General Election 2015...

[Big Ed]

And the last time a 'real' labour party won a general election was 1974 - 41 years ago. They cannot win ever going back to being 'Labour' again.

A glance at the candidates for the Leadership of the Party tells you that Real Labour or Old Labour, or whatever you choose to call it, isn't coming back any time soon.

The only chance I give them at the next election is if the Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot, which may happen because their Right Wing backbenchers will exert their new found bargaining power too often.

So, crossing their fingers and hoping for the best looks to be the default position, but they are a craven lot and won't even consider policies that the Mail and the Sun would shout down. Something perceived as radical, such as nationalisation of Energy or Railways, which I believe would be well received by many of "the aspirational" won't even be whispered.

[marinello59]

"Kezia Dugdale favourite to take over as Scottish Labour leader"

Bampot after bampot after bampot.

They can't be serious. The games up for them with her in charge.

[Pretty Boy]

They can't be serious. The games up for them with her in charge.

Yep.

I'm not a huge fan of style over substance but sometimes it's about how you say it as much as what you're saying. Dugdale has consistently come across like an over excitable candidate thrown into a by election as opposed to a leader of any note.

[ronaldo7]

"Kezia Dugdale favourite to take over as Scottish Labour leader"

Bampot after bampot after bampot.

Kez for Leader, if that's all they've got then the Greens will push for the fishul opposition next year.

She is a short term thinker, for all of 5 minutes at least, who goes on the populist event which happened in yesterday's press.

Surely the Labour party have someone in their ranks better than this. Then again, maybe not.

Interesting times ahead for the right leaning Labour party.

[ACLeith]

Yep.

I'm not a huge fan of style over substance but sometimes it's about how you say it as much as what you're saying. Dugdale has consistently come across like an over excitable candidate thrown into a by election as opposed to a leader of any note.

In the run up the referendum, I heard her speak at an event alongside Nicola Sturgeon. Even though I did not agree with her, she came over as an intelligent, articulate advocate for her views and there seemed to be a mutual respect between the 2 of them. Since she became the leader of her party in Holyrood, she has become strident and hectoring, whose only interest seems to be in shouting at the other side. She showed this on election night on STV, turning what was a reasonably sensible debate amongst the parties into a negative point-scoring exercise.

[The_Todd]

If it is Kez then I don't think she'll be given a fair crack of the whip. Too many people are thinking along the lines of "Kez=Labour, Labour=Bad" and I'd bet most of those people are the ones who don't pay proper attention to the day-to-day stuff.

I was watching FMQs last week, she more than held her own against Sturgeon. In fact, during a line of questioning about education standards Sturgeon had no answer than "I heard there's a petition to keep Jim Murphy, I'd like to sign it".

Now, some of the more unquestioningly loyal SNP members will either not notice this sort of evasion or not care. Or probably try to claim the FM landed some sort of hit, but it looked a bit weak to me. It was irrelevant, it was juvenile and it avoided the question entirely. Don't write off Kez.

[steakbake]

They say she does reasonably well at FM questions but I just don't think she's the person to re-establish Labour. Murphy has already had a chance to reform the party after their past listening exercises following defeats in 2010 and 2011. He now needs a month to write the same foundations he has already written. Make no mistake, Dugdale will not be given much more than an opportunity to paint the gloss on the skirting board, whereas Labour need to knock down the whole house and start from the foundations.

Labour has to go to the right in Englad yet the left in Scotland - or so we are told by commentators.

I can't see Dugdale being allowed the space to outflank the SNP on the left. I just don't know where Labour go from here. A full split from the UK party and being a block that would support rUK Labour at Westminster for concessions might be one. But if it continues to be run as a branch, then I'd say they're finished. I hope not, because I am a democrat first and foremost.

Whatever happens, they can't rely on a core vote strategy anymore because their core has gone. They also can't become a credible alternative if their only platform is "vote for us because at least we're not the other guys".

[CropleyWasGod]

Kez for Leader, if that's all they've got then the Greens will push for the fishul opposition next year.

She is a short term thinker, for all of 5 minutes at least, who goes on the populist event which happened in yesterday's press.

Surely the Labour party have someone in their ranks better than this. Then again, maybe not.

Interesting times ahead for the right leaning Labour party.

I've had personal dealings with her, which back up what you say.

She was very supportive of a project I am involved in, which actually ran contrary to "normal" Labour thinking. The fact that she seemed to oppose the party line was very refreshing.

Then, out of the blue, she stopped talking to us. Emails, phone calls and requests for a meeting were ignored. I ran into her at an event, and she avoided me.

A few weeks later, she was appointed to be the party spokesperson on something or other. I'm not saying that the two events were linked, but..... :cb

"Ambitious" is a word I would use to describe her, and not in a good way.

[Beefster]

Kez for Leader, if that's all they've got then the Greens will push for the fishul opposition next year.

And Elvis is living on the moon.

2015
Scottish Labour - 707k votes
Scottish Greens - 39k votes

2011 was probably as bad.

[Peevemor]

They say she does reasonably well at FM questions but I just don't think she's the person to re-establish Labour. Murphy has already had a chance to reform the party after their past listening exercises following defeats in 2010 and 2011. He now needs a month to write the same foundations he has already written. Make no mistake, Dugdale will not be given much more than an opportunity to paint the gloss on the skirting board, whereas Labour need to knock down the whole house and start from the foundations.

Labour has to go to the right in Englad yet the left in Scotland - or so we are told by commentators.

I can't see Dugdale being allowed the space to outflank the SNP on the left. I just don't know where Labour go from here. A full split from the UK party and being a block that would support rUK Labour at Westminster for concessions might be one. But if it continues to be run as a branch, then I'd say they're finished. I hope not, because I am a democrat first and foremost.

That's the easiest part of the job. Criticising and nitpicking when in opposition doesn't need a "leader". Proposing alternatives and galvanising support does.

[snooky]

I've had personal dealings with her, which back up what you say.

She was very supportive of a project I am involved in, which actually ran contrary to "normal" Labour thinking. The fact that she seemed to oppose the party line was very refreshing.

Then, out of the blue, she stopped talking to us. Emails, phone calls and requests for a meeting were ignored. I ran into her at an event, and she avoided me.

A few weeks later, she was appointed to be the party spokesperson on something or other. I'm not saying that the two events were linked, but..... :cb

"Ambitious" is a word I would use to describe her, and not in a good way.

Aren't they all to some extent?

I fell out (for one night only) with a lifelong Councillor friend who, in my (intoxicated) opinion, had 'sold his soul' on a local issue whereas he had probably just opted to do what he was told & tow the Party line. I guess at some point, to succeed as a politician, you have to compromise your integrity.

[CropleyWasGod]

Aren't they all to some extent?

I fell out (for one night only) with a lifelong Councillor friend who, in my (intoxicated) opinion, had 'sold his soul' on a local issue whereas he had probably just opted to do what he was told & tow the Party line. I guess at some point, to succeed as a politician, you have to compromise your integrity.

Yep, indeed.... said a jaded and cynical old Hector.

It's a case in point that the one politician who didn't do that in recent years was Margo, as she had no party line to follow.

[Geo_1875]

A glance at the candidates for the Leadership of the Party tells you that Real Labour or Old Labour, or whatever you choose to call it, isn't coming back any time soon.

The only chance I give them at the next election is if the Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot, which may happen because their Right Wing backbenchers will exert their new found bargaining power too often.

So, crossing their fingers and hoping for the best looks to be the default position, but they are a craven lot and won't even consider policies that the Mail and the Sun would shout down. Something perceived as radical, such as nationalisation of Energy or Railways, which I believe would be well received by many of "the aspirational" won't even be whispered.

You won't find any "quality" candidates for Labour leader for the next few years. They don't want to be linked to 5 years of opposition to a Tory majority government. There will be a lightweight caretaker leader until nearer the next election when Labour will unveil the next project to make them electable. Then the "big boys" will suddenly appear again.

[Moulin Yarns]

And Elvis is living on the moon.

2015
Scottish Labour - 707k votes
Scottish Greens - 39k votes

2011 was probably as bad.

Remember the different voting system though.

In 2011 regional votes SLab got 523,559 while SGreen got 87,060, I think there might be a fair amount of difference to both these figures in 2016. You can't compare the Constituency votes because SGreen didn't put anyone up for a constituency seat.

But 6 times as many votes last time for SLab, it will be very interesting to see what change there is if SLab don't get their act together.

[snooky]

Yep, indeed.... said a jaded and cynical old Hector.

It's a case in point that the one politician who didn't do that in recent years was Margo, as she had no party line to follow.

:agree: :not worth:not worth:not worth

[marinello59]

You won't find any "quality" candidates for Labour leader for the next few years. They don't want to be linked to 5 years of opposition to a Tory majority government. There will be a lightweight caretaker leader until nearer the next election when Labour will unveil the next project to make them electable. Then the "big boys" will suddenly appear again.

That's more wishful thinking on your part I think. They will do the same as they did after '92, have a period of mourning followed by a post mortem and then spend the next few years trying to make themselves electable again. It may not end well for them but there is no way they will simply be giving up for the next 5 years.

[ronaldo7]

And Elvis is living on the moon.

2015
Scottish Labour - 707k votes
Scottish Greens - 39k votes

2011 was probably as bad.


Remember the different voting system though.

In 2011 regional votes SLab got 523,559 while SGreen got 87,060, I think there might be a fair amount of difference to both these figures in 2016. You can't compare the Constituency votes because SGreen didn't put anyone up for a constituency seat.

But 6 times as many votes last time for SLab, it will be very interesting to see what change there is if SLab don't get their act together.

I was thinking more about the list vote in the upcoming Scottish elections. I can see the Greens pushing their vote up considerably where Labour will lose votes again.

I also thought Elvis what dead, who'd have thunk it.:greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

If Slab lose a similar percentage of votes in 2016 they did in 2015 (in Scotland) that is 89,000 less votes on the list. The LibDems votes also reduced, opening the way for a Green surge to pick up these votes.

Obviously it is a bit more complicated than that, but with only a year between elections there is likely to be a similar effect, IMHO.

[JeMeSouviens]

That's the easiest part of the job. Criticising and nitpicking when in opposition doesn't need a "leader". Proposing alternatives and galvanising support does.

:agree: Hardly anyone knows or cares. The Tory press regularly reported on how William Hague destroyed Blair at PMQs.

[ronaldo7]

If it is Kez then I don't think she'll be given a fair crack of the whip. Too many people are thinking along the lines of "Kez=Labour, Labour=Bad" and I'd bet most of those people are the ones who don't pay proper attention to the day-to-day stuff.

I was watching FMQs last week, she more than held her own against Sturgeon. In fact, during a line of questioning about education standards Sturgeon had no answer than "I heard there's a petition to keep Jim Murphy, I'd like to sign it".

Now, some of the more unquestioningly loyal SNP members will either not notice this sort of evasion or not care. Or probably try to claim the FM landed some sort of hit, but it looked a bit weak to me. It was irrelevant, it was juvenile and it avoided the question entirely. Don't write off Kez.

If you listen to FM's questions when the comment about the Jim Murphy letter was made, I'm sure I heard the FM answer all questions asked by Kez. She might not have liked the extra £100million re the attainment gap, but it's there.

I don't know why Kez continues to ask questions that she knows the answer to. Seems a bit of a waste of time to me:aok:

https://youtu.be/hBAUFcksEBM

[Geo_1875]

That's more wishful thinking on your part I think. They will do the same as they did after '92, have a period of mourning followed by a post mortem and then spend the next few years trying to make themselves electable again. It may not end well for them but there is no way they will simply be giving up for the next 5 years.

Hardly wishful thinking. Who's going to risk their political career by being the next Foot or Kinnock? And 1992 is hardly comparable as there isn't another John Smith in the wings or a 4 term Tory government for everyone to hate.

[Colr]

That's more wishful thinking on your part I think. They will do the same as they did after '92, have a period of mourning followed by a post mortem and then spend the next few years trying to make themselves electable again. It may not end well for them but there is no way they will simply be giving up for the next 5 years.

Why not? Its effectively what they've done for the last 5 years.

