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.

DB 3 1/2,

I suggest you re-read the wording of my post and then get somebody to help you understand them.

Napoleon,

Are you looking in the mirror and admiring yourself once again!

Tut tut!

What's so difficult to understand about," Sturgeon when asked a question appears to answer the question honestly".!

Gorgeous pouting Nicola didn't go to public skool then?

The truth about Miliband's anti-war boast: How his brother AND Ed Balls said it was 'ridiculous' to claim he did not back Iraq invasion

Ed Miliband yesterday dismissed claims he delayed the Iraq War inquiry

The PM said Mr Miliband voted against it being set up 'again and again'

Mr Miliband said he wanted it published and his anti-war views 'well known'

But his record has been rubbished by his brother David and Ed Balls

In Labour leadership race Balls dismissed anti-war claim as 'ridiculous'

David Miliband meanwhile said the claim lacked any credibility 

Ed Miliband yesterday dismissed claims he delayed the inquiry into the Iraq War 'again and again' by voting against it being set up.

David Cameron said the report would have been published 'years ago' had it not been for Labour MPs blocking the plans – with Mr Miliband himself voting against an inquiry on four occasions.

The Labour leader hit back saying he wanted the report published as soon as possible – and claiming his anti-war stance was 'well known'.

But that is not how his brother David Miliband and the shadow chancellor Ed Balls remember it.

Former foreign secretary David told his brother he could not credibly claim to be against the Iraq war because he never made his views known at the time. 

Mr Balls went even further – dismissing the claim that the Labour leader was against the war as 'ridiculous'.

The allegations were made during a heated Labour leadership hustings in 2010, when Mr Miliband was trashing Labour's foreign policy record to distance himself from his brother in the race to succeed Gordon Brown.

In a two-hour debate hosted on Radio 5, Mr Balls said: 'I do not think Ed or any of the rest of us can claim with any credibility that in 2003 we thought the war was wrong but we just forgot to tell anyone, because that would make us look ridiculous.'

Mr Miliband insisted he opposed the war at the time of the invasion in 2003 but was living in the US, so his views were not known in the UK.

But David Miliband said: 'Diane Abbott is the only candidate that can say she was against the war at the time, and if that is the sole criterion, she is in a different position to every other candidate. She did not just think she was against it, she said she was against it, and she marched against it.'

Ed Miliband insisted on his opposition: 'I did tell people at the time that asked me that I was against the war.'

But Mr Balls said under his breath 'you did not tell people' and pointed out that in 2005, when the Times newspaper asked Labour figures whether they would have voted for the war, Ed did not answer the question.

The remarks undermine Mr Miliband's claim during yesterday's Prime Minister's Questions that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning.

Despite the row dominating news bulletins all day, Mr Miliband skated over the issue at Prime Minister's Questions – dismissing it in two sentences.

The Labour leader did not even ask Mr Cameron about the issue, saying only that he agreed the report should be 'published as soon as possible'.

Labour MPs opposed a series of proposals for an inquiry in the Commons until one was ordered by Gordon Brown.

Mr Miliband personally voted against starting an inquiry on four occasions as an MP, first in October 2006, then in June 2007, once more in March 2008 and again in March 2009.

Several former senior Labour figures, including Mr Miliband's brother David, will come under scrutiny when the report is finally published.

At the start of Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Miliband said: 'Let me start by saying, on the Iraq inquiry, that it was set up six years ago and I agree with the Prime Minister that it should be published as soon as possible.'

He then moved swiftly on to the economy. The PM countered, saying the report would have been published 'years ago' had Labour MPs voted in favour of setting up the inquiry earlier.

'So perhaps he could start by recognising his own regret at voting against the establishment of the inquiry,' he said.

Mr Miliband replied: 'The inquiry was established six years ago, after our combat operations had ended, and frankly, my views on the Iraq war are well known and I want this inquiry to be published.'

Unlike his brother, Ed Miliband was not an MP in 2003 in the run-up to the war. At the time he was at Harvard University in the US.

During his campaign for the Labour leadership he said the invasion was a 'profound mistake' and claimed to have opposed it in private.

But according to reports, his brother dismissed this claim, saying that the only candidate for the leadership who could say they were against the war at the time was Diane Abbott.

