Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

You should form your own.

Perhaps, the Reform Party.

You mean the Retard party surely Fred.

Not much posting today got a stinker of Man Flu.

Even so allthis talk of economic growth hasnt helped the Tories.

The average Joe knows what their game is in Part Time Britain........

electionista ‏@electionista
UK - YouGov/Sun poll:

CON 32%
LAB 40%
LDEM 11%
UKIP 12%

Labour lead increases.

GF.

I think he may have had membership application rejected,

8-)

LOL.

the average joe will only perk up when he sees a bit more money coming into his pocket, the value of his house increasing, and depending on his location, a perception that something is being done to cap immigrants and their benefit rights

my guess too, is that both DC and EM are so uninspiring that joe just won't bother to vote at all and the turnout at the next election will be pathetically close to a paltry 50%

Interesting to see that the Guardian is using a tax shelter company in the Caymen Islands to avoid tax.

The Graun is just following the crowd.

Altho, they are supposed to be above all that sort of thing.

Has somebody fired the starting gun?



Six reasons why the Lib Dems are the real 'nasty party'


By Damian Thompson Politics Last updated: January 21st, 2014

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100255786/six-reasons-why-the-lib-dems-are-the-real-nasty-party/




Be very afraid

This Lord Rennard business. I don't know why anyone is surprised that so many people emerge from it as bullies, cowards or hypocrites. Here are six reasons why the Liberal Democrats are Britain's real "nasty party".

1. Big egos in a small party. Let's take the example of Chris Huhne, known to be vain and unscrupulous long before he was elected to Parliament. There are plenty of Huhnes in the Tories and Labour. But in the Lib Dems someone with his impressive CV – City entrepreneur, economics editor for a national newspaper – is at a huge advantage. He's a big beast from the moment he appears. And the party – this is true of all small parties – is so overawed by his achievements that it overlooks the fact that he's a slimy, backstabbing megalomaniac. Result: someone whose moral failings are plain for all to see comes within a whisker of being elected party leader.

2. It's a merged party. "Liberal Democrats" is not the new name for Liberals: we're not talking about Marathon turning into Snickers with no change of ingredients. Vince Cable was Labour before joining the SDP and is still Labour at heart. (Another ex-SDP man: the distinguished Mike Hancock, currently in the wilderness.) The tension remains among older members. Liberals see the SDP as opportunists; the SDP see the Liberals as fruitcakes. They're both right.

3. Small parties accommodate conspiracy theorists: If you live on the fringes of politics, as the Lib Dems did until 2010, you make friends with other fringe people and attract fringe causes. Norman Baker, inexplicably now Minister of State at the Home Office, thinks the "murder" of David Kelly was covered up. Jenny Tonge thought we should check out the theory that Israelis harvest organs. She was finally expelled from the party, but my God it took a long time.

4. Liberals fight dirty on the doorstep: Again, a function of the size of the party, whose local base is stronger than its national one. Liberals (and later Lib Dems) didn't have big policies with which to win over local voters, so many of them resorted to neighbourhood tittle-tattle (ask Peter Tatchell). Sometimes – especially in the East End during the 1980s – they quietly adopted racist tactics that were at odds with their national stance. Now they've carried their trademark sneakiness into government.

5. They don't have an ideology. This is partly a function of the merger (see above). Social democracy and the streak of libertarianism in the old Liberals don't mix. Mad Europhilia was the nearest they had to a Great Cause, but even at its height about a third of party members were Eurosceptics. In short, they don't really believe in anything. At least, not anything interesting. Quick quiz: how many Lib Dem policy pledges can you remember from 2010? I'm guessing just one. No Tuition Fees. QED.

6. Clegg is a crap leader. Nice guy, no political convictions worth mentioning, disastrous lack of personal authority over his querulous, paranoid and ruthless members. Chris Huhne was the leader they deserved, and it's cruel trick of fate that we were denied the spectacle of his lies unravelling while he was Deputy Prime Minister.

Sickening,.................

The Fuzz ‏@Fuzz944
“@TheFacts1O1: Meanwhile in Syria, this boy is sleeping between his parents. World do something

Easy to say that gf but what would you like the world or the UK to do specifically ?

50:50 chance his parents were killed by Al Queda supporting militants as the governing idiots.

Not taking any sides Dil, just so sickening for a young child.