[Colr]

Hardly wishful thinking. Who's going to risk their political career by being the next Foot or Kinnock? And 1992 is hardly comparable as there isn't another John Smith in the wings or a 4 term Tory government for everyone to hate.

The John Major government was terrible but until 1990ish the Tories remained popular.

[snooky]

The John Major government was terrible but until 1990ish the Tories remained popular.

You could say the same about the Third Reich between 1933-45, I suppose. :cool2:

[The_Todd]

You could say the same about the Third Reich between 1933-45, I suppose. :cool2:

No you couldn't because democracy and elections were done away with PDQ after 1933.

[snooky]

No you couldn't because democracy and elections were done away with PDQ after 1933.

Your avatar scares me so I'll agree with you :greengrin

[steakbake]

You could say the same about the Third Reich between 1933-45, I suppose. :cool2:

An unprecedented period of stable government.

[Colr]

You could say the same about the Third Reich between 1933-45, I suppose. :cool2:

Goodwin!!

[lucky]

Kez will be a capable leader. She is very popular and will prove a bigger asset than Jim Murphy.

[Kavinho]

If it is Kez then I don't think she'll be given a fair crack of the whip. Too many people are thinking along the lines of "Kez=Labour, Labour=Bad" and I'd bet most of those people are the ones who don't pay proper attention to the day-to-day stuff.

I was watching FMQs last week, she more than held her own against Sturgeon. In fact, during a line of questioning about education standards Sturgeon had no answer than "I heard there's a petition to keep Jim Murphy, I'd like to sign it".

Now, some of the more unquestioningly loyal SNP members will either not notice this sort of evasion or not care. Or probably try to claim the FM landed some sort of hit, but it looked a bit weak to me. It was irrelevant, it was juvenile and it avoided the question entirely. Don't write off Kez.


Sorry, that's current politics in a nut shell

[The_Todd]

Sorry, that's current politics in a nut shell

Yes, I know this.

[steakbake]

Andy Burnham:
English, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge.

Yvette Cooper:
PPE, Balliol College, Oxford.

Mary Creagh:
Languages, Pembroke College, Oxford.

Liz Kendall:
History, Queens’ College, Cambridge.

Doctor the Honourable Tristram Julian William Hunt:
History, Trinity College, Cambridge.

Interesting connections between all the Labour Party leadership hopefuls...

[lucky]

Andy Burnham:
English, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge.

Yvette Cooper:
PPE, Balliol College, Oxford.

Mary Creagh:
Languages, Pembroke College, Oxford.

Liz Kendall:
History, Queens’ College, Cambridge.

Doctor the Honourable Tristram Julian William Hunt:
History, Trinity College, Cambridge.

Interesting connections between all the Labour Party leadership hopefuls...

Nicola Strugeon went to Glasgow Uni and became a lawyer. I don't think going to a good uni makes you a bad person. I would like to see more MPs from an industrial background.

[Future17]

Goodwin!!

It's "Godwin" is it not? Goodwin's law is the certainty that, if St Mirren play a slow, vicious rabid animal in central midfield, he will get booked.

[The_Todd]

Andy Burnham:
English, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge.

Yvette Cooper:
PPE, Balliol College, Oxford.

Mary Creagh:
Languages, Pembroke College, Oxford.

Liz Kendall:
History, Queens’ College, Cambridge.

Doctor the Honourable Tristram Julian William Hunt:
History, Trinity College, Cambridge.

Interesting connections between all the Labour Party leadership hopefuls...


Nicola Strugeon went to Glasgow Uni and became a lawyer. I don't think going to a good uni makes you a bad person. I would like to see more MPs from an industrial background.

I honestly don't see why going to Oxbridge is a "bad" thing if they got in by merit (bearing in mind this would have been in the days before tuition fees as well). Alex Salmond went to St Andrews, I don't see anyone attacking him for that.

[Future17]

Nicola Strugeon went to Glasgow Uni and became a lawyer. I don't think going to a good uni makes you a bad person. I would like to see more MPs from an industrial background.


I honestly don't see why going to Oxbridge is a "bad" thing if they got in by merit (bearing in mind this would have been in the days before tuition fees as well). Alex Salmond went to St Andrews, I don't see anyone attacking him for that.

I don't think going to Oxbridge is necessarily a bad thing either, however would it not be more desirable if a leadership contest in a UK-wide party was not contested solely by people who were partly educated there?

I'm not having a go at Labour here, I think it's probably a problem with politics generally.

[Colr]

It's "Godwin" is it not? Goodwin's law is the certainty that, if St Mirren play a slow, vicious rabid animal in central midfield, he will get booked.

It's Godwin, as you say.

[RyeSloan]

I don't think going to Oxbridge is necessarily a bad thing either, however would it not be more desirable if a leadership contest in a UK-wide party was not contested solely by people who were partly educated there? I'm not having a go at Labour here, I think it's probably a problem with politics generally.

Why?

[Geo_1875]

Why?

Because in what is basically a 2 party system it is expected that you could get more than a cigarette paper between those parties and their policies.

[marinello59]

Because in what is basically a 2 party system it is expected that you could get more than a cigarette paper between those parties and their policies.

You can. Nicola Sturgeon certainly thinks Labour are very different to the Tories, she was willing to put them in to Government.

[The_Todd]

Because in what is basically a 2 party system it is expected that you could get more than a cigarette paper between those parties and their policies.

Their policies are not the same as which University they went to, surely?

The Tory and Labour manifestos had clear red water between them, the only people who parrot "they're all the same" are usually Ukip or SNP members who don't actually read manifestos.

[Beefster]

Andy Burnham:
English, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge.

Yvette Cooper:
PPE, Balliol College, Oxford.

Mary Creagh:
Languages, Pembroke College, Oxford.

Liz Kendall:
History, Queens’ College, Cambridge.

Doctor the Honourable Tristram Julian William Hunt:
History, Trinity College, Cambridge.

Interesting connections between all the Labour Party leadership hopefuls...

In another spooky coincidence that has no bearing on their suitability to represent Labour voters, they are all either male or female.

[Geo_1875]

Their policies are not the same as which University they went to, surely?

The Tory and Labour manifestos had clear red water between them, the only people who parrot "they're all the same" are usually Ukip or SNP members who don't actually read manifestos.

That may all be true but in the real world there is also clear "red/blue water" between Labour manifestos and their implemented policies.

[RyeSloan]

Because in what is basically a 2 party system it is expected that you could get more than a cigarette paper between those parties and their policies.

And that is down to where their leaders obtained their Uni degrees?

As for the policies...well maybe but I don't think you would find a wealth tax, energy caps, rental controls and state led land re-appropriation in the Tory manifesto...Which to be fair were probably not top of the sensible economics list when Ed went to Oxford. So I would say there was actually a choice between the two main parties to some degree and voters decided they didn't like Labours efforts, which had booger all to do with the Uni that the leaders went to.

[marinello59]

In another spooky coincidence that has no bearing on their suitability to represent Labour voters, they are all either male or female.

That wouldn't happen in the SNP. Possibly.

[snooky]

In another spooky coincidence that has no bearing on their suitability to represent Labour voters, they are all either male or female.

But what if you had to count The Political Geneless & The Crateman? What would you say then, huh?

[CropleyWasGod]

In another spooky coincidence that has no bearing on their suitability to represent Labour voters, they are all either male or female.

...which disenfranchises those in the third gender. :cb

[ronaldo7]

You can. Nicola Sturgeon certainly thinks Labour are very different to the Tories, she was willing to put them in to Government.

Very different:confused:

I think the phrase was Tory lite for Labour:wink:

[marinello59]

Very different:confused:

I think the phrase was Tory lite for Labour:wink:

A very effective SNP slogan. If they are practically the same why do you think Nicola Sturgeon saw differences. Why would she lock the Tories out yet let so called Tory lite in?

[ronaldo7]

A very effective SNP slogan. If they are practically the same why do you think Nicola Sturgeon saw differences. Why would she lock the Tories out yet let so called Tory lite in?

It would have been easier manipulating Ed:greengrin

I've not said they were practically the same, I know they have some differences, just not enough for Nicola and co.

You never know, after the bunfight for seats on the opposition benches in the commons yesterday, maybe the SNP should start looking for some help actually getting a seat anywhere. Labour seem to want them all for themselves.:wink:

[The_Todd]

The oddest thing I see with SNP members saying "there's no difference between Labour and Tories" and "The SNP are to the left of Labour" is the fact the SNP and Labour manifestos were very similar in most places, with Labour having better leftwing policies in some areas and the SNP in others.

[Keith_M]

I honestly don't see why going to Oxbridge is a "bad" thing if they got in by merit (bearing in mind this would have been in the days before tuition fees as well). Alex Salmond went to St Andrews, I don't see anyone attacking him for that.


As they're two of the top UK Universities, it's not a surprise that many successful people have gained Degrees there.

I think what concerns many people is that those successful in Politics, and top Civil Service Jobs, are disproportionately from a very small number of Private Schools and Universities.

[The_Todd]

As they're two of the top UK Universities, it's not a surprise that many successful people have gained Degrees there.

I think what concerns many people is that those successful in Politics, and top Civil Service Jobs, are disproportionately from a very small number of Private Schools and Universities.

I don't think it's as common as everyone says. Ok the current Labour leadership campaign is Oxbridge heavy, but looking at the Labour ministries of 1997-2010 the cabinet was made up of people who went to Universities such as Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Leeds, Manchester Met, Glasgow, LSE, Dundee, York, Strathclyde and some didn't go to Uni at all as well as the odd Oxbridge alumni.

As for the Tories, John Major only got three O-levels in school though I suspect it's more of an expectation of Tory ministers that they're public school, Oxbridge educated.

[Chibs]

Their policies are not the same as which University they went to, surely?

The Tory and Labour manifestos had clear red water between them, the only people who parrot "they're all the same" are usually Ukip or SNP members who don't actually read manifestos.

I have never read any political manifestos in my life.

What I do know though is the difference between right and wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4ifSrE8iSg&index=2&list=PLmGUHV0fV2hcEML-nAKQomZXu7LJtWpY4

[steakbake]

In another spooky coincidence that has no bearing on their suitability to represent Labour voters, they are all either male or female.

Perhaps I'd agree with you if it wasn't literally all the candidates are Oxbridge. Nothing wrong with it in itself, as others say but there are over 140 Unis. And quite by chance, the people's party is lining up to have a leader who has been from either one of two.

People line up to have a go at the Tories for having more than it's fair share of Oxbridge privilege amongst it, but the Labour Party having that profile too, suggests to me that the country is run by an elite between who there's very little actual difference in perspective or understanding of the experience of the vast majority of people they're seeking to govern.

[Hibbyradge]

Perhaps I'd agree with you if it wasn't literally all the candidates are Oxbridge. Nothing wrong with it in itself, as others say but there are over 140 Unis. And quite by chance, the people's party is lining up to have a leader who has been from either one of two.

People line up to have a go at the Tories for having more than it's fair share of Oxbridge privilege amongst it, but the Labour Party having that profile too, suggests to me that the country is run by an elite between who there's very little actual difference in perspective or understanding of the experience of the vast majority of people they're seeking to govern.

5 of the 6 people who wrote the Tory Manifesto went to Eton. The other went to St Pauls.

That's why folk criticise the Tories.

[steakbake]

5 of the 6 people who wrote the Tory Manifesto went to Eton. The other went to St Pauls.

That's why folk criticise the Tories.

Burnham gets away with it because of his regional accent.

[The_Todd]

Burnham gets away with it because of his regional accent.

He didn't go to Eton, he went to an RC Comprehensive school in St Helens.

[RyeSloan]

He didn't go to Eton, he went to an RC Comprehensive school in St Helens.

But got his Uni degree as Cambridge so another one to mark as in the 'elite out of touch' gang...

[marinello59]

But got his Uni degree as Cambridge so another one to mark as in the 'elite out of touch' gang...

He should have known his place and gone to his local Polytechnic.

[Big Ed]

But got his Uni degree as Cambridge so another one to mark as in the 'elite out of touch' gang...

