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.

Because gf just likes to follow the party line and make cheap points with little regard to logic, sense and consistency.

Strewth, Haystack, you don't think Fishfinger's one of them Labour party activists, do you? But he gave a 100k grand to the Tory party out of the petty cash tin not so long ago, doncha know?

By Dan Hodges

12:31PM GMT 11 Nov 2014

CommentsComments





It’s possible to construct a case for John Bercow being one of the greatest Speakers in parliamentary history. He is a reformer. A parliamentary radical. He sees himself as the champion of the ordinary backbencher, with a mission to ensure that those humble representatives of the people are able to hold the executive to account effectively. He is cowed neither by reputation nor precedent. And he intends to drag Parliament, kicking and screaming if necessary, into the 21st century.


That’s certainly the case John Bercow would make. Which is why, far from being one of the greatest Speakers in parliamentary history, he is fast shaping up to be one of the worst.


This morning our papers are filled with righteous condemnation of the duplicity and stupidity of David Cameron, Theresa May and Michael Gove. Having promised Tory backbenchers a debate on the European Arrest Warrant, they realised they were facing a rebellion of such humiliating proportions that they opted to engage in some desperate last-minute procedural chicanery to hoodwink Parliament and avoid a vote. Or at least, that is the favoured narrative.


Unfortunately, it’s false. As I watched the chaos unfolding in the House of Commons chamber yesterday, I couldn’t believe my eyes. Not least because it didn’t make any sense. By my understanding, the Government had the rebellion well under control. David Cameron and Theresa May were confident of winning the vote with only 30-40 rebels opposing, a fraction of the 100-plus that had been predicted.


Moreover, Cameron had taken the political decision to confront the issue head-on, get the whole thing parked in advance of the Rochester by-election, then move on to other issues like the economy and not being Ed Miliband.

So when everything went crazy yesterday, I thought to myself: “How did Cameron think he’d get away with going back on his word and not having a vote?”

The answer was that he didn’t. Because he wasn’t trying to get away with anything.

To understand why, you have to understand the nature of the parliamentary process that surrounds the ratification of the decision to sign-up to the EAW. The EAW was one of 35 justice measures the Government agreed to sign back up to following the 2010 Lisbon Treaty opt-out.

Normally, this ratification would have been done via a statutory instrument. These are devices used by the Government to give formal legal assent to policy without requiring a full debate of the House. I’ve sat in on dozens of SI sessions. They are resolved in one of the House of Commons committee rooms, with about a dozen bored MPs lounging around, and are done and dusted in about an hour. There is nothing nefarious about their use.


Because of the contentious nature of the EAW, Cameron decided to circumvent this normal SI process, and bring it to a full debate, and a vote of the whole House. You’ll recall he ambushed Ed Miliband with the announcement at PMQS a couple of weeks ago.

But legally, the statutory instrument still had to be passed to bring 11 elements of the 35 new justice measures into line with British legislation. The EAW wasn’t one of those measures, because it is already technically written into English law. So, on the advice of the Government’s lawyers, a motion was drafted which was built around the original SI, including the 11 measures that needed to be written into English law. That was done for legal reasons, not political ones.

But of course the EAW is highly political. It’s why David Cameron opted to bring the issue to a vote of the whole House in the first place. So the Government announced that it would be bound by the will of the House on all 35 measures, including the EAW. There would be a full debate. There would be a full vote. If the House approved the Government motion, ministers would sign up to the EAW. If the House rejected the Government motion, they would not.

As far as Downing Street, the Home Office and the whips office were concerned, that was it. They would have the vote, they would win the vote comfortably, and then everyone would move on. The rebellion was fading. There was no need for any legislative hanky-panky.

But then all of sudden Yvette Cooper – who has recently rediscovered her political mojo – popped up to allege that the Government was trying to back out of the vote. This bemused May and Cameron, and May wrote back outlining the Government’s stance. But some insiders began to smell a rat.

So on Sunday, after the Remembrance commemoration at the Cenotaph, Theresa May approached John Bercow, and explained the Government’s position. She also double-checked that the motion was in order, and that she would be allowed to focus on the EAW in her speech, even though it was not mentioned on the order paper. According to Government insiders, Bercow told her he “was happy” to proceed on that basis.

Which brings us to yesterday. When the Speaker calmly rose, told the whole House there would not be a vote on the EAW, and stated people would no doubt be “contemptuous” of the Government’s tactics.

