, I suspect, not accept it. The press, banging on as they are about the danger of a 'constitutional crisis' would be only too happy to trigger one.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Leave the Tories in office but not in power, as a minority government without the numbers to actually do anything (even with Clegg's ever willing support)RobertSnozers wrote:@fedup59 - A lot to agree with there, thanks for taking the time to set all that out.
I wonder what happens if the Tories are the largest party but cannot get the numbers for a majority?
Even if, under those circumstances, Labour can form a minority government, the media and a chunk of the population would, I suspect, not accept it. The press, banging on as they are about the danger of a 'constitutional crisis' would be only too happy to trigger one.
It would actually be the "chaos" that the likes of Shapps so like to holler about - maybe it might cause some in Scotland to reflect too.
Whoever can command a majority in the Commons will be PM. A Pm who cannot do so must resign.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Leave the Tories in office but not in power, as a minority government without the numbers to actually do anything (even with Clegg's ever willing support)RobertSnozers wrote:@fedup59 - A lot to agree with there, thanks for taking the time to set all that out.
I wonder what happens if the Tories are the largest party but cannot get the numbers for a majority?
Even if, under those circumstances, Labour can form a minority government, the media and a chunk of the population would, I suspect, not accept it. The press, banging on as they are about the danger of a 'constitutional crisis' would be only too happy to trigger one.
It would actually be the "chaos" that the likes of Shapps so like to holler about - maybe it might cause some in Scotland to reflect too.
The system is fine, it is dealing with a very strange use case and it still stands up.RobertSnozers wrote:But on the constitutional point I don't understand, who gets to say who can command a majority? If, as things stand, no 'confidence and supply' arrangement is forthcoming, and even if with SNP votes Miliband could technically get legislation through, surely there's no guarantee of that? This was the basis of my question yesterday about 'confidence' which I'm not sure received an answer.SpinningHugo wrote:Whoever can command a majority in the Commons will be PM. A Pm who cannot do so must resign.AnatolyKasparov wrote: Leave the Tories in office but not in power, as a minority government without the numbers to actually do anything (even with Clegg's ever willing support)
It would actually be the "chaos" that the likes of Shapps so like to holler about - maybe it might cause some in Scotland to reflect too.
That makes Miliband PM, in a minority government.
13/8 still available...
I presume it would first be up to Cameron to declare that he can't secure a government with 'confidence'? What next? Ed has a chat with Nicola and declares that yes, he can put together a government with the confidence of the house... but for the time being, until the SNP decides, for the sake of argument, to throw its toys out of the pram? Not *much* confidence really, is it?
Sorry, but this is, constitutionally, bullshit. Excuse my language, but I feel it is called for here, preferably in the form of Alex Brooker's big red 'bullshit' button. We seriously need an electoral system that actually works. Ours is broken, if it ever really worked. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Oh Dear!tinyclanger2 wrote:http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/ ... 1430227685?
Wife of Clegg on high horse now.
Words literally fail me.
Actually, scrub that it's too mean,tinybgoat wrote:Oh Dear!tinyclanger2 wrote:http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/ ... 1430227685?
Wife of Clegg on high horse now.
Words literally fail me.
In a parallel universe, maybe Clegg did get to be P.M,
Maybe in many parallel universes.
It's possible.
That in any of them he achieved great things,
is I feel less unlikely & stretching boundaries of possibility too far.
That his wife has such belief in him is touching.
Worth remembering, of course, that all the Labour leadership candidates (bar Andy Burnham) were broadly in favour of reform at the time of the AV referendum. Given Miliband's stated aim to reform the Lords we shouldn't rule out the possibility of them looking at constitutional reform in a wider context eventually.fedup59 wrote:I agree we seriously need a system that works. At the moment the Tories are attacking the UK constitution on the basis of country, while ignoring their own English regional weaknesses and the lib dems are arguing for involvement in UK gov on the basis of proportional voter split across the two main parties I would argue that not only are these arguments a piss take but also completely illegitimate. Constitutional change on the basis of regional power, PR and Westminster PR seem long term necessities. Short term the argument needs to be taken up about the lack of legitimacy being argued for for the English regions as part of the anti Scottish Tory manipulation.