Iraq Inquiry rules re-written to prevent embarrassment – Michael Meacher MP22/01/2015

Remember yesterday’s article, in which Vox Political demonstrated that David Cameron was wrong to claim Labour had delayed the report of the Iraq Inquiry because he was guilty of the same thing? Michael Meacher agrees. He writes:

What makes it all the more scandalous is not that more time is needed to complete the report (it has been completed), but rather that those criticised in the report have been given the option of indefinitely delaying its publication as a result of being given prior access to what it says about them and then being allowed endlessly to prevaricate by haggling over every detail they don’t like. On a matter that affects the whole nation and has left an abiding imprint of deep shame, this is outrageous.

sponsorsWho, and on what authority, introduced this so-called Maxwellisation process? It has in fact no constitutional foundation except to protect political decision-makers once the tide of public opinion has turned against them.

There is to be a parliamentary debate and vote on the publication of the Chilcot report on 29th of this month. If then there were a majority in favour of publication before the election, the Chilcot committee should be expected to accept that as reflecting the will of the public, and act to abide by that decision. But this is another area where the Establishment has laid down rules for its own convenience.

The government will simply say, as it has done over 20 times on such occasions during this Parliament, that this is merely an advisory vote and it can be simply ignored.

Mr Meacher also wrote: Cameron has tried to wash his hands of it by saying that he is not responsible and the inquiry is independent [but this]doesn’t wash. He closed down the Gibson inquiry into alleged UK involvement in US rendition when it became clear that its revelations could be highly embarrassing to the UK authorities, so there is no question that he could set a time limit for the Chilcot inquiry if he really wanted to.

The government will simply say, as it has done over 20 times on such occasions during this Parliament, that this is merely an advisory vote and it can be simply ignored.

Mr Meacher also wrote: Cameron has tried to wash his hands of it by saying that he is not responsible and the inquiry is independent [but this]doesn’t wash. He closed down the Gibson inquiry into alleged UK involvement in US rendition when it became clear that its revelations could be highly embarrassing to the UK authorities, so there is no question that he could set a time limit for the Chilcot inquiry if he really wanted to.

No but if elected vote with Labour.

How many deposits will the UKIP lose in Scotland?


=======-=-=

Haze,

How many tories voted to invade Iraq and how many to invade Syria.
-=-=-=
I know you yourself to many are blinkered, but some take their blinkers off.

=======

QT last nite

Diane Abbott was a waste of space , would been better if they had a lump of lard

UKIP was very good , and the best was the man siting next to the UKIP man , Diane Abbott was spoiling the show

8:41AM GMT 23 Jan 2015
Instead of trying to wreck a country, perhaps they should focus on using their power to improve the lives Scottish people

There is a great Scottish phrase that springs to mind when one studies the comments of Scotland's First Minister on the latest proposals for more devolution. That phrase is: "he/she/they would rather have the grievance." This means that the complainant does not, despite what they say, want their gripe dealt with. They enjoy complaining too much and would rather have the grievance than any resolution.

It was in this spirit that Nicola Sturgeon welcomed the unveiling of substantial new powers on taxation and welfare for the Scottish parliament yesterday. Actually, no, she didn't welcome it. Of course she didn't. She attacked it and accused the Westminster parties of betrayal.

Ah, the betrayal narrative on which so much narrow nationalism rests. Apparently, the Westminster parties have watered down the Smith Commission (although they haven't) because any Scottish government adjusting benefits will need to, y'know, talk to the government in the UK about any changes. Such discussions are what happens in any federal set-up in a country that has not voted to split itself apart. No, this is a "veto," says Sturgeon. Disgrace, shout the Nationalists, who lost the referendum (did I mention that?).

This, they say, is a betrayal of the sacred "Vow" that was issued by the Unionist parties just days before the referendum. The vow, if you actually bother to read it, promised what the Unionist parties had been offering for ages. And it is now being delivered. But then, these are, of course, Unionist lies

What is sad is that this chivvying "rather have the grievance" approach – emphasising division and refusing to work in good faith – used to be endorsed by only about a quarter to a third of the Scottish voting population. Now, after the referendum, the virus seems to be spreading. The Nats are miles in front of the other parties.