I do get the point you are making, but the implication is that there is not enough diversity in the educational backgrounds of the Labour frontbenches, which, by further implication, suggests that there may be an element of groupthink amongst them, leaving their traditional support, not Oxbridge educated in the main, alienated and disenfranchised.

It's a theory I find hard to disagree with.

[The_Todd]

He should have known his place and gone to his local Polytechnic.

That's what some here would have you believe. A working class northerner who got into Oxbridge from a comprehensive school on academic merit is a "bad thing" for some it looks like.

[Geo_1875]

That's what some here would have you believe. A working class northerner who got into Oxbridge from a comprehensive school on academic merit is a "bad thing" for some it looks like.

I don't think that's what people are saying at all. It's more the one's who go to Oxford or Cambridge as a family tradition that is a bad thing.

[The_Todd]

I do get the point you are making, but the implication is that there is not enough diversity in the educational backgrounds of the Labour frontbenches, which, by further implication, suggests that there may be an element of groupthink amongst them, leaving their traditional support, not Oxbridge educated in the main, alienated and disenfranchised.

It's a theory I find hard to disagree with.

That's fine but the current shadow cabinet:

leader: University of York
shadow chancellor: university of leeds
shadow foreign sec: university of sussex
shadow business: university of manchester
shadow defence: university of warwick
shadow energy: university of east anglia
shadow transport: university of nottingham
chief whip: university of hull


some of those are the biggest jobs (chancellor, foreign sec, defence). Also, the cabinet's bigger than that but this is just a selection. Yes your Hunts, Burnhams etc went to Oxbridge but the Labour frontbenches are more diverse than given credit for.

[The_Todd]

I don't think that's what people are saying at all. It's more the one's who go to Oxford or Cambridge as a family tradition that is a bad thing.

I suspect that's much more of an issue with the Tory frontbenches.

[snooky]

I don't think that's what people are saying at all. It's more the one's who go to Oxford or Cambridge as a family tradition that is a bad thing.

Aye, when I were a lad, we used to dream about going to Polytechnic ..... if you were lucky!

[Big Ed]

That's fine but the current shadow cabinet:

leader: University of York
shadow chancellor: university of leeds
shadow foreign sec: university of sussex
shadow business: university of manchester
shadow defence: university of warwick
shadow energy: university of east anglia
shadow transport: university of nottingham
chief whip: university of hull


some of those are the biggest jobs (chancellor, foreign sec, defence). Also, the cabinet's bigger than that but this is just a selection. Yes your Hunts, Burnhams etc went to Oxbridge but the Labour frontbenches are more diverse than given credit for.

Fair play, that's more diverse than I gave them credit for.

Maybe it's just that the elite post should go to one who went to an elite institution :wink:

[Colr]

That's fine but the current shadow cabinet:

leader: University of York
shadow chancellor: university of leeds
shadow foreign sec: university of sussex
shadow business: university of manchester
shadow defence: university of warwick
shadow energy: university of east anglia
shadow transport: university of nottingham
chief whip: university of hull


some of those are the biggest jobs (chancellor, foreign sec, defence). Also, the cabinet's bigger than that but this is just a selection. Yes your Hunts, Burnhams etc went to Oxbridge but the Labour frontbenches are more diverse than given credit for.

How about the SNP?

[SHODAN]

How about the SNP?

First Minister: University of Glasgow
Deputy FM/Finance: University of Edinburgh
Infrastructure: University of Dundee
Work: University of Western Australia
Education: University of Glasgow
Health: University of Glasgow
Social Justice: University of Dundee
Justice: Queen Margaret College
Rural Affairs: University of Stirling
Culture: University of Glasgow

[Colr]

First Minister: University of Glasgow
Deputy FM/Finance: University of Edinburgh
Infrastructure: University of Dundee
Work: University of Western Australia
Education: University of Glasgow
Health: University of Glasgow
Social Justice: University of Dundee
Justice: Queen Margaret College
Rural Affairs: University of Stirling
Culture: University of Glasgow

40% Uni of Glasgow!!

[Keith_M]

40% Uni of Glasgow!!


Nice try.

[Moulin Yarns]

40% Uni of Glasgow!!

Yes and look how well they have done considering. :wink:

[Beefster]

I do get the point you are making, but the implication is that there is not enough diversity in the educational backgrounds of the Labour frontbenches, which, by further implication, suggests that there may be an element of groupthink amongst them, leaving their traditional support, not Oxbridge educated in the main, alienated and disenfranchised.

It's a theory I find hard to disagree with.

Eh? You think that folk who attend the same universities (ignoring the fact that Oxford and Cambridge are completely different institutions) invariably engage in 'groupthink'. Have you ever visited a university? You couldn't find a more varied set of contrary tits if you tried.

I went to Edinburgh and even those who considered themselves broadly similar politically couldn't sit in a room for 15 minutes without disagreeing about some pish or such falling out.

Education, beyond actually getting some, has no bearing on suitability of politicians.

[The_Todd]

40% Uni of Glasgow!!


Yes and look how well they have done considering.

Considering what? Uni of Glasgow is one of the oldest and finest Universities in the country.

[Colr]

Considering what? Uni of Glasgow is one of the oldest and finest Universities in the country.

Its alright.

[Big Ed]

Eh? You think that folk who attend the same universities (ignoring the fact that Oxford and Cambridge are completely different institutions) invariably engage in 'groupthink'. Have you ever visited a university? You couldn't find a more varied set of contrary tits if you tried.

I went to Edinburgh and even those who considered themselves broadly similar politically couldn't sit in a room for 15 minutes without disagreeing about some pish or such falling out.

Education, beyond actually getting some, has no bearing on suitability of politicians.

I don't think that people who attend the same universities think the same. No.

Oxford and Cambridge are the elite universities in the UK, mentioned in the same breath so often, they are referred to jointly as Oxbridge. Its students are more likely to have gone to Eton or Harrow rather than, say Craigroyston.

I'm not sure where you get "invariably" from: the expression I used was "implication"

The groupthink that I mentioned refers to the fact that having been through the Oxbridge system, their view of modern Britain may be out of kilter with that of their traditional support base.

I'm not saying they didn't behave like ****-throwing chimps as students, but perhaps, having attained their Oxbridge degree, and the further years of rapid advancement in the Party, which increasingly became more interested in style over substance, have found that their more radical instincts have mellowed.

[Future17]

Alistair Carmichael forced to admit leaking the fictional Nicola Sturgeon memo during the election campaign:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32849065

[lucky]

So Carmichael smeared Surgeon, there's a shock. Did anyone think it was anyone else? As for him standing down, that's for his constituents to decide no one else

[degenerated]

So Carmichael smeared Surgeon, there's a shock. Did anyone think it was anyone else? As for him standing down, that's for his constituents to decide no one else
In these austere times, that he let an enquiry go ahead (at the taxpayers expense) to which he knew the answer suggests he is not fit to carry on in his role.

[Mr Grieves]

So Carmichael smeared Surgeon, there's a shock. Did anyone think it was anyone else? As for him standing down, that's for his constituents to decide no one else
Maybe he should have admitted this before the election to allow his constituents to make an informed decision?

[weecounty hibby]

Maybe he should have admitted this before the election to allow his constituents to make an informed decision?

Totally agree with this. Disgraceful that he did this and then lied and has allowed a costly enquiry to go ahead. This is the kind of behaviour that should be stamped out in politics. No wonder the trust ratings for MPs is through the floor

[marinello59]

Totally agree with this. Disgraceful that he did this and then lied and has allowed a costly enquiry to go ahead. This is the kind of behaviour that should be stamped out in politics. No wonder the trust ratings for MPs is through the floor

The enquiry had to go ahead anyway. Carmichael was guilty of the leak but it was a civil servant who provided the inaccurate account.

[weecounty hibby]

The enquiry had to go ahead anyway. Carmichael was guilty of the leak but it was a civil servant who provided the inaccurate account.

And Carmichael knew who he was and agreed to the document being leaked. Surely it didn't need to go ahead if he had done the right thing

[The_Todd]

The enquiry had to go ahead anyway. Carmichael was guilty of the leak but it was a civil servant who provided the inaccurate account.

Actually the report itself doesn't deem the account to be "inaccurate".

[marinello59]

And Carmichael knew who he was and agreed to the document being leaked. Surely it didn't need to go ahead if he had done the right thing

It had to go ahead to investigate the behaviour of the civil servant who it would appear is in the clear.

[ronaldo7]

Carmichael lied, the civil servant was stupid, and Kezia Dugdale, Ruth Davidson, Willie Rennie, and Ian Murray were quick to tweet the lies soon after the smear appeared in the Torygraph.

We'll see if any of the above have any kahoonas and apologise to the First Minister, and Carmichael should consider his position.

[Hibs Class]

Carmichael lied, the civil servant was stupid, and Kezia Dugdale, Ruth Davidson, Willie Rennie, and Ian Murray were quick to tweet the lies soon after the smear appeared in the Torygraph.

We'll see if any of the above have any kahoonas and apologise to the First Minister, and Carmichael should consider his position.

Carmichael lied, that is despicable and the sooner he disappears from public life the better. There is no place whatsoever for dishonesty like this, and if his own party don't turn their back on him (withdraw the whip?) then that tells you all you need to know about the LibDems. However, I'm not yet sure that this is a smear for which others need to apologise - was this a view that Sturgeon stated or not, even if she only said it in what she thought was private. Given her public position on SNP unwillingness to support the Tories again, it's also an important question re integrity.

[marinello59]

Carmichael lied, the civil servant was stupid, and Kezia Dugdale, Ruth Davidson, Willie Rennie, and Ian Murray were quick to tweet the lies soon after the smear appeared in the Torygraph.

We'll see if any of the above have any kahoonas and apologise to the First Minister, and Carmichael should consider his position.

Carmichael was on my top three wish list to see ditched by the electorate so I would love to see him go now. The civil servant was rather more than stupid, he must have known the consequences of getting this so wrong.
As for the politicians who rushed to tweet about it their punishment was that they were not only advert look stupid, the whole thing backfired on them anyway. Politicians of any party would have jumped on that type of thing pretty quick during the heat of an election campaign.

[Hibs Class]

Carmichael lied, that is despicable and the sooner he disappears from public life the better. There is no place whatsoever for dishonesty like this, and if his own party don't turn their back on him (withdraw the whip?) then that tells you all you need to know about the LibDems. However, I'm not yet sure that this is a smear for which others need to apologise - was this a view that Sturgeon stated or not, even if she only said it in what she thought was private. Given her public position on SNP unwillingness to support the Tories again, it's also an important question re integrity.

Just caught the scottish news..states that both Sturgeon and the French ambassador dispute the accuracy of the account.

[JimBHibees]

So Carmichael smeared Surgeon, there's a shock. Did anyone think it was anyone else? As for him standing down, that's for his constituents to decide no one else

I think it is more than a smear it is a blatant lie and a dirty trick and wouldn't altogether dismiss it being orchestrated in some way. As some have said no wonder politicians are so loathed.

[ronaldo7]

Just caught the scottish news..states that both Sturgeon and the French ambassador dispute the accuracy of the account.

:agree: Sturgeon never said it, the French ambassador never heard it.

Carmichael should now be tendering his resignation as an MP imo.

http://t.co/DyWrGqpV2m

I'm told the cost of the inquiry was £1.4Million...Staggering.

Lots of kids could have had full bellies with that cash.

[Hibrandenburg]

:agree: Sturgeon never said it, the French ambassador never heard it.

Carmichael should now be tendering his resignation as an MP imo.

http://t.co/DyWrGqpV2m

I'm told the cost of the inquiry was £1.4Million...Staggering.

Lots of kids could have had full bellies with that cash.

And imagine the landslide victory the SNP could have won had this been revealed prior to the election?

[steakbake]

Of course it was Carmichael who gladly leaked the ambivalent and loaded document. Yet at the time he smugly denied it to millions through the
media with his "these things happen during elections" quip. What a Grade A c***.

[snooky]

He'd be as well resigning because his credibility is shot. Just like his party's was when they sided with the Tories and the uni fees turnaround.
What he did is the unacceptable side of politics. The original sin was a safu. The lie about it afterwards turned it into a snafu.
Liberarse begone please.