Oh no. Wish she'd been able to wait until after the election ...Kay BurleyVerified account
@KayBurley
Royal press officers arrive at Lindo Wing #riyalbabywatch https://www.periscope.tv/w/VyC3JTUxNjYz ... ZPoy1U4UE=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Optimistically, the MSM will now be obliged to do nappy stories rather than churning out Coalition propaganda.rebeccariots2 wrote:Oh no. Wish she'd been able to wait until after the election ...Kay BurleyVerified account
@KayBurley
Royal press officers arrive at Lindo Wing #riyalbabywatch https://www.periscope.tv/w/VyC3JTUxNjYz ... ZPoy1U4UE=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Yes - but we've still got to endure the media hysteria - and if she'd hung on till after the election I'd probably have been too tired to be taking much notice ....AnatolyKasparov wrote:Better that it happens now than this time next week, maybe?
I agree - at least in principle. My worry is that the SNP wouldn't support a Labour (or any other UK) government in the longer term without demanding things like FFA, another referendum or the removal of Trident. Ed Miliband would be constantly looking over his shoulder, waiting for the stab in the back. A stable UK government is not good for the SNP's sole raison d'etre - independence.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:For me a plausible outcome would be that the SNP agrees to support Labour in a budget, repealing the NHS Act and other big pledges that need to go through. Labour and SNP agree to hold the constitutional convention that Miliband has already promised and put a two (?) year deadline on rewriting the UK constitution. They agree to seek to repeal the fixed term parliaments act during that too, in which case they can then dissolve Parliament two years in and call a new election. Importantly, an independence referendum would be completely off limits during that period.
There would be an electoral mandate for this I believe if Labour and SNP get a good haul of seats between them.
I rarely disagree with you, RR2. But the timing is best now. I hope mum & baby a quick birthing, little trauma, great health & a lovely Edward born.rebeccariots2 wrote:Yes - but we've still got to endure the media hysteria - and if she'd hung on till after the election I'd probably have been too tired to be taking much notice ....AnatolyKasparov wrote:Better that it happens now than this time next week, maybe?
That's needing a lot of tactical voting in Scotland and the Lib Dems to hold on to their marginals.Eric_WLothian wrote:I agree - at least in principle. My worry is that the SNP wouldn't support a Labour (or any other UK) government in the longer term without demanding things like FFA, another referendum or the removal of Trident. Ed Miliband would be constantly looking over his shoulder, waiting for the stab in the back. A stable UK government is not good for the SNP's sole raison d'etre - independence.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:For me a plausible outcome would be that the SNP agrees to support Labour in a budget, repealing the NHS Act and other big pledges that need to go through. Labour and SNP agree to hold the constitutional convention that Miliband has already promised and put a two (?) year deadline on rewriting the UK constitution. They agree to seek to repeal the fixed term parliaments act during that too, in which case they can then dissolve Parliament two years in and call a new election. Importantly, an independence referendum would be completely off limits during that period.
There would be an electoral mandate for this I believe if Labour and SNP get a good haul of seats between them.
Given the choice of Lab/SNP or Lab/LD, I'd go for the latter!
citizenJA wrote:I rarely disagree with you, RR2. But the timing is best now. I hope mum & baby a quick birthing, little trauma, great health & a lovely Edward born.rebeccariots2 wrote:Yes - but we've still got to endure the media hysteria - and if she'd hung on till after the election I'd probably have been too tired to be taking much notice ....AnatolyKasparov wrote:Better that it happens now than this time next week, maybe?
He's referring to yesterday's TNS poll - 29% undecided.StephenDolan wrote:
Jim Murphy was saying a third of Scottish voters are still undecided, is that true? Does that exclude those saying they won't vote?