The small handful of Tory rebels unsurprisingly went into meltdown. They had just been informed by the Speaker they had been duped. So did the rest of the House. Again with good reason, given it had just been informed by the Speaker it was being played for fools by a Government that had lost control of its backbenches.

Meanwhile, on the Government front benches there was incredulity at Bercow’s statement. But that incredulity was about to turn to naked fury.

A number of backbench Tory MPs noticed that Bercow had a copy of Parliament’s procedural “bible”, Erskine May, in front of him. It was open at a page covering an obscure procedural motion which states “this motion will not now be put”. Several minutes later, Yvette Cooper stood up to move that very motion. Ken Clarke said he had never heard a motion like it in all his time in the House.

Let’s turn away from this procedural malarkey, and back to The Greatest Ever Speaker In Parliamentary History. John Bercow is indeed a radical. And a reformer. It is true he is a champion of the ordinary backbencher. And he is rightly trying to drag the House of Commons into the 21st century. For all this, he should be commended.

But the Speaker of the House of Commons has three other much more fundamental responsibilities.

The first of these is to maintain order. And yesterday John Bercow did not maintain order. He precipitated chaos. It was his intervention, laced with his hyperbolic commentary about the Government’s “contemptuous” actions, that reduced a debate on a serious law and order issue to a circus. That is not his job. It is the opposite of his job.

His second responsibility is to remain invisible. The oft used analogy of a football referee is simplistic, but accurate. The Speaker is doing well when you don’t know he’s there.

John Bercow, however, gives the impression that he would have a nervous breakdown if he thought people didn’t know he was there. We see it weekly at PMQs. We see it in every major debate. We see it at each major parliamentary occasion. We saw it over the row over the Commons clerk. We saw it yesterday with his deliberately provocative intervention in the EAW debate.

John Bercow always has to make it about John Bercow. But it isn’t about John Bercow. It’s about us, and the people we send to the House of Commons to represent us. His ego is writing cheques his office – however grand – cannot cash.

The Speaker’s third responsibility is the most sacred of all. He or she must rise above politics: not only by being scrupulously neutral, but by being seen to be so.

John Bercow does not rise above politics. As we saw yesterday, he inserts himself into the centre of it. John Bercow is not perceived to be scrupulously neutral. Ask a Labour MP, and they will tell you – with a smile – that Bercow is a great Speaker, who is commendably independent. Ask a Tory MP and they will tell you – with a scowl – he is a terrible Speaker who has a grievance against David Cameron personally and the Government generally. Those disparate responses, by definition, mean he is failing to fulfil his primary function.

John Bercow would argue that is the price you pay for holding the executive to account. Well, it’s too high a price. It’s the job of MPs to hold the executive to account, not the Speaker. The Speaker sits at the heart of our democratic system. And that heart cannot beat unevenly.

Should the Government have communicated more effectively with MPs yesterday? Yes. Should it have been clearer about why the motion was drafted the way it was? Yes. Should it have been more aware of Labour’s clever attempt to cause parliamentary mischief? Yes.

But there was no attempt to hoodwink the Commons yesterday. The Government won the vote easily, as it knew it always would. The rebellion was well contained. As the Government always knew it would be.

It is John Bercow who is responsible for yesterday’s chaos, not Theresa May. It is John Bercow, not Theresa May, who muddied the waters on the EAW vote. And it is John Bercow, not Theresa May, who today stands guilty of treating the House of Commons with contempt.

CC
All very true. Bercow is a pain in the arse. It was only due to a misunderstanding that he became speaker. There was nothing strange about the debate and vote last night. They could have debated the EAW and voted on it. In the event they decided not to debate it and just voted on it by a huge majority.

Are you trying to become a member of the Bullingdon Old Boys Club?

Some may think your taking the same as they did and may be still doing so, your appear to be effected in a similar manner.

The problem is as much as you lick their arses, you tongue will still remain to short, and their opinion of you no better.

---------

Hils, you ought to try and get your offspring into that club, or have you already tried.?

BUT it was the TORY back benches who wanted to debate on it, how many more times.

Bill Cash Rhys Mogg, and all that brigaide.

Hilary stop getting your knickers in a twist, I dont respond to people who use that type of language.

You have been warned once before remember by board members.

One who was a true Lady who said you should wash your mouth out with soap and water.

Hilary, and that's coming from a poster who has called me "a pleb", "scum" and "a thug".