[snooky]

Torygraph still printing misleading headlines. "Sturgeon memo recorded accurate". That implies that she DID say she wanted the Tories to win. When you read the story what they tell you in smaller print is that the reporter wrote down what he thought he heard at the meeting. Note "he thought" that's what they are saying is accurate.
I thought the Telegraph was full of Tom Kite. Now THAT'S accurate - 100% ..... and I still think it.

[Future17]

The enquiry had to go ahead anyway. Carmichael was guilty of the leak but it was a civil servant who provided the inaccurate account.


It had to go ahead to investigate the behaviour of the civil servant who it would appear is in the clear.

Is this true though? My understanding was that the enquiry was "a leak enquiry". The issue being investigated was how the memo came to be in the public domain, not whether it was accurate or not.

The issue of its accuracy came under investigation because of the wider implication that it was deliberately fabricated. However, had it not been leaked it this would never have been an issue and, had Carmichael 'fessed up early, an investigation of this size and scale would not have been required.

People are saying that whether he continues as an MP is for his constituents to decide but I disagree. He leaked a document to try and gain a dishonest advantage in an election campaign. He lied about it on more than one occasion. He, by act or omission, cost the taxpayer a large amount of money. We cannot accept these sorts of people as being fit to represent us or we're truly doomed to another generation of political apathy despite the gains we've made in this country over the past couple of years.

Finally, aside from everything else, what was he actually hoping to achieve by leaking the memo? That Scottish voters would react negatively to the prospect of a Tory Government and decide to vote tactically by voting....Lib Dem?!? The party that put the Tories in power after the last election!?! On lack of judgement and common sense alone he should walk...

[Colr]

:agree: Sturgeon never said it, the French ambassador never heard it.

Carmichael should now be tendering his resignation as an MP imo.

http://t.co/DyWrGqpV2m

I'm told the cost of the inquiry was £1.4Million...Staggering.

Lots of kids could have had full bellies with that cash.

If MPs had to resign for telling lies the House of Commons would be empty!

[JimBHibees]

If MPs had to resign for telling lies the House of Commons would be empty!

Or emptier.

[Colr]

Or emptier.

Except at the weekend.

[Hibbyradge]

Except at the weekend.

:faf:

:thumbsup:

[Hibbyradge]

Lib Dems have publicly backed Carmichael.

He won't be resigning.

[Future17]

Lib Dems have publicly backed Carmichael.

He won't be resigning.

I don't think there was ever any chance of him resigning. Why would he?

Had the Lib Dem majority in his constituency been larger, had he been part of a significantly bigger Lib Dem block in Scotland and had his party been on an upward trajectory in the opinion of the public, then maybe, just maybe, he would have resigned. The absence of all those factors mean there is absolutely nothing for him to gain from quitting.

He'll be hoping that the tides of opinion have turned by 5 years time and that people have largely forgotten about his skulduggery and dishonesty.

[Hibbyradge]

I don't think there was ever any chance of him resigning. Why would he?



He tried to deceive the electorate. If an MP is caught cheating and lying, which he clearly was,they should resign,imo.

[Colr]

Yes and look how well they have done considering. :wink:

I recall Glasgow Uni had a disproportionate number of utter ****ers as students - most in the GUU. Not the most worldly bunch but really pleased with themselves.

[Beefster]

He tried to deceive the electorate. If an MP is caught cheating and lying, which he clearly was,they should resign,imo.

Was he caught lying? I thought he just was involved in leaking a memo.

[snooky]

Was he caught lying? I thought he just was involved in leaking a memo.

Has he not just released a statement saying that he endorsed the leak thereby contradicting his pre-election claim that he knew nothing about it?

Verdict : Pants on fire by self admission.

Personally, I think he should stay as he has no credibility and therefore toothless in any future issues.

[Hibbyradge]

Was he caught lying? I thought he just was involved in leaking a memo.

He said he had nothing to do with it.

[ACLeith]

"Everyone knows that politics is a robust trade, especially in an election campaign. No-one would expect candidates to spend their time highlighting their opponents’ virtues but to suggest any smear is justifiable must be wrong."

“The right to freedom of speech is a fundamental one but it does bring a responsibility with it to tell the truth. The right to smear an opponent is not one we should be defending.”

Where did these quotes come from? The Shetland Times, 12th November 2010.

The author of the article? Alistair Carmichael MP

:clown:

[ronaldo7]

"Everyone knows that politics is a robust trade, especially in an election campaign. No-one would expect candidates to spend their time highlighting their opponents’ virtues but to suggest any smear is justifiable must be wrong."

“The right to freedom of speech is a fundamental one but it does bring a responsibility with it to tell the truth. The right to smear an opponent is not one we should be defending.”

Where did these quotes come from? The Shetland Times, 12th November 2010.

The author of the article? Alistair Carmichael MP

:clown:

http://t.co/9aECsfkjAy:aok:

[Colr]

:agree: Sturgeon never said it, the French ambassador never heard it.

Carmichael should now be tendering his resignation as an MP imo.

http://t.co/DyWrGqpV2m

I'm told the cost of the inquiry was £1.4Million...Staggering.

Lots of kids could have had full bellies with that cash.

Ferrero Rochergate!

[snooky]

Carmichael is all heart you know. He's not taking his severence pay ........ and doesn't mind blowing £1.4m of taxpayers' money.
Somehow I still get the feeling he's being the fall guy and is on a lucrative promise.

[Future17]

He tried to deceive the electorate. If an MP is caught cheating and lying, which he clearly was,they should resign,imo.

I agree, but those are reasons that you and I think should cause an MP to resign, not why an MP thinks an MP should resign.

[Hibbyradge]

I agree, but those are reasons that you and I think should cause an MP to resign, not why an MP thinks an MP should resign.

Gotcha.

[ronaldo7]

I don't think there was ever any chance of him resigning. Why would he?

Had the Lib Dem majority in his constituency been larger, had he been part of a significantly bigger Lib Dem block in Scotland and had his party been on an upward trajectory in the opinion of the public, then maybe, just maybe, he would have resigned. The absence of all those factors mean there is absolutely nothing for him to gain from quitting.

He'll be hoping that the tides of opinion have turned by 5 years time and that people have largely forgotten about his skulduggery and dishonesty.

He might want to ask Nick Clegg and his party if the electorate will forget about this in 5 years time. I think not. This will haunt him for a long time after he leaves office, whenever that may be.

[Future17]

He might want to ask Nick Clegg and his party if the electorate will forget about this in 5 years time. I think not. This will haunt him for a long time after he leaves office, whenever that may be.

I'm not sure that's true, although I agree it should be.

Clegg and the rest of the Lib Dems had their morality bypass publicised by the media on a regular basis over a 5 year period. Nobody will bring the leak incident to the attention of the public at large again until the campaign in 2020 and, by that stage, I doubt it'll be a major issue to the people who will be asked to re-elect him.

[ronaldo7]

Ferrero Rochergate!

Prefer these.

14912:aok:

[ronaldo7]

I'm not sure that's true, although I agree it should be.

Clegg and the rest of the Lib Dems had their morality bypass publicised by the media on a regular basis over a 5 year period. Nobody will bring the leak incident to the attention of the public at large again until the campaign in 2020 and, by that stage, I doubt it'll be a major issue to the people who will be asked to re-elect him.

One of the main reasons the Lib dems went from 50 MP's to 8 was the tuition fees issue. The electorate never forgot. It didn't help that they were in bed with the tories in a coalition, but the media continued to raise the issue of the Tuition fees pledge during the recent GE.

The people of Scotland will remember French fancy gate in 2020, but more so in 2016 as Willie Rennie has just come out in support of Carmichael.

[Future17]

One of the main reasons the Lib dems went from 50 MP's to 8 was the tuition fees issue. The electorate never forgot. It didn't help that they were in bed with the tories in a coalition, but the media continued to raise the issue of the Tuition fees pledge during the recent GE.

The people of Scotland will remember French fancy gate in 2020, but more so in 2016 as Willie Rennie has just come out in support of Carmichael.

I guess time will tell, but I feel you may be overplaying the level of outrage amongst the general public (or underplaying how the outrage that does exist will diminish over time).

[ACLeith]

Once the current heat dies down there could be a "wanting to spend more time with my family" moment. He could then feel he has saved face, wait a wee while and then become Lord Ali of Skara Brae!

[ronaldo7]

I guess time will tell, but I feel you may be overplaying the level of outrage amongst the general public (or underplaying how the outrage that does exist will diminish over time).

Time will tell, but maybe, just maybe we'll get a result in the coming weeks:wink:

[marinello59]

Time will tell, but maybe, just maybe we'll get a result in the coming weeks:wink:

Don't you mean his constituents will get a result? It up to them after all. If he is to be removed that's where the outrage needs to come from, not rival tribes.

[ronaldo7]

Don't you mean his constituents will get a result? It up to them after all. If he is to be removed that's where the outrage needs to come from, not rival tribes.

People don't need to be "outraged", to want fair and honest elections, and his constituents are on the case.

14913

http://t.co/UqHwFzEKYW

Who are these tribes you speak of?

[The Harp Awakes]

I don't think there was ever any chance of him resigning. Why would he?

Had the Lib Dem majority in his constituency been larger, had he been part of a significantly bigger Lib Dem block in Scotland and had his party been on an upward trajectory in the opinion of the public, then maybe, just maybe, he would have resigned. The absence of all those factors mean there is absolutely nothing for him to gain from quitting.

He'll be hoping that the tides of opinion have turned by 5 years time and that people have largely forgotten about his skulduggery and dishonesty.

Whether he does or does not resign looks to be irrelevant now. His case has been referred to the Common's standards Commissioner which may well lead him to being suspended as an MP. If so, that automatically triggers a new process under the Recall of MPs Act; if 10% of his constituents sign a petition calling for a by-election one must be held.

He looks goosed one way or another.

[CropleyWasGod]

Whether he does or does not resign looks to be irrelevant now. His case has been referred to the Common's standards Commissioner which may well lead him to being suspended as an MP. If so, that automatically triggers a new process under the Recall of MPs Act; if 10% of his constituents sign a petition calling for a by-election one must be held.

He looks goosed one way or another.

Interesting stuff.

Does it matter that he wasn't, technically, an MP when it all happened?

[Eyrie]

The SNP want Carmichael to resign because he lied about the memo.

Would they also want someone to resign who not only lied about having legal advice that an independent Scotland would automatically be admitted to the EU, but also spent taxpayers money trying to hide that lie? Or would they propose that person as a Westminster MP and then appoint him as shadow Foreign Secretary?

[The Harp Awakes]

Interesting stuff.

Does it matter that he wasn't, technically, an MP when it all happened?

I suspect that will be his defence but it doesn't sound a very strong one. If he's lied he's lied. Also his adviser was apparently involved in preparing the leak; taking calls etc, before parliament was dissolved and whilst Carmichael was still an MP.

[snooky]

Once the current heat dies down there could be a "wanting to spend more time with my family" moment. He could then feel he has saved face, wait a wee while and then become Lord Ali of Skara Brae!

Doesn't sound too far off the mark to me. I still think he's been promised something down the line to take the whipping for all his yet unnamed accomplices.

[Beefster]

One of the main reasons the Lib dems went from 50 MP's to 8 was the tuition fees issue. The electorate never forgot. It didn't help that they were in bed with the tories in a coalition, but the media continued to raise the issue of the Tuition fees pledge during the recent GE.

The people of Scotland will remember French fancy gate in 2020, but more so in 2016 as Willie Rennie has just come out in support of Carmichael.

You're getting way too carried away. By 2020, no one will give two hoots apart from some SNP supporters who have enough to time to worry about genuinely inconsequential events from five years ago.

[Beefster]

The SNP want Carmichael to resign because he lied about the memo.

Would they also want someone to resign who not only lied about having legal advice that an independent Scotland would automatically be admitted to the EU, but also spent taxpayers money trying to hide that lie? Or would they propose that person as a Westminster MP and then appoint him as shadow Foreign Secretary?