It was only after reading your post, Paul, I understood what the topic of discussion was. The link to Burley's website took me to a seriously creepy webpage & I wasn't clicking further. I'd forgotten about the a royal birth.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Optimistically, the MSM will now be obliged to do nappy stories rather than churning out Coalition propaganda.rebeccariots2 wrote:Oh no. Wish she'd been able to wait until after the election ...Kay BurleyVerified account
@KayBurley
Royal press officers arrive at Lindo Wing #riyalbabywatch https://www.periscope.tv/w/VyC3JTUxNjYz ... ZPoy1U4UE=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Meanwhile in the alternative media, baby windsor will largely be ignored
Edited to say unless you feel obliged to follow Kay Burley
Edited to say I'm not sure I'll be able to tell whether it's baby poo or Cameron's latest utterance
I'll chip in - Nicola?rebeccariots2 wrote:citizenJA wrote:I rarely disagree with you, RR2. But the timing is best now. I hope mum & baby a quick birthing, little trauma, great health & a lovely Edward born.rebeccariots2 wrote: Yes - but we've still got to endure the media hysteria - and if she'd hung on till after the election I'd probably have been too tired to be taking much notice ....
You're not disagreeing with me citizen - I do agree with Anatoly that it's better now than in a week's time. It's just that for me .... it would have been even better if it had been after the election - I'm exhausted enough with the crap in the media as it is ...!
What do you favour if it's a girl ... Edwina?
Healthy & uncomplicated, it's all I hope for, regardless of gender or name, it's all good. Over quickly as possible in the news, please, I'm exhausted too, my friend.rebeccariots2 wrote:citizenJA wrote:I rarely disagree with you, RR2. But the timing is best now. I hope mum & baby a quick birthing, little trauma, great health & a lovely Edward born.rebeccariots2 wrote: Yes - but we've still got to endure the media hysteria - and if she'd hung on till after the election I'd probably have been too tired to be taking much notice ....
You're not disagreeing with me citizen - I do agree with Anatoly that it's better now than in a week's time. It's just that for me .... it would have been even better if it had been after the election - I'm exhausted enough with the crap in the media as it is ...!
What do you favour if it's a girl ... Edwina?
Thanks EWL.Eric_WLothian wrote:He's referring to yesterday's TNS poll - 29% undecided.StephenDolan wrote:
Jim Murphy was saying a third of Scottish voters are still undecided, is that true? Does that exclude those saying they won't vote?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/general-el ... -1-3755384
No, the FPTP solution is not an issue here, a PR system could easily have the same procedural problem.RobertSnozers wrote:Respectfully, it is not fine, it is very far from fine and it's standing up about as well as the plot of Broadchurch. Historically an argument may have been made for it being fine while two-party politics dominated (frankly I feel a system that might give a party a 10th of the seats from a quarter of the vote share could never have been described as fine) but that is not now the case and I fail to see how it ever will be. This is not a particularly strange case. The last election failed to provide a majority, and does anyone really think we're going to go back to Labour vs Tory elections with a thimbleful of Liberals and Nats? Moreover, while we stick to the creaking, outdated FPTP system, the possibility always exists for the Tories to do what Cameron just failed to do this time - gerrymander things for eternal Tory government. If Cameron had managed to get his boundary reform through, the Tories would be coasting to an easy win right now. They will not fail a second time.TechnicalEphemera wrote:
The system is fine, it is dealing with a very strange use case and it still stands up.
Cameron is PM, until he believes he cannot form a government. Then Miliband gets to try and form a government.
Whether Cameron tries to get his queens speech through or gives up earlier depends on how close to the line he gets.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 1h1 hour ago
Have now reached 40000 followers and would like to thank each and every one of you. Hope to continue to keep you amused and informed.