Fifty Labour amendments to kill Bill for EU referendum

More than 50 amendments tabled for committee stage of the EU Referendum Bill, including holding a petition of a million voters, posing the questions in Cornish and giving prisoners the vote



By Matthew Holehouse, Political Correspondent

10:23PM GMT 21 Jan 2014



David Cameron's plan to give the public a vote on membership of the European Union could be defeated within weeks after Labour peers tabled dozens of outlandish amendments that could halt its progress in Parliament.


More than 50 amendments were tabled for the committee stage of the EU Referendum Bill, including holding a petition of a million voters, posing the questions in Cornish and giving prisoners the vote, the Telegraph has learnt.


As a private member’s Bill, it has a limited time to pass through Parliament. It can only be debated on Fridays and must be approved by both houses by February 28.


Conservatives said the amendments amounted to a plot conducted on behalf of Ed Miliband to “talk the Bill to death”.


That would save the Labour leader, who has refused to set out a clear position on the EU referendum, from being portrayed as anti-democratic.

The Bill sets in law a commitment to hold an in/out referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU by 2017. It sailed through the Commons before reaching the Lords.

Fifty-six amendments have been tabled so far, and more are expected before Friday’s committee stage. Forty have been tabled by a single Labour peer – Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who served as a Scotland minister under Tony Blair.

They include requiring a petition of a million people before the referendum can be held, moving the deadline to May this year, inserting a minimum turnout threshold and giving the Scottish First Minister – Europhile Alex Salmond - a veto.

Lord Foulkes also proposes extending the vote to 16-year-olds, prisoners and EU citizens, and asking the questions in Gaelic, Doric (a Scottish dialect) and Cornish.

Lord Foulkes has tabled amendments to insert the word “consultative” in the Bill and change “must” to “may” – making any referendum optional and non-binding.

“It appears to be a blatant attempt to frustrate the progress of the Bill by unelected peers doing the bidding of their masters,” said James Wharton, the MP who has sponsored the Bill through the House of Commons. “It would be unforgivable if, by playing party political games, they denied the British people their say, especially as it passed without difficulty through the House of Commons.”

Lord Dobbs, the author of House of Cards, who is piloting the Bill in the Lords, said: “This Bill has six clauses but already there are dozens and dozens of amendments. The sheer volume suggests only one thing: that Labour intend to filibuster this Bill. I hope to be proven wrong, but Friday’s committee stage will tell.”

Lord Foulkes told The Telegraph he opposes a referendum and admitted he does not support “most” of the amendments.

But he insisted: “I can guarantee you there will be no filibustering. There are serious matters that need to be considered. It’s a classic operation of backbenchers doing their job of testing a Bill.”

The peer is no stranger to intrigue in the Upper House.

In 2009 he was accused of attempting to “smear” Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, the former Chief of the General Staff who criticised Labour defence strategy, by tabling a series of questions in the Lords about the general’s expenses and personal use of military helicopters. Lord Foulkes insisted the questions were legitimate.

Labour insisted Mr Miliband was not behind the operation.

“George is acting for George. He is not doing anything with permission of Ed or the front bench,” a source said.


The amendments are here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/10588539/Fifty-Labour-amendments-to-kill-Bill-for-EU-referendum.html

That is potentially good for the Conservatives as it will show Labour's hand over their EU stance and a referendum. It doesn't prevent a referendum if the Conservatives are elected and it shows how there is only one way for voters to get a referendum.

It will show what Cameroon is made of.


He can override the house of lairds, and if he doesent do so, he's finished.


Just another worthless promise.

Max - i think there is a time issue involved, so it would seem that labour intend to fillibuster the referendum out of time

The problem with private members bills is that there can't be a government motion for a guillotine on the time for amendments. The outcome may depend on how the speaker allows amendments to be grouped as individual items for debate. It was always a long shot as it was just a device to avoid the Libs preventing it from being a government Bill because it wasn't in the coalition agreement. The Bill is not important except that it is an indication of intent. A future government could always repeal the law for the referendum but they might do so at their peril.

Andrew Neil on Daily politics said Camoron was wrong at PMQS the average person is worse off now than when labour were in government by £25 per week, ie £1,300 per year.

Labours outlined figures below.......

Alex Belardinelli ‏@abelardinelli
RT Matt Hancock completely wrong - taking everything into account, people are worse off ......................



Standard Of Living Disaster.

Camoron YET AGAIN caught telling lies

How do you calculate your average?