All this as the UK cuts up its tax system and redesigns the United Kingdom to accommodate more powers (without justice for England). And that is after the Scots rejected independence by a solid majority.

One can understand the Nationalist determination to change the subject though. I suppose that anything is preferable to talking about the oil price, which if you remember the SNP said would be standing at $113 a barrel. It recently went below $50 a barrel and an independent Scotland would be contemplating a massive black hole.

But the latest row on more powers is a reminder that the SNP only has one aim. It exists to destroy the United Kingdom, and having failed by taking the direct route (a referendum on separation) it now seeks to engineer such an outcome by fostering grievance and winding-up English voters (see Sturgeon's disgraceful declaration that her party will prop up a future UK government that does not have a majority of seats in England.) The Nats want maximum chaos.

The truth is that they are much more interested in breaking up the UK than they are in using the powers the Scottish parliament already has to effect meaningful change in the life prospects of the poorest. Since 1999 the Scottish parliament has had full control over all manner of areas, including the NHS in Scotland (which has always been a separate service since it was established in the 1940s) and education. If the Scottish government's record on health is pretty lame its record on education is pitiful. In England the coalition has continued what was started by Blair and Adonis, which meant raising standards in the schools that millions of pupils attend, liberating them from the dead-hand of LEA control and making huge strides in attainment in a city such as London. Meanwhile, on schools the nationalist parts of the Scottish political class has done the square root of not very much, all the while demanding more powers, congratulating itself on its moral superiority complex and letting down pupils. That's what I call betrayal.

Fred2old - here is a thought to brighten up your day -------- a Labour/SNP alliance with Nicola Sturgeon as DEPUTY PM !!!!!!! Is that what you want, what you really, really want?

LOL!!

I think rather than a 7 way debate which will be a right mess they should do it as knock-out rounds. That way by the time your left with 3 parties it'll be a better debate. Thinking about it, if its going to be a knock-out bout then you could just have a public vote for the winner like in x-factor and effectively scrap the old fashion way of polling and going to vote!! Maybe they could call it, x-politician or something, it'd be far more interesting and would get it all over and done with far quicker.

Good idea Shortie, and the one with the biggest tits wins!

SCOTTISH Labour leader Jim Murphy has come under renewed pressure to declare whether he will stand as an MP in May after confirming he remains “the candidate” for East Renfrewshire.

He was unanimously reselected by the party for the Westminster seat in November 2013 but has since made clear his intention to become an MSP at Holyrood by 2016 after winning the Labour leadership.

Political opponents last night accused him of “leaving open” his options and insisted the area needs a full-time MP.

Mr Murphy, who became Scottish Labour leader in December, has given a “cast-iron” commitment to be Labour’s candidate for first minister in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election and to take a seat at Holyrood.


A spokesman for Mr Murphy said: “Jim Murphy is currently the MP for East Renfrewshire and the candidate. If that changes his constituents will be the first to be told.”

Tory leader Ruth Davidson last night called for Murphy to clarify his position. “East Renfrewshire deserves an MP who will put local people’s needs first,” she said.


Speaking on television last month, Mr Murphy said: “I’ve given a commitment that I’ll be in the Scottish Parliament in 2016 and Labour’s candidate for first minister in 2016.

“I’d like to be there sooner than that and in terms of how we do that and what we do, of course I’ll let my constituents know first and my constituency party know first. But there’s a cast-iron guarantee to be a candidate in 2016 at those elections, if not before.”

Former first minister Alex Salmond previously served as MSP and MP simultaneously, but Mr Murphy said that option is “not something I’m attracted to”.

Kirsten Oswald, the SNP’s candidate for the East Renfrewshire seat, said: “After weeks of dodging the issue, Jim Murphy’s intentions in May are still as clear as mud – with just over three months to go until voters go to the polls, Mr Murphy is still leaving open the option of not standing in his East Renfrewshire seat.


“Local voters deserve some real clarity from Jim Murphy as a matter of urgency.

“If Jim Murphy finally decides that he will be the Labour candidate, I’m looking forward to debating with him and holding him to account on campaigning side by side with the Tories for two years, his party’s support for the Tories’ austerity programme, and his continued commitment to wasting £100 billion on a new generation of weapons of mass destruction.”
Conservative candidate David Montgomery said: “East Renfrewshire needs a full-time MP, not someone with one foot out the door.