I predict 0 pages (and 0 satisfactory answers).

[marinello59]

I predict 0 pages (and 0 satisfactory answers).

If you are in THE PARTY then you can do whatever you want. FACT.

[ronaldo7]

You're getting way too carried away. By 2020, no one will give two hoots apart from some SNP supporters who have enough to time to worry about genuinely inconsequential events from five years ago.

Just following events as they unfold. Still allowed I think under our Freedoms within the UK at the moment.

In politics as in Football you are allowed to look forward, and hypothesize about the future. The world would be a sad place if everyone just looked back all the time.

[southfieldhibby]

He's not standing in 2020 anyway iirc?

[The_Todd]

He should go on the count of lying about the leak. However I don't understand the outcry at people saying the SNP privately want a Tory government; anyone with their head screwed on can see that the SNP may diagree with the Tories but in their long-term interests they would obviosuly tactically prefer a Tory government.

It's not about prefering Tory policies to Labour policies before anyone starts moaning at me, but it's about the fact the SNP has one single aim in the party constitution, that aim is independence. If the SNP calculate a Tory majority government with between 0-1 Scottish Tory MPs helps their case for Indyref2 you'd have to be massively naive to think the SNP would look that gifthorse in the mouth.

[Future17]

He should go on the count of lying about the leak. However I don't understand the outcry at people saying the SNP privately want a Tory government; anyone with their head screwed on can see that the SNP may diagree with the Tories but in their long-term interests they would obviosuly tactically prefer a Tory government.

It's not about prefering Tory policies to Labour policies before anyone starts moaning at me, but it's about the fact the SNP has one single aim in the party constitution, that aim is independence. If the SNP calculate a Tory majority government with between 0-1 Scottish Tory MPs helps their case for Indyref2 you'd have to be massively naive to think the SNP would look that gifthorse in the mouth.

That's a pretty big "if" though isn't it; I don't think it's as simple as that.

Whilst, as you say, independence is the ultimate goal for the SNP and a UK Tory government (which Scotland didn't vote for) remaining unpopular north of the border is likely to increase support for that, the SNP are still left with the difficulty of what circumstances would have to arise in Scotland for independence to be seen as the preferable alternative to returning a Labour government (or at least attempting to) next time round.

I also think that, in the long-term, Labour's abject failure in the UKPGE has the potential to hasten an upturn in the fortunes of Scottish Labour - albeit that is very much in the balance.

[Future17]

Whether he does or does not resign looks to be irrelevant now. His case has been referred to the Common's standards Commissioner which may well lead him to being suspended as an MP. If so, that automatically triggers a new process under the Recall of MPs Act; if 10% of his constituents sign a petition calling for a by-election one must be held.

He looks goosed one way or another.

It's certainly a possibility. However, suspensions only trigger the process if they are for a period of at least 10 Parliamentary days or 2 weeks. Given that the PSC has a pretty poor record when it comes to taking a tough line, certainly in recent years, I wouldn't hold out much hope of any suspension lasting for that long.

[Moulin Yarns]

Worth a read. (IMHO)

http://williamduguid.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/karma-carmichael.html?spref=fb

[Hibbyradge]

Worth a read. (IMHO)

http://williamduguid.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/karma-carmichael.html?spref=fb

It was a good read.

Carmichael's hanging on though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32874009

[Eyrie]

I predict 0 pages (and 0 satisfactory answers).
Looks like it.


If you are in THE PARTY then you can do whatever you want. FACT.
The usual hypocrisy - it's only a resigning matter for the other side.

[lucky]

Why should he resign? Look at the lies that were contained the White paper that the SNP used tax payers cash to pay for.

[snooky]

Why should he resign? Look at the lies that were contained the White paper that the SNP used tax payers cash to pay for.

:hmmm: I think you're question kinda answers other questions.

[ronaldo7]

The SNP want Carmichael to resign because he lied about the memo.

Would they also want someone to resign who not only lied about having legal advice that an independent Scotland would automatically be admitted to the EU, but also spent taxpayers money trying to hide that lie? Or would they propose that person as a Westminster MP and then appoint him as shadow Foreign Secretary?

If this occurred whilst I was in charge(oh er), they'd be gone.

[Eyrie]

If this occurred whilst I was in charge(oh er), they'd be gone.

Did you demand that Salmond stand down as First Minister at the time? And would you agree that it is appropriate that he now resign as an MP since that is what you believe Carmichael should do?

If you can answer yes to both, then you're more honest than the SNP leadership and too honest to make it in politics.

[ronaldo7]

Did you demand that Salmond stand down as First Minister at the time? And would you agree that it is appropriate that he now resign as an MP since that is what you believe Carmichael should do?

If you can answer yes to both, then you're more honest than the SNP leadership and too honest to make it in politics.

I believe he referred himself to be investigated after a prolonged period and some FOI. I think he's been referred 6 or 7 times and every time he's got over the hurdle. Happy to be corrected, as I didn't follow it closely. Someone on here will probably be able to help though.:greengrin

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/oct/25/alex-salmond-ministerial-code-eu-legal-advice

I personally never asked for him to stand down as I wasn't involved in any party at the time. I joined when he stood down, and Sturgeon took over.

As for making it in politics:faf:

I've joined as a foot soldier along with many others, and as the membership has exploded in recent times, we might get new thinking in the party.

[Future17]

Sir Malcolm Bruce doing a pretty poor job of riding to Carmichael's defence:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32881672

"My point is if you are suggesting that every MP who has never quite told the truth or indeed told a brazen lie - including ministers, including Cabinet ministers, including prime ministers - we would clear out the House of Commons very fast, I would suggest."

Asked if lying was widespread in public life, he said: "No, well, yes. I think the answer is that lots of people have told lies and you know that to be perfectly true....

:greengrin

[lucky]

16/4 - Sturgeon to EdM "You voted with the Tories for £30bn of cuts".

Today, Nicola Sturgeon admitted vote didn't commit to cuts.

Should Queen Nicola abdicate since she lied and smeared Ed Milliband and Labour?

[The_Todd]

16/4 - Sturgeon to EdM "You voted with the Tories for £30bn of cuts".

Today, Nicola Sturgeon admitted vote didn't commit to cuts.

Should Queen Nicola abdicate since she lied and smeared Ed Milliband and Labour?

Indeed. It was disheartening seeing so many SNP types chime in for weeks with "you've voted for £30bn cuts" and anyone trying to counter it with the truth has been consistently shouted down. I've noticed on Twitter that if you try and counter ANY SNP claim at all I've found myself attacked almost immediatly by swarms of SNP members. "Oh you're just saying SNPBad then"? or "you're a unionist troll". Which is sad, because I actually voted yes in the indyref, but I disagree with the SNP on most other things. It's impossible to debate with SNP members on Twitter.

One of the oddest thing I've found is SNP members making endless claims about Labour, making endless comments about Labour's leadership contests (both UK-wide and Scottish) but if you try and debunk anything they say or point out any hypocrasy they swarm again all saying "God! You're so obsessed with the SNP! That's why you lost!" without the slightest bit of self-awareness.

I'm not sure if they're like this in real life, but in Twitterland at least I do find some SNP members behaviour worrying.

[Future17]

Indeed. It was disheartening seeing so many SNP types chime in for weeks with "you've voted for £30bn cuts" and anyone trying to counter it with the truth has been consistently shouted down. I've noticed on Twitter that if you try and counter ANY SNP claim at all I've found myself attacked almost immediatly by swarms of SNP members. "Oh you're just saying SNPBad then"? or "you're a unionist troll". Which is sad, because I actually voted yes in the indyref, but I disagree with the SNP on most other things. It's impossible to debate with SNP members on Twitter.

One of the oddest thing I've found is SNP members making endless claims about Labour, making endless comments about Labour's leadership contests (both UK-wide and Scottish) but if you try and debunk anything they say or point out any hypocrasy they swarm again all saying "God! You're so obsessed with the SNP! That's why you lost!" without the slightest bit of self-awareness.

I'm not sure if they're like this in real life, but in Twitterland at least I do find some SNP members behaviour worrying.

I'm not doubting what you're saying as I have experience of being on the receiving end of the slavering vitriol from probably every side of Scottish political debate, but I do still find your apparent position strange.

Why, when someone clearly does something wrong and, therefore, there is an expectation that they should be punished to an appropriate degree, is the response along the lines of "oh, but so and so did it first/worse/more often" as if that is some sort of defence?

IMHO, that's the sort of attitude that has led us to the point where a "knight" of the realm thinks it's perfectly acceptable for politicians to tell "brazen lies" to the people they are elected and paid to represent. It's also led us to the point where democracy has become massively undervalued because a large section of society simply can't trust those who have the responsibility of running the country or holding those who do to account.

Is it too much to ask that some of us put party politics aside and simply agree that Carmichael's behaviour makes him unfit to represent those who elected him (albeit that is ultimately for them to decide)?

[snooky]

Sir Malcolm Bruce doing a pretty poor job of riding to Carmichael's defence:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32881672

"My point is if you are suggesting that every MP who has never quite told the truth or indeed told a brazen lie - including ministers, including Cabinet ministers, including prime ministers - we would clear out the House of Commons very fast, I would suggest."

Asked if lying was widespread in public life, he said: "No, well, yes. I think the answer is that lots of people have told lies and you know that to be perfectly true....

:greengrin

Best suggestion so far :aok:

[ronaldo7]

Indeed. It was disheartening seeing so many SNP types chime in for weeks with "you've voted for £30bn cuts" and anyone trying to counter it with the truth has been consistently shouted down. I've noticed on Twitter that if you try and counter ANY SNP claim at all I've found myself attacked almost immediatly by swarms of SNP members. "Oh you're just saying SNPBad then"? or "you're a unionist troll". Which is sad, because I actually voted yes in the indyref, but I disagree with the SNP on most other things. It's impossible to debate with SNP members on Twitter.

One of the oddest thing I've found is SNP members making endless claims about Labour, making endless comments about Labour's leadership contests (both UK-wide and Scottish) but if you try and debunk anything they say or point out any hypocrasy they swarm again all saying "God! You're so obsessed with the SNP! That's why you lost!" without the slightest bit of self-awareness.

I'm not sure if they're like this in real life, but in Twitterland at least I do find some SNP members behaviour worrying.

9 lines of text and the SNP mentioned 9 times. Maybe they're right:greengrin

Only kidding:wink:

[The_Todd]

I'm not doubting what you're saying as I have experience of being on the receiving end of the slavering vitriol from probably every side of Scottish political debate, but I do still find your apparent position strange.

Why, when someone clearly does something wrong and, therefore, there is an expectation that they should be punished to an appropriate degree, is the response along the lines of "oh, but so and so did it first/worse/more often" as if that is some sort of defence?

IMHO, that's the sort of attitude that has led us to the point where a "knight" of the realm thinks it's perfectly acceptable for politicians to tell "brazen lies" to the people they are elected and paid to represent. It's also led us to the point where democracy has become massively undervalued because a large section of society simply can't trust those who have the responsibility of running the country or holding those who do to account.

Is it too much to ask that some of us put party politics aside and simply agree that Carmichael's behaviour makes him unfit to represent those who elected him (albeit that is ultimately for them to decide)?

I've said nothing about Carmichael, except on Twitter where I've stated he has to go.

[Moulin Yarns]

I've said nothing about Carmichael, except on Twitter where I've stated he has to go.


He should go on the count of lying about the leak. However I don't understand the outcry at people saying the SNP privately want a Tory government; anyone with their head screwed on can see that the SNP may diagree with the Tories but in their long-term interests they would obviosuly tactically prefer a Tory government.

It's not about prefering Tory policies to Labour policies before anyone starts moaning at me, but it's about the fact the SNP has one single aim in the party constitution, that aim is independence. If the SNP calculate a Tory majority government with between 0-1 Scottish Tory MPs helps their case for Indyref2 you'd have to be massively naive to think the SNP would look that gifthorse in the mouth.


Does that mean you have lied to Hibs.net?

The Governor must go!!! :protest:

[Alex Trager]

I was told recently that the SNP decided not to vote for 50% taxation on the richest.

