Who will survive and what will be left of them?
Too many and too much.
There aren't any fresh similes left to describe what's happening to New Labour, but it's safe to say it's looking more than a little peaky. A crucial few days lie ahead, and in a week the political landscape is going to look very different. Two days ago, the overriding issue for UK political commentators was the forthcoming …
Ed and Yvette are in the firing line for the same things as McKay and Kirkbride. I seriously doubt that Ed would have any more credibility than Alistair Darling with regards his personal accounts, especially once the media get through with him.
Also check grammar and re-read before posting articles (floundering – not foundering)…..
is it alway nuL4b0r or tory?
I'm no expert, and I haven't voted all that much in my time, but last time I went I distinctly remember seeing more than two choices on the ballot paper.
Plus, who wants a government named after the final stages of pregnancy?
or one who's name means resistant to change?
The world is changing all the time, and no-one wants a laborious (read: painful) existence.
We should all vote monster raving loony party, whenever possible.
They make the most sense....
I'm sure that Peter Mandelson would at least do a competent job as foreign secretary. But I can't see it being a vote-winning move, to put it mildly. A lot of people dislike the man. Also, would he have to give up his seat in the House of Lords? And if it had to give up his seat, would it be rational to do so in favour of a government post that will last for a year, at the most?
"The ID database, Contactpoint, the vetting scheme, as well as the NHS spine project"
I'd be very concerned indeed if the Tories decided to scrap the Spine. It is not, as some people think, just a database of medical records. It underpins a lot of intra-organisation NHS traffic, and has already superseded a lot of legacy systems. Not only that, but all the electronic prescription, GP to GP transfer and Choose & Book trafffic goes through the Spine. Chopping that would create huge holes that would need more oodles of taxpayer's cash to fill. There would be massive disruption to the operation of the NHS for absolutely no good operational reason.
So yeah, I hope they scrap Contactpoint and the ID system to oblivion. But if they decide to axe the Spine, they'll prove themselves just as incompetent as the current useless shower.
Anonymous for once, as I'm too close for comfort to a couple of these systems.
It is an accepted practice for members from the House of Lords to be appointed to cabinet posts. It is often used as a way for governing parties to appoint individuals to cabinet posts who have not been through the election required to sit in the Commons, as happened when Tony Blair made Andrew Adonis a life peer in order to allow him to act as an education minister.
But a vote for UKIP is a vote for stupidity. If you're pissed off at the integrity of the current parties, it might be worth looking through the history of UKIP to see how squeaky clean they are - never mind that their policies beggar belief. It's been shown time and time again that the EU is good for us, and that the Lisbon Treaty isn't really that big a deal. If you really don't want to vote for one of the major parties, but want to vote for someone who actually might do good things for us I'd suggest going Lib Dem. A vote for UKIP, while not as abhorrent, is as inherently useful in the long term as a vote for the BNP.
Mandy will not have to resign from House of Lords (actually, as he is a life peer there is currently *NO* way for him to relinquish this status - the law that enable Viscount Stansgate - aka Tony Benn - to renouce his title and return to the Commons only applies to hereditary peers). As others have mentioned there's no problem with having a member of the House of Lords being a cabinet minister - though I think it might br frowned on having such a senior post in the Lords since there's then no opportunity for MPs to question them.
last foreign secretary in the Lords was Lord Carrington ... and whatever people think of such Tory "grandees" it should be remembered that he immediately resigned on principle when the Falklands were invaded even though Thatcher et al told him that he should stay as it wasn't his fault ... I suppose one of the advantages of having politicians of independent wealth and standing is that they can afford to act on principle whereas a modern day careerist hangs on to the only status/income they have
–verb (used without object)
1. (of a ship, boat, etc.) to fill with water and sink.
2. to fall or sink down, as buildings, ground, etc.: Built on a former lake bed, the building has foundered nearly ten feet.
3. to become wrecked; fail utterly: The project foundered because public support was lacking.
4. to stumble, break down, or go lame, as a horse: His mount foundered on the rocky path.
5. to become ill from overeating.
6. Veterinary Pathology. (of a horse) to suffer from laminitis.
Seems appropriate enough to me. Pedantry is best accompanied by a knowledge of the facts ;)
> It's been shown time and time again that the EU is good for us
To your satisfaction maybe, but not to mine. Don't be so sure that the majority of Britons are happy to see parliamentary sovreignity abrogated to the EU in a process which leaves us very little control over the running of our country.
I won't be voting UKIP, partly because they strike me as a rather nasty bunch of people with poorly developed policies and as well-developed a penchant for trough-nosing as any other MEP, but mainly beause Daniel Hannan is my current MEP and I am very happy with him.
Kudos for your opinions on political parties, however I see rather a large flaw in your arguement. The previous poster who supports UKIP has already voted so no matter how true your statement is, he can't go back and change his personal choice (even if it is a bad one).
Maybe you should have posted yesterday
I would rather vote BNP than Lib Dem, lib dems want to give up our sovereignty and national identity to Europe, while being even further left than Labour. Personally, I don't want to be a citizen of the United States of Europe. I'm not sure on their exact policy on immigration, but something tells me they would be opening the borders to any lunatic terrorists who want to come in.
There's no point electing UKIP to the EU parliament, as the only way the UK could withdraw from the EU is via a vote in the UK parliament.
Far better for UKIP supporters to try to get representation there rather than in a body that's powerless to achieve what they want.
And GB is better to be shut of them.
I hope that each of the rebellious Labour MPs is grilled by the local (constituency) party along lines of: what gives them the power and authority to challenge the duly elected and appointed leader of the Labour Party.
The sooner GB and constituency parties get shut of these misanthropes the better for all?
On the other hand GB has been in high office for some 15 years and should have a knight in shining armour taking the heat off the PM in order that the PM can get on with the business of running the country rather than pandering to pedantic mood swings of ill-suited MPs (they also seem to have a history associated with generous expenses?)
AC: Is the something that tells you called Nick Griffin?
We still have a lot of control over running our own country, with the majority of scare stories about the EU being just that, and not with particularly strong foundations. Many of the stupid things that the EU has actually done have either been reversed, or have actually had some good underlying logic. There's a good reason that none of the major parties wants to leave the EU. I'm not going to get onto immigration, but my partner is heavily involved in immigration research and I have a far less apocalyptic view of things than the papers would maybe let us see.
The new Home Sec... From Wikipedia (I know, I know):
>His voting record from the Public Whip sees him voting strongly in favour of ID Cards and student top-up fees. He also voted strongly in favour of the Iraq war and Labour's anti-terror laws. Furthermore, he voted strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.<
So no change there then.
10-12 years is the curse of death for any party!
Didn't John Major actually win by a higher majority than Tony B did when he won in '97? Yet we have quite a low opinion of John Major, not only his droning voice but that dull grey Spitting Image puppet didn't help much either!
Party in power rarely lasts longer than 10-12 years and you have to have some vague pity for the guy in charge during those last few months, he keeps fiddling while his Rome slowly burns!
Oh well, ce la vie!