“If Jim Murphy’s serious about Holyrood then why is he standing for the Commons once again?

“I am committed for the long haul and will always fight for East Renfrewshire.”

Mr Murphy holds a majority of 10,000 in the seat which was once a Tory stronghold.





Couple of comments:-
Not one Labour MSP is offering to stand aside for Jim Murphy. He is the beloved Labour leader in Scotland in name only. Many now suspect MSP's do not want Jim Murphy as leader.

will murphy give up his m p expenses that allow him to claim approx. 19k pa for the rental of a home in London so that he can rent out the home in London he owns to gain him a yearly income,miss out on five tickets at man city that allows five people to be wined and dined these are the perks jim bhoy would have to give up in his fight for equality for the poor all these claims can be found on ipsa at the house of commons web site.

SCOTTISH Labour leader Jim Murphy has come under renewed pressure to declare whether he will stand as an MP in May after confirming he remains “the candidate” for East Renfrewshire.

He was unanimously reselected by the party for the Westminster seat in November 2013 but has since made clear his intention to become an MSP at Holyrood by 2016 after winning the Labour leadership.

Political opponents last night accused him of “leaving open” his options and insisted the area needs a full-time MP.

Mr Murphy, who became Scottish Labour leader in December, has given a “cast-iron” commitment to be Labour’s candidate for first minister in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election and to take a seat at Holyrood.


A spokesman for Mr Murphy said: “Jim Murphy is currently the MP for East Renfrewshire and the candidate. If that changes his constituents will be the first to be told.”

Tory leader Ruth Davidson last night called for Murphy to clarify his position. “East Renfrewshire deserves an MP who will put local people’s needs first,” she said.


Speaking on television last month, Mr Murphy said: “I’ve given a commitment that I’ll be in the Scottish Parliament in 2016 and Labour’s candidate for first minister in 2016.

“I’d like to be there sooner than that and in terms of how we do that and what we do, of course I’ll let my constituents know first and my constituency party know first. But there’s a cast-iron guarantee to be a candidate in 2016 at those elections, if not before.”

Former first minister Alex Salmond previously served as MSP and MP simultaneously, but Mr Murphy said that option is “not something I’m attracted to”.

Kirsten Oswald, the SNP’s candidate for the East Renfrewshire seat, said: “After weeks of dodging the issue, Jim Murphy’s intentions in May are still as clear as mud – with just over three months to go until voters go to the polls, Mr Murphy is still leaving open the option of not standing in his East Renfrewshire seat.


“Local voters deserve some real clarity from Jim Murphy as a matter of urgency.

“If Jim Murphy finally decides that he will be the Labour candidate, I’m looking forward to debating with him and holding him to account on campaigning side by side with the Tories for two years, his party’s support for the Tories’ austerity programme, and his continued commitment to wasting £100 billion on a new generation of weapons of mass destruction.”
Conservative candidate David Montgomery said: “East Renfrewshire needs a full-time MP, not someone with one foot out the door.

“If Jim Murphy’s serious about Holyrood then why is he standing for the Commons once again?

“I am committed for the long haul and will always fight for East Renfrewshire.”

Mr Murphy holds a majority of 10,000 in the seat which was once a Tory stronghold.





Couple of comments:-
Not one Labour MSP is offering to stand aside for Jim Murphy. He is the beloved Labour leader in Scotland in name only. Many now suspect MSP's do not want Jim Murphy as leader.

will murphy give up his m p expenses that allow him to claim approx. 19k pa for the rental of a home in London so that he can rent out the home in London he owns to gain him a yearly income,miss out on five tickets at man city that allows five people to be wined and dined these are the perks jim bhoy would have to give up in his fight for equality for the poor all these claims can be found on ipsa at the house of commons web site.

Not one Labour MSP is offering to stand aside for Jim Murphy. He is the beloved Labour leader in Scotland in name only. Many now suspect MSP's do not want Jim Murphy as leader.


perhaps that should be rephrased ......
the unions who fund the scottish MPs don't want jim murphy