Is this true?

Also could someone explain what the human rights act that is getting destroyed by the Tories today is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Colr]

I was told recently that the SNP decided not to vote for 50% taxation on the richest.

Is this true?

Also could someone explain what the human rights act that is getting destroyed by the Tories today is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Tories want to stop people using the human rights act to stay in the UK instead of being deported after committing heinous crimes. They've pulled back at this point as there is concern about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Future17]

I've said nothing about Carmichael, except on Twitter where I've stated he has to go.

I was fairly certain you had but, if I am wrong, I apologise.

I just wonder about people who turn a relatively simple issue (of a politician lying in an attempt to get elected) into something party political and then wonder why a large section of the electorate don't trust politicians.

[Moulin Yarns]

I was fairly certain you had but, if I am wrong, I apologise.

I just wonder about people who turn a relatively simple issue (of a politician lying in an attempt to get elected) into something party political and then wonder why a large section of the electorate don't trust politicians.


He should go on the count of lying about the leak. However I don't understand the outcry at people saying the SNP privately want a Tory government; anyone with their head screwed on can see that the SNP may diagree with the Tories but in their long-term interests they would obviosuly tactically prefer a Tory government.

It's not about prefering Tory policies to Labour policies before anyone starts moaning at me, but it's about the fact the SNP has one single aim in the party constitution, that aim is independence. If the SNP calculate a Tory majority government with between 0-1 Scottish Tory MPs helps their case for Indyref2 you'd have to be massively naive to think the SNP would look that gifthorse in the mouth.


Does that mean you have lied to Hibs.net?

The Governor must go!!! :protest:


He did. :wink:

[RyeSloan]

I was told recently that the SNP decided not to vote for 50% taxation on the richest. Is this true? Also could someone explain what the human rights act that is getting destroyed by the Tories today is? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no human rights act being 'destroyed' today...i believe that it is merely a consultation.

While human rights need to be protected I do get the argument that in some cases the European version of human rights has gone a touch far, or at the very least can be leveraged by certain parties beyond what the legislation was intended to do.

Nothing wrong in having a debate about it..the rather hysterical reaction in some quarters (the sun front page today is a cracker) shows that having a sensible debate about how far these rights should go and where these rights are determined maybe a forlorn hope..

[Future17]

He did. :wink:

Ha ha! Apologies for missing your previous post - I didn't realise I wasn't on the last page of the thread. :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

I was told recently that the SNP decided not to vote for 50% taxation on the richest.

Is this true?

Also could someone explain what the human rights act that is getting destroyed by the Tories today is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 14 of the recent SNP manifesto for the General election has a proposal to increase taxation for the richest to 50%:aok:

[Alex Trager]

Page 14 of the recent SNP manifesto for the General election has a proposal to increase taxation for the richest to 50%:aok:

Yeah I know that.

I was informed that they had voted for it not to be the case though.
Is this true?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[liamh2202]

Everyone on here probably know I never voted snp.. But I must say I'm impressed with them after the first day in the chamber. The thing about clapping makes my blood boil and in my eyes they are getting under the tories skin already.. Good on them.

[ronaldo7]

Yeah I know that.

I was informed that they had voted for it not to be the case though.
Is this true?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They voted against a Labour amendment recently. They cannot raise the tax to 50% at the moment but this should change in 2016 with the new powers coming from WM.

The tax varying powers the parliament currently has only allows the tax to be raised/lowered by 3p

[ronaldo7]

14928








Everyone on here probably know I never voted snp.. But I must say I'm impressed with them after the first day in the chamber. The thing about clapping makes my blood boil and in my eyes they are getting under the tories skin already.. Good on them.

.

[liamh2202]

14928






.


Yeh was also good to see mate... If this continues I won't be afraid to admit I'm wrong and vote them next time round. At least in the UK election anyway

[ronaldo7]

Yeh was also good to see mate... If this continues I won't be afraid to admit I'm wrong and vote them next time round. At least in the UK election anyway

I think they'll find it hard to keep it up, but at least I can see my MP there taking in the debate on Zero Hours.:aok:

[Alex Trager]

They voted against a Labour amendment recently. They cannot raise the tax to 50% at the moment but this should change in 2016 with the new powers coming from WM.

The tax varying powers the parliament currently has only allows the tax to be raised/lowered by 3p

What was the labour amendment?

And why did the vote against it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The_Todd]

This whole thing about last night's zero-hours contracts debate is getting on my wick. Zero-hours contracts need discussed, but let's remember last night's debate was an adjournment debate. By definition these only last half an hour before the house adjourns, is usually only debated by the member who called for the debate and the government minister responsible. Then there is usually no vote at the end, other than to adjourn the house. I know the SNP members have been all over this claiming it shows only the SNP are doing anything, but turning up on-masse for an adjournment debate doesn't really change anything.

If the SNP want to play this game then I'm sure we can look back on the SNP MSPs attendance at ALL debates at Holyrood, and track how often the new MPs appear at ALL WM debates in the future, including adjournment debates. It all seems a bit gimmicky to me to claim this means the SNP are "working harder" than anyone else. They only spoke once during the whole debate between the 56 of them!

[liamh2202]

This whole thing about last night's zero-hours contracts debate is getting on my wick. Zero-hours contracts need discussed, but let's remember last night's debate was an adjournment debate. By definition these only last half an hour before the house adjourns, is usually only debated by the member who called for the debate and the government minister responsible. Then there is usually no vote at the end, other than to adjourn the house. I know the SNP members have been all over this claiming it shows only the SNP are doing anything, but turning up on-masse for an adjournment debate doesn't really change anything.

If the SNP want to play this game then I'm sure we can look back on the SNP MSPs attendance at ALL debates at Holyrood, and track how often the new MPs appear at ALL WM debates in the future, including adjournment debates. It all seems a bit gimmicky to me to claim this means the SNP are "working harder" than anyone else. They only spoke once during the whole debate between the 56 of them!


To be fair to them mate they were in the majority for most of the day.. Didn't take long for the tories and labour to vacate the chamber.

[The_Todd]

To be fair to them mate they were in the majority for most of the day.. Didn't take long for the tories and labour to vacate the chamber.

MPs have other duties. Also let's remember that being an MP doesn't mean you have to sit in the chamber til 10pm every day. But next time you watch FMQs at Holyrood and the next debate starts watch how quickly the chamber empties - including SNP MSPs. If our MPs and MSPs stayed all day and all night for every debate and did nothing else we'd berate them for not doing any "real" work.

[ronaldo7]

What was the labour amendment?

And why did the vote against it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe the Labour amendment was to increase the tax to 50% to enable the closing of the attainment gap in schools, it would have raised over £125M over 5 years of the parly.

Labour perspective. http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/blog/entry/a-vote-for-the-50p-tax-rate-means-closing-the-education-gap

The SNP voted against it and put in place their own policy from funds found elsewhere. They're maybe keeping their powder dry on the 50% tax rate for the mitigation of more welfare cuts coming down the line from WM, just like the Bedroom Tax.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scotlands-poorest-pupils-benefit-100million-5135436

I'm sure we'll see the 50% tax rate in both manifestos for 2016

[liamh2202]

MPs have other duties. Also let's remember that being an MP doesn't mean you have to sit in the chamber til 10pm every day. But next time you watch FMQs at Holyrood and the next debate starts watch how quickly the chamber empties - including SNP MSPs. If our MPs and MSPs stayed all day and all night for every debate and did nothing else we'd berate them for not doing any "real" work.

Yeh fair points. As I said I'm far from a snp supporter, I just thought they handled themselves well yesterday

[cabbageandribs1875]

get this cowardly scheming lying goat out of politics, we don't need dishonest liars



https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/alistair-carmichael-should-resign?bucket=scot


oh aye, and has ruth davidson apologised for her lies on the day of the GE yet, the one where she made up a wee story of riots at polling stations :faf: shameful behavoir

[Beefster]

I think they'll find it hard to keep it up

I hope they do. I'd rather my MP wasn't taking part in whipped publicity stunts.

[ronaldo7]

I hope they do. I'd rather my MP wasn't taking part in whipped publicity stunts.

If you feel strongly enough about it, you could tell them:dunno:

I'm sure they do surgeries at the week ends.:aok:

[liamh2202]

I hope they do. I'd rather my MP wasn't taking part in whipped publicity stunts.

Do keep it up? Or do struggle??

[lucky]

This whole thing about last night's zero-hours contracts debate is getting on my wick. Zero-hours contracts need discussed, but let's remember last night's debate was an adjournment debate. By definition these only last half an hour before the house adjourns, is usually only debated by the member who called for the debate and the government minister responsible. Then there is usually no vote at the end, other than to adjourn the house. I know the SNP members have been all over this claiming it shows only the SNP are doing anything, but turning up on-masse for an adjournment debate doesn't really change anything.

If the SNP want to play this game then I'm sure we can look back on the SNP MSPs attendance at ALL debates at Holyrood, and track how often the new MPs appear at ALL WM debates in the future, including adjournment debates. It all seems a bit gimmicky to me to claim this means the SNP are "working harder" than anyone else. They only spoke once during the whole debate between the 56 of them!

I was going post something similar. Clearly the lack of knowledge of how the HoC works is showing up in the social media posts of Nationalists. Time for the games to stop and actually start doing something. The voice of Scotland is clearly not being heard. So far they've games over seats, then a rose and now clapping. Have they actually contributed anything yet?

[allmodcons]

I was going post something similar. Clearly the lack of knowledge of how the HoC works is showing up in the social media posts of Nationalists. Time for the games to stop and actually start doing something. The voice of Scotland is clearly not being heard. So far they've games over seats, then a rose and now clapping. Have they actually contributed anything yet?

Top post Lucky.
FIRST DAY in the chamber and you're saying "time for the games to stop and actually start doing something".
Nothing like giving them a chance to prove themselves!
Good to see you've still got a pathological hatred of all things SNP.

[liamh2202]

I was going post something similar. Clearly the lack of knowledge of how the HoC works is showing up in the social media posts of Nationalists. Time for the games to stop and actually start doing something. The voice of Scotland is clearly not being heard. So far they've games over seats, then a rose and now clapping. Have they actually contributed anything yet?

From a non snp supporter the clapping issue is a joke... It is not forbidden and just because it upsets the old guard does not make it wrong.. It's OK for the tories to shout squeal and heckle but you can't clap..

[Future17]

Has ruth davidson apologised for her lies on the day of the GE yet, the one where she made up a wee story of riots at polling stations :faf: shameful behavoir

Did she not say something like "I hope these stories (of "riots" at polling stations) aren't true"? I could be wrong but, if that is what she said, it's unlikely to be a lie. Scare stories (and just plain crazy stories) come in from polling stations across the country on polling day at every electoral event - even more so these days due to social media. Some of them are true, some of them aren't.


I hope they do. I'd rather my MP wasn't taking part in whipped publicity stunts.

56 shades of yellow? :slipper:

[steakbake]

Good to see you've still got a pathological hatred of all things SNP.

Long may it continute: Labour's inability to accept the SNP as a legitimate political opponent and to continue to throw the toys out of the pram at everything they do, I think, contributed to them being absolutely routed on polling day. Various Labour luminaries have also said the same.

The echo round the chamber of the queen's speech had barely disappeared before there were people ranting at the SNP to "do something instead of talking". Ridiculous. Day 1 of Parliament.

As for the whole clapping debacle - they should ignore what a daft wee man who is dragged into his seat like something out of a masonic play has to say and remind him that we're in the 21st Century - that is, if they can be heard above the shouting and braying from the other parties who are perhaps more used to being full time career politicians.

Scottish Labour won't recover if it seems like their accusations of "gripe and grievance" at the SNP sound hypocritical - but then I don't think Ian Murray's reedy voice carries that far.

[ronaldo7]

get this cowardly scheming lying goat out of politics, we don't need dishonest liars



https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/alistair-carmichael-should-resign?bucket=scot


oh aye, and has ruth davidson apologised for her lies on the day of the GE yet, the one where she made up a wee story of riots at polling stations :faf: shameful behavoir


Did she not say something like "I hope these stories (of "riots" at polling stations) aren't true"? I could be wrong but, if that is what she said, it's unlikely to be a lie. Scare stories (and just plain crazy stories) come in from polling stations across the country on polling day at every electoral event - even more so these days due to social media. Some of them are true, some of them aren't.