Too much coke tonight gf.

These REDS do get their knickers in a twist, pages and pages of twaddle and that's just Fred. God knows what Billy Bollox has been wittering on about. An awful lot of emails flying about.

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 10th November - Con 32%, Lab 33%, LD 6%, UKIP 17%; APP -24

coke cola Max LOL.

Since you have Billy Bollox on filter Chris, the brief version is that he is trying to gain the moral high ground over Hilary because he lost his argument with her quite some time ago and he doesn't respond to people who use "that type of language"!

Doodlebug, youve missed 'box standard wanker' off your list.

db LOL!

d4
Thanks for that. I have Fred and gf on filter. It makes this thread quite civilised.

Hays stop telling porkies its obvious to a blind man you keep switching us back on.

163% Surge In Food Bank Users Just The ‘Tip Of The Iceberg’, Says Trussell Trust

Posted by Steven PreeceDate: November 06, 2014

http://www.welfareweekly.com/163-surge-food-bank-users-just-tip-iceberg-says-trussell-trust/

Cameron setting the scene for more slave labour – Order of Truth11/11/2014

Reposted from Order of Truth

camsslIn his continued quest to place the majority of the British population into economic slavery, Cameron announced his intention to tighten welfare reforms which would force people to take low paid jobs.

Having not quite grasped the fact that many of his government’s welfare reforms so far have placed working people into very difficult economic situations – often costing them their homes and responsible for breaking up families – deluded Cameron thinks that further tightening of the welfare system, as well as controlling immigration, is a good thing.

We have already seen the way ‘employment figures’ have been manipulated by the government. The so-called jobs they say they have created are often on zero-hour contracts, part time, or minimum waged positons. It is fact that Cameron and his cronies have done nothing to create a sustainable environment where there are real opportunities for people seeking work.

In real terms the value of wages has dropped dramatically since the Conservative dominated government has been in power while the true cost of living has sky-rocketed – no thanks to welfare reforms and uncontrolled energy prices.

Promoting his anti-EU message, Cameron’s speech at a CBI conference in London included a ‘commitment’ to curbing immigration (including citizens of other EU countries) to ‘tens of thousands’ wherever they come from.

We have heard the same before, and so far the Conservatives have failed to meet their pre-election pledge on immigration.

Cameron said that tighter immigration controls must be matched by reforms to the UK’s welfare and education systems to enable British workers to fill the jobs currently done by foreigners.

However, another fact that he seems unable to grasp is that many immigrants are able to live extremely cheaply in the UK and move around to seek employment so they can save money to take home, where the cost of living is much cheaper. All things are far from equal when comparing foreign workers to UK citizens.

The UK has one of the lowest minimum wages in Europe, and has one of the highest costs of living.

Cameron’s speech is ridiculous in the extreme, and is something we are seeing and hearing much more of from government and Conservative cronies. Last week George Osborne was caught-out over the alleged EU bill where he claimed to be some kind of saviour – the truth was very different.

It is not immigration or foreign workers taking jobs that is the problem. It is the abominable governing of the country since 2010 which has failed to create an environment where employees are valued and where companies are encouraged to create real working opportunities.

Instead of progressing along an evolutionary path we see a return to times when employees were nothing but fodder to make the rich richer – that is the situation we are clearly in today. The rights of employees (and citizens in general) have gradually been eroded and the ability to protest or take meaningful action in response to a worse than useless government have all but disappeared.

Until we see a radical change in thinking of any future elected government, we will see more low-paid, temporary employment with little or no opportunity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/11/david-lammy-ed-miliband-labour-party_n_6138638.html

David Lammy: Ed Miliband Won't Win A Majority In 2015

Ed Miliband will not win a majority at the next election, a senior Labour MP has said.

In an interview with The Huffington Post UK, David Lammy predicted the 2015 election, in six months time, would be "phenomenally close". He also warned the Labour leadership against "posturing" on immigration.

Miliband has been under intense pressure in recent days, with Labour MPs anonymously criticising his leadership of the party. Yesterday, the Labour leader was forced to deny there was a "crisis" while former home secretary Alan Johnson, who had been tipped as a replacement leader, felt the need to publicly rule out any leadership ambitions he may have had.

Looking at how divided public opinion is, Lammy said it was difficult "to see any party get[ting] a substantial majority".

No dont think they will, but the SNP is even better than an overall majority far more left wing.

Mansion Tax soon Hays.