Michael CrickVerified account
@MichaelLCrick
@LordAshcroft Amused certainly
I agree.TechnicalEphemera wrote:No, the FPTP solution is not an issue here, a PR system could easily have the same procedural problem.RobertSnozers wrote:Respectfully, it is not fine, it is very far from fine and it's standing up about as well as the plot of Broadchurch. Historically an argument may have been made for it being fine while two-party politics dominated (frankly I feel a system that might give a party a 10th of the seats from a quarter of the vote share could never have been described as fine) but that is not now the case and I fail to see how it ever will be. This is not a particularly strange case. The last election failed to provide a majority, and does anyone really think we're going to go back to Labour vs Tory elections with a thimbleful of Liberals and Nats? Moreover, while we stick to the creaking, outdated FPTP system, the possibility always exists for the Tories to do what Cameron just failed to do this time - gerrymander things for eternal Tory government. If Cameron had managed to get his boundary reform through, the Tories would be coasting to an easy win right now. They will not fail a second time.TechnicalEphemera wrote:
The system is fine, it is dealing with a very strange use case and it still stands up.
Cameron is PM, until he believes he cannot form a government. Then Miliband gets to try and form a government.
Whether Cameron tries to get his queens speech through or gives up earlier depends on how close to the line he gets.
If two coalitions exist and neither can form a majority without working with a hostile third party outside a formal deal what do you do?
Answer exactly the same each coalition has a go at passing a vote of confidence.
Now PR would produce Tory/UKIP/Lib Dem at the moment as your only option, Labour/Green/SNP would probably come in at 48%z
I agree. The real pickle is the old West Lothian question. Without devolution, Labour and the SNP could simply form a coalition on the basis of shared policies - it's devolution that throws a spanner in the works and with more devolution in the pipeline it will have to be addressed in the next parliament. Naturally I favour Labour's proposed constitutional convention, abolition of the Lords to be replaced with regional assembly kind of direction. If tbe Tories prevail we'll get EVEL and an ever expanding crony-stuffed unelected, anachronistic upper chamber. From the perspective of the future evolvement of our democracy, this is a crucial election. I don't think the union would survive a Tory-led govt.TechnicalEphemera wrote:No, the FPTP solution is not an issue here, a PR system could easily have the same procedural problem.RobertSnozers wrote:Respectfully, it is not fine, it is very far from fine and it's standing up about as well as the plot of Broadchurch. Historically an argument may have been made for it being fine while two-party politics dominated (frankly I feel a system that might give a party a 10th of the seats from a quarter of the vote share could never have been described as fine) but that is not now the case and I fail to see how it ever will be. This is not a particularly strange case. The last election failed to provide a majority, and does anyone really think we're going to go back to Labour vs Tory elections with a thimbleful of Liberals and Nats? Moreover, while we stick to the creaking, outdated FPTP system, the possibility always exists for the Tories to do what Cameron just failed to do this time - gerrymander things for eternal Tory government. If Cameron had managed to get his boundary reform through, the Tories would be coasting to an easy win right now. They will not fail a second time.TechnicalEphemera wrote:
The system is fine, it is dealing with a very strange use case and it still stands up.
Cameron is PM, until he believes he cannot form a government. Then Miliband gets to try and form a government.
Whether Cameron tries to get his queens speech through or gives up earlier depends on how close to the line he gets.
If two coalitions exist and neither can form a majority without working with a hostile third party outside a formal deal what do you do?
Answer exactly the same each coalition has a go at passing a vote of confidence.
Now PR would produce Tory/UKIP/Lib Dem at the moment as your only option, Labour/Green/SNP would probably come in at 48%z
rebeccariots2 wrote: What do you favour if it's a girl ... Edwina?
Speaking to staff working for the radar systems company Kelvin Hughes, Mr Cameron said: "I have a guarantee if I'm your Prime Minister after the 9th.... after the 7th of May. And it's this. We will finish the job of getting the deficit down."