56 shades of yellow? :slipper:


14932

Another tweet which tried to smear a "Particular party". The only two parties in with a chance(according to the polls) in Annan were the Tories and guess who.

Alternatively she was just trying to enlist the help of the local police to investigate:wink:

[allmodcons]

Long may it continute: Labour's inability to accept the SNP as a legitimate political opponent and to continue to throw the toys out of the pram at everything they do, I think, contributed to them being absolutely routed on polling day. Various Labour luminaries have also said the same.

The echo round the chamber of the queen's speech had barely disappeared before there were people ranting at the SNP to "do something instead of talking". Ridiculous. Day 1 of Parliament.

As for the whole clapping debacle - they should ignore what a daft wee man who is dragged into his seat like something out of a masonic play has to say and remind him that we're in the 21st Century - that is, if they can be heard above the shouting and braying from the other parties who are perhaps more used to being full time career politicians.

Scottish Labour won't recover if it seems like their accusations of "gripe and grievance" at the SNP sound hypocritical - but then I don't think Ian Murray's reedy voice carries that far.

I'm finding it rather amusing that the new intake of SNP MP's are being criticised and, even frowned upon, for not fully understanding 'protocol' in the House of Commons.

How does all of the pomp & ceremony (pish IMO) in anyway help engage voters (especially the young) and improve democracy?

[ronaldo7]

My MP has put together a helpful letter regarding the seats debacle. I hope this will allay the fears and smears of some believers of the right wing press.

I also think Labour need to get over the election result PDQ.

14933

[marinello59]

My MP has put together a helpful letter regarding the seats debacle. I hope this will allay the fears and smears of some believers of the right wing press.

I also think Labour need to get over the election result PDQ.

14933

Anybody on either side taking this seriously needs to grow up. I've found the idea of the SNP playing musical chairs with the beast of Bolsover hilarious as I thought the press had. It's simple, first come first served. (Anybody caught reserving seats with personal items to stand in the corner.)

[marinello59]

I'm finding it rather amusing that the new intake of SNP MP's are being criticised and, even frowned upon, for not fully understanding 'protocol' in the House of Commons.

How does all of the pomp & ceremony (pish IMO) in anyway help engage voters (especially the young) and improve democracy?

Exactly what I was thinking. I love the SNP groups exuberance.

[ronaldo7]

Anybody on either side taking this seriously needs to grow up. I've found the idea of the SNP playing musical chairs with the beast of Bolsover hilarious as I thought the press had. It's simple, first come first served. (Anybody caught reserving seats with personal items to stand in the corner.)

:agree:

It seems you actually have to book your seat in the morning by getting a prayer card to put in the slot at the seat. You then have to pray at some time during the day to ensure you keep the seat for the whole day.

What a crock of ****.

I'm more interested in how many veto's WM is putting in the Scotland bill.

[marinello59]

:agree:

It seems you actually have to book your seat in the morning by getting a prayer card to put in the slot at the seat. You then have to pray at some time during the day to ensure you keep the seat for the whole day.

What a crock of ****.

I'm more interested in how many veto's WM is putting in the Scotland bill.

I suspect the blue touch paper will be lit when we see the detail.

[ronaldo7]

Just heard Tommy Sheppard give his maiden speech in HOC. The guy just blew it away. Brilliant.:aok:

[Stranraer]

I hear Solidarity had a full page spread in the National urging people to give them a 2nd preference next year. I actually think Labour may lose MSP's and either Sheridan or the SSP will make gains. Can anyone tell me when the SSP lost their representation at Holyrood?

[Just Alf]

I hear Solidarity had a full page spread in the National urging people to give them a 2nd preference next year. I actually think Labour may lose MSP's and either Sheridan or the SSP will make gains. Can anyone tell me when the SSP lost their representation at Holyrood?

Not sure, worth asking....... And really tangled webs occurring:-/

[Future17]

I hear Solidarity had a full page spread in the National urging people to give them a 2nd preference next year. I actually think Labour may lose MSP's and either Sheridan or the SSP will make gains. Can anyone tell me when the SSP lost their representation at Holyrood?

The SSP were wiped out in 2007 having had 6 MSPs elected in 2003.

[marinello59]

I was in the QT audience tonight and if Lord Falconer is the best representative that Labour could put forward God help them.

[bawheid]

I was in the QT audience tonight and if Lord Falconer is the best representative that Labour could put forward God help them.

Were you the audible groan we could hear when Charlie tried to suggest it was the SNP's fault that David Cameron had got back in?

[ronaldo7]

I was in the QT audience tonight and if Lord Falconer is the best representative that Labour could put forward God help them.

Did you get a selfie wi Buster Blood vessel at the start of the prog:greengrin

[marinello59]

Were you the audible groan we could hear when Charlie tried to suggest it was the SNP's fault that David Cameron had got back in?

Probably. Unbelievable.

[marinello59]

Did you get a selfie wi Buster Blood vessel at the start of the prog:greengrin

There was a couple of them. One in front of me and also the angry guy saying he voted Yes but it was time
to move on was even angrier during the unscreened warm up questions. Hilarious.

[snooky]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32930488

Not much signs of Ali-Carmi committing hari-kari then.
The apologetic memo (see link) to the FM sounds soooooooooooooo sincere.

[ronaldo7]

Did you demand that Salmond stand down as First Minister at the time? And would you agree that it is appropriate that he now resign as an MP since that is what you believe Carmichael should do?

If you can answer yes to both, then you're more honest than the SNP leadership and too honest to make it in politics.

Nice piece on the subject of Salmond and the alleged EU lie. Hope you like it:greengrin

http://wingsoverscotland.com/playing-tricks-on-memory/

[lucky]

Nice piece on the subject of Salmond and the alleged EU lie. Hope you like it:greengrin

http://wingsoverscotland.com/playing-tricks-on-memory/

Still putting links up from the most discredited website in Scottish politics. You'd be better sitting talking to yourself in the mirror all day as you only hear and listen to your own views.

[snooky]

Still putting links up from the most discredited website in Scottish politics. You'd be better sitting talking to yourself in the mirror all day as you only hear and listen to your own views.

I would disagree. IMO it's a small (and welcome) light in a black hole of one-sided MSM propaganda.

[Stranraer]

The SSP were wiped out in 2007 having had 6 MSPs elected in 2003.

Thank you. Much chance of them getting some representation next year? I think it all depends on who Labour's leader(s) are.

[Beefster]

I would disagree. IMO it's a small (and welcome) light in a black hole of one-sided MSM propaganda.

Campbell's a crackpot with a range of offensive/bigoted views. The fact that he continues to be venerated by a section of nationalists just highlights how desperate some are to have someone confirm their worldview IMHO.

[steakbake]

Thank you. Much chance of them getting some representation next year? I think it all depends on who Labour's leader(s) are.

Think the SSP have been marginalised a bit by the potential rise of the Grrens and that of the SNP.

[marinello59]

Campbell's a crackpot with a range of offensive/bigoted views. The fact that he continues to be venerated by a section of nationalists just highlights how desperate some are to have someone confirm their worldview IMHO.

:agree:

[ronaldo7]

Still putting links up from the most discredited website in Scottish politics. You'd be better sitting talking to yourself in the mirror all day as you only hear and listen to your own views.



Campbell's a crackpot with a range of offensive/bigoted views. The fact that he continues to be venerated by a section of nationalists just highlights how desperate some are to have someone confirm their worldview IMHO.


:agree:

Wonderful.

Now if anyone can post some evidence to the contrary to the link regarding whether Salmond Lied or was actually found guilty then I'd be obliged.

Many posts on here have said he was Guilty, but I've yet to see concrete evidence.

And let's stick to the subject matter please guys, instead of personal insults regarding mirrors or bigots. I thought you were better than that.

[marinello59]

Did you read the link or just follow Beefy:greengrin

Words are very alluring. Just ask Lucky Luciano

The law of the street was take or by taken.

Love Lucky:wink:

If deleted my post whilst you were quoting it, I'd appreciate if you deleted your reply quoting me but that's up to you. I'm out of this.

[ronaldo7]

If deleted my post whilst you were quoting it, I'd appreciate if you deleted your reply quoting me but that's up to you. I'm out of this.

Done.:wink:

[marinello59]

Done.:wink:

Oh no it isn't.:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Oh no it isn't.:greengrin

:agree: Oh yes it is.

[marinello59]

:agree: Oh yes it is.

Cheers.:thumbsup:

[sauzee_4]

Still putting links up from the most discredited website in Scottish politics. You'd be better sitting talking to yourself in the mirror all day as you only hear and listen to your own views.

Play the ball not the man

[lucky]

Play the ball not the man

That was me playing the ball.

[sauzee_4]

That was me playing the ball.

'The ball' refers to the specific argument the man makes. Counter it.

[Eyrie]

Nice piece on the subject of Salmond and the alleged EU lie. Hope you like it:greengrin

http://wingsoverscotland.com/playing-tricks-on-memory/

So even according to that notorious website Salmond explicitly stated that he had received legal advice. He then spent £20k of public money covering up the fact that there was no such legal advice from government officials.

Meanwhile, the SNP have decided to drop their demands for full fiscal autonomy despite this being part of their general election campaign. So applying the same logic that they use regarding Carmichael, every SNP MP who backed FFA should resign immediately.

It gets very awkward when politicians are expected to be consistent.

[Peevemor]

So even according to that notorious website Salmond explicitly stated that he had received legal advice. He then spent £20k of public money covering up the fact that there was no such legal advice from government officials.

Nothing was covered up. If Salmonds detractors had properly understood the initial quote (instead of trying to put words into his mouth), then there would have been no need to defend anything.


Meanwhile, the SNP have decided to drop their demands for full fiscal autonomy despite this being part of their general election campaign. So applying the same logic that they use regarding Carmichael, every SNP MP who backed FFA should resign immediately.

It gets very awkward when politicians are expected to be consistent.


They haven't dropped any demands. The SNP still want FFA over time.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32680334

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/debates/11523763/Nicola-Sturgeon-says-SNP-prepared-to-vote-for-full-fiscal-autonomy.html

[ronaldo7]

So even according to that notorious website Salmond explicitly stated that he had received legal advice. He then spent £20k of public money covering up the fact that there was no such legal advice from government officials.

Meanwhile, the SNP have decided to drop their demands for full fiscal autonomy despite this being part of their general election campaign. So applying the same logic that they use regarding Carmichael, every SNP MP who backed FFA should resign immediately.

It gets very awkward when politicians are expected to be consistent.

Thanks for that, at least you responded to the "notorious website", rather than speaking of mirrors, and people mumbling to themselves:wink:

The way I look at it is that we have two stories here.

One guy, (Salmond), like him or loathe him, and I don't really care for him, honest, was put through the wringer for a story regarding the EU, so he decided to refer himself to the authorities with the outcome of nothing being proven, and in the process spending £20k of taxpayers money trying to save his skin. Did his opponents really think he'd roll over and die. It was all in the wording.

On the other hand we have Carmichael, whom I've said should resign.

The reason I've said this , is that he's openly admitted trying to smear the First Minister of Scotland, and in doing so brought into light the comments of an Ambassador of one of our neighbours. He then lied about any knowledge of the said smear. I've seen it on TV, it must me real:greengrin I've seen the letter to the FM apologising. He knew about this for 6 long weeks in the run up to an Election, yet when questioned on several occasions decided to keep schtum, and in doing so, costing the taxpayer a reported (although yet to be proven) £1.4Million.

In my mind, it brings into question the role of the Scotland office as we move forward as a country. Do we need it?

If all the stories re Salmond were correct, you'd expect the Electorate in Gordon to have given him short shrift, however on the contrary they flocked to him in massive numbers.

He turned Malcolm Bruce's old seat to the SNP with over 27,000 votes or nearly 48% of the vote, and a 14.4% swing.

All this in the face of the tactical voting being espoused all over Scotland to keep the SNP out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11533602/Guide-to-tactical-voting-against-the-SNP-published.html

On Carmichael, I would go along with Willie Rennie and allow him a second chance. It would also give his electorate in Orkney and Shetland a chance to go to the polls with the Lie out in the open. Many of his electorate have already said they'd not have voted for him had they known the truth.

It seems some of the electorate in the Islands are taking things into their own hands on the subject and have now petitioned the court to have a re-run of the election. Well done to them, I say.

On the subject of FFA/FFR. The SNP are right to ca canny at this time. They have the smith commission to get over the line yet, and going by the comments of the "ALL PARTY" devolution committee, more work needs to be done by Westminster.

http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Response-to-Devolution-Further-Powers-Committee-18d8.aspx

Finally, if I have caused offense by linking the notorious website, then sorry for that. There are times I have to endure going onto the Daily Mail website to view the near racist comments regarding us Scots.

I might not like it, however it's why I love our laws on freedom of speech.:aok:

Now where's that Mirror.:wink:

[snooky]

Thanks for that, at least you responded to the "notorious website", rather than speaking of mirrors, and people mumbling to themselves:wink:

The way I look at it is that we have two stories here.

One guy, (Salmond), like him or loathe him, and I don't really care for him, honest, was put through the wringer for a story regarding the EU, so he decided to refer himself to the authorities with the outcome of nothing being proven, and in the process spending £20k of taxpayers money trying to save his skin. Did his opponents really think he'd roll over and die. It was all in the wording.

On the other hand we have Carmichael, whom I've said should resign.

The reason I've said this , is that he's openly admitted trying to smear the First Minister of Scotland, and in doing so brought into light the comments of an Ambassador of one of our neighbours. He then lied about any knowledge of the said smear. I've seen it on TV, it must me real:greengrin I've seen the letter to the FM apologising. He knew about this for 6 long weeks in the run up to an Election, yet when questioned on several occasions decided to keep schtum, and in doing so, costing the taxpayer a reported (although yet to be proven) £1.4Million.

In my mind, it brings into question the role of the Scotland office as we move forward as a country. Do we need it?

If all the stories re Salmond were correct, you'd expect the Electorate in Gordon to have given him short shrift, however on the contrary they flocked to him in massive numbers.

He turned Malcolm Bruce's old seat to the SNP with over 27,000 votes or nearly 48% of the vote, and a 14.4% swing.

All this in the face of the tactical voting being espoused all over Scotland to keep the SNP out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11533602/Guide-to-tactical-voting-against-the-SNP-published.html

On Carmichael, I would go along with Willie Rennie and allow him a second chance. It would also give his electorate in Orkney and Shetland a chance to go to the polls with the Lie out in the open. Many of his electorate have already said they'd not have voted for him had they known the truth.

It seems some of the electorate in the Islands are taking things into their own hands on the subject and have now petitioned the court to have a re-run of the election. Well done to them, I say.

On the subject of FFA/FFR. The SNP are right to ca canny at this time. They have the smith commission to get over the line yet, and going by the comments of the "ALL PARTY" devolution committee, more work needs to be done by Westminster.

http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Response-to-Devolution-Further-Powers-Committee-18d8.aspx

Finally, if I have caused offense by linking the notorious website, then sorry for that. There are times I have to endure going onto the Daily Mail website to view the near racist comments regarding us Scots.

I might not like it, however it's why I love our laws on freedom of speech.:aok:

Now where's that Mirror.:wink:

On reflection, that was a very good post :greengrin

[Keith_M]

Does anybody ever read the comments section in The Herald?

There's a guy that seems to post exclusively on SNP related stories and has an obsessive hatred of them. He's from somewhere in England has an OBE, apparently.

I'm never sure if I should take the p1ss or pity the guy. He's a total fruit loop!

[Moulin Yarns]

Does anybody ever read the comments section in The Herald?

There's a guy that seems to post exclusively on SNP related stories and has an obsessive hatred of them. He's from somewhere in England has an OBE, apparently.

I'm never sure if I should take the p1ss or pity the guy. He's a total fruit loop!


He probably posts on this thread as well then :wink:

[Keith_M]

He probably posts on this thread as well then :wink:


Now you come to mention it..................


Oh and I've remembered where he's from, it's Woking.

[Eyrie]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the similarities between Salmond and Carmichael.


On the subject of FFA/FFR. The SNP are right to ca canny at this time. They have the smith commission to get over the line yet, and going by the comments of the "ALL PARTY" devolution committee, more work needs to be done by Westminster.

http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Response-to-Devolution-Further-Powers-Committee-18d8.aspx

So less than a month after the general election it's acceptable for the SNP to back track on one of their main policy statements? Their own manifesto stated that "We will seek agreement that the Scottish Parliament should move to full financial responsibility." which means that they're already broken a pledge to the people who voted for them. That same manifesto claimed that full fiscal autonomy would take years, barely months after we were told that full independence would take less than eighteen months.

The SNP are correct to ca' canny but only because of the resultant budget deficit if FFA is introduced. The same budget deficit that we would now be confronting if they had won last year's referendum. Given their refusal to contemplate any form of reduction in public spending, that could only mean economically crippling tax hikes or borrowing. Will they have the honesty to say which, or will they concede that the union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland is to Scotland's benefit under the current circumstances?

The SNP are no more principled or dishonest than any other party, but at the moment they are the dominant force so deserve to have their glib assertions and hypocrisy challenged.

On that, I expect them to honour the Smith Commission which they signed up to just as I expect the other parties to implement what was agreed in full.


Finally, if I have caused offense by linking the notorious website, then sorry for that. There are times I have to endure going onto the Daily Mail website to view the near racist comments regarding us Scots.

I might not like it, however it's why I love our laws on freedom of speech.:aok:

Now where's that Mirror.:wink:
Wingsoverscotland makes the Daily Mail look credible and balanced. I wouldn't touch either with a bargepole.

[ronaldo7]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the similarities between Salmond and Carmichael.


So less than a month after the general election it's acceptable for the SNP to back track on one of their main policy statements? Their own manifesto stated that "We will seek agreement that the Scottish Parliament should move to full financial responsibility." which means that they're already broken a pledge to the people who voted for them. That same manifesto claimed that full fiscal autonomy would take years, barely months after we were told that full independence would take less than eighteen months.

The SNP are correct to ca' canny but only because of the resultant budget deficit if FFA is introduced. The same budget deficit that we would now be confronting if they had won last year's referendum. Given their refusal to contemplate any form of reduction in public spending, that could only mean economically crippling tax hikes or borrowing. Will they have the honesty to say which, or will they concede that the union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland is to Scotland's benefit under the current circumstances?

The SNP are no more principled or dishonest than any other party, but at the moment they are the dominant force so deserve to have their glib assertions and hypocrisy challenged.

On that, I expect them to honour the Smith Commission which they signed up to just as I expect the other parties to implement what was agreed in full.


Wingsoverscotland makes the Daily Mail look credible and balanced. I wouldn't touch either with a bargepole.

Fair Do's:aok:

On the subject of FFA/R, it's still on the table as far as I can see, and when we do eventually "seek agreement", I hope it's forthcoming. No pledges broken as far as I can see.

We're just over 3 weeks into a five year term, so let's see if we get what was promised in Smith first. Lots of veto's to get over.

I look forward to you holding the Unionist parties to account from the Vow which was made to the Vow delivered.

Time will tell. Meantime I'm away to find out who we're signing tomorrow.

Cheers.

[snooky]

Does anybody ever read the comments section in The Herald?

There's a guy that seems to post exclusively on SNP related stories and has an obsessive hatred of them. He's from somewhere in England has an OBE, apparently.

I'm never sure if I should take the p1ss or pity the guy. He's a total fruit loop!
Try reading the letters page in the Snotsman on Saturdays.
It's letter after letter, week after week slagging the SNP.
After a while you just switch off and say why bother. I have no problem folk having a go at the SNP. If they deserve it then that's all to the good. However a balanced selection of points of view would be nice once in a while in a 'national' newspaper.

[DaveF]

Charles Kennedy found dead at home. 55 years old!

[Hibbyradge]

Carmichael not out of the woods yet!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32976374

[Future17]

Carmichael not out of the woods yet!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32976374

There's only one Carmichael worth bothering about today...and it's not Alistair!! :-)

[Hibbyradge]

There's only one Carmichael worth bothering about today...and it's not Alistair!! :-)

:thumbsup:

[Moulin Yarns]

Second leaked memo on ‪#‎frenchgate‬ (https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/frenchgate?source=feed_text&story_id=890582677674359) exonerates AlCar!!


http://bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk/index.php/city-news/946-i-was-right-about-surgeon.html

[snooky]

In the clip attached to the link, showing Nit Robinson's question(s) to Salmond, the 'breaking news' ribbon on the screen throughout is unbelievably weighted.
The whole subversive reporting of this encounter finally pulled the veil off the BBC's biased face for many.
Democracy? :rotflmao:

[ronaldo7]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAAahUKEwiUgZ-pw4rGAhXyF9sKHWkHAIQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Flenathehyena.wordpress.com%2F201 4%2F08%2F29%2Foh-what-a-tangled-web-we-weave-when-first-we-practice-to-deceive-bbc-scotland-and-the-labour-party%2F&ei=HwJ7VdT1KPKv7AbpjoCgCA&usg=AFQjCNEfmmTvmhIop08BHBhn-7gGb8YwTw&sig2=DGIJa6lHOt7cn8kiI7neUg&bvm=bv.95277229,bs.1,d.ZGU …

http://t.co/8oFCI7XZIr

Some interesting stuff on the first link, and it seems the Beeb are in open warfare if you believe Bateman.

[snooky]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAAahUKEwiUgZ-pw4rGAhXyF9sKHWkHAIQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Flenathehyena.wordpress.com%2F201 4%2F08%2F29%2Foh-what-a-tangled-web-we-weave-when-first-we-practice-to-deceive-bbc-scotland-and-the-labour-party%2F&ei=HwJ7VdT1KPKv7AbpjoCgCA&usg=AFQjCNEfmmTvmhIop08BHBhn-7gGb8YwTw&sig2=DGIJa6lHOt7cn8kiI7neUg&bvm=bv.95277229,bs.1,d.ZGU …

http://t.co/8oFCI7XZIr

Some interesting stuff on the first link, and it seems the Beeb are in open warfare if you believe Bateman.

I certainly widny buy a car off any of those BBC execs.

'Cartel' seems the appropriate word at the moment.

[snooky]

Good article in the Independent about Wellington & Waterloo.
The entire article is well worth a read. Here's a taste -

"But Parliament then increased the pressure on the poor by abolishing income tax on the wealthy and prescribing austerity for the rest. After the defence budget was slashed by 75 per cent and the Army cut from 233,000 to 92,000, thousands of former "Waterloo Men" were forced to get poor relief or beg for a living."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/battle-of-waterloo-was-it-just-an-unpopular-adventure-led-by-an-establishment-hate-figure-10321996.html

Anybody see a pattern in there? :cool2:

[Kato]

Good article in the Independent about Wellington & Waterloo.
The entire article is well worth a read. Here's a taste -

"But Parliament then increased the pressure on the poor by abolishing income tax on the wealthy and prescribing austerity for the rest. After the defence budget was slashed by 75 per cent and the Army cut from 233,000 to 92,000, thousands of former "Waterloo Men" were forced to get poor relief or beg for a living."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/battle-of-waterloo-was-it-just-an-unpopular-adventure-led-by-an-establishment-hate-figure-10321996.html

Anybody see a pattern in there? :cool2:

I wonder if there will be as a big a fuss made for the bi-centenary of "Peterloo."

[ronaldo7]

'The ball' refers to the specific argument the man makes. Counter it.

He didnae see the ba, I megged him and he landed on his erse scratching his heid.:wink:

[ronaldo7]

Arise Lord Darling of Better Together, for services rendered to the crown.

Ermine robes with Tory gold.

[ronaldo7]

Nice piece on the Branch offices of the three Britnat, better together types who talk endlessly about Constitutional matters.

https://t.co/aGrTdNWc3V