Attending a football match?diGriz wrote:Apologies if posted
David Cameron just forgot the date of the general election
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 09381.htmlSpeaking to staff working for the radar systems company Kelvin Hughes, Mr Cameron said: "I have a guarantee if I'm your Prime Minister after the 9th.... after the 7th of May. And it's this. We will finish the job of getting the deficit down."
Although it sort of made me think he has plans for something on the 9th.
start of a leadership battle? (hopefully)PorFavor wrote:Attending a football match?diGriz wrote:Apologies if posted
David Cameron just forgot the date of the general election
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 09381.htmlSpeaking to staff working for the radar systems company Kelvin Hughes, Mr Cameron said: "I have a guarantee if I'm your Prime Minister after the 9th.... after the 7th of May. And it's this. We will finish the job of getting the deficit down."
Although it sort of made me think he has plans for something on the 9th.
Mark Ferguson @Markfergusonuk 6m6 minutes ago
Michael Fallon *repeatedly* refuses to rule out backstabbing the UK over Trident. WHERE TO BEGIN WITH THE HYPOCRISY? http://labli.st/1DThVsx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hi DFSMum,
Lots of questions about Durham Free School so let me answer them together.
The Ofsted report into Durham Free School was absolutely clear that the school was failing on a whole range of measures.
It was failing to ensure children were being looked after with bullying and intimidation widespread. It was not providing an environment in which children were able to learn and it was simply failing to provide the quality of education that we expect. The inspectors and the head of Ofsted Sir Michael Wilshaw were clear about this, and I have to say their views were supported by other people that we sent in to look at the school too. We didn't simply look at the Ofsted report and make a snap decision. I thought about this very deeply and came to a considered view.
I also considered the representations that were made during the consultation period but it was clear to me that there was no imminent prospect of improvement and no clear plan in place to turn the school around. The best thing for the children involved was therefore to act decisively so that they could be found good places in other local schools and to move on with their education.
It's always difficult to make a decision like that - I certainly didn't take the job of Education Secretary to go around closing schools - but I had to make a decision that was in my view in the best interests of the children involved. Any day a child spends in a failing school is a day wasted - a day when they're not getting the education they deserve. And I think it's important that we are prepared to act decisively wherever we identify failure.
In this case, the school was found to be failing on every measure. I am sorry if you disagree with my decision but I hope you will accept that I did what I considered to be in the best interests of the children.
Boris Johnson @BorisJohnson 29m29 minutes ago
Coming to a garden near you: Mili - a man propped up by a lectern and waiting to be propped up by the SNP. pic.twitter.com/XVuQX4Hpc8
Adam Boulton retweeted
Alastair Campbell @campbellclaret 15m15 minutes ago
@BorisJohnson a man who made you look a total plonker on a sofa on Sunday.
True, that was loose. I was just thinking in Lab v Tory terms.RobertSnozers wrote:They're not clinging to it - they'd have gerrymandered the boundaries if it weren't for their backbenchers short-sightedly (for them) torpedoing Lords reform (which, admittedly, was a good thing because Clegg's proposal was mindbendingly bad).SpinningHugo wrote:it is one of life's oddities that the Tories cling to a voting system that screws them over. More fool them.
And it doesn't screw them over - it gives them more seats than their share of the vote would in a proportional system. It just happens to do even better for Labour.
Employment agencies need sorting out too.Unite launches campaign to tackle ‘Victorian’ work practices in Sports Direct
http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/unite ... ts-direct/
Now it’s official: voters are hurting, no matter how George Osborne spins it
By David Blanchflower
Today, just over a week before the election, the Tories were hit with major bad news. The ONS published a GDP growth rate of 0.3% for the first quarter of 2015, less than a third of the growth rate of the economy when they inherited it in the second quarter of 2010. Remember Cameron, Osborne and Clegg’s demonstrably untrue claims at the time of the 2010 general election, that the economy was bankrupt and comparable to Greece’s? Well, if that was the case then, surely we are even more like Greece now.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw
