Shadow Front Bench disagreement already?

The same as Germany took in a day

Perhaps because they need them[/url]

“We will profit from this, too, because we need immigration,” German Labor Minister Andrea Nahles said

The welfare budget is more than enough to protect the most vulnerable

Excluding pensions, about £120bn. Or c. £1900 per citizen, which is about the same as the NHS. Whatever the rights and wrongs of policy, it really ought to be possible to protect the most vulnerable for that.

Welfare breakdown[/url]

If that’s the best that Labour can do then maybe we should outsource them to Talksport Radio

To be fair, he’s had next to no time to set it all up. He probably needs a little longer to take questions from the public and roll the sentiments of several into a set of questions which are more pointed.

When something is talked about as being reversible, there’s an implicit assumption that the decision to reverse is in the same hands as those that made the original decision.

It wouldn’t be as rUK would have to agree. So, whilst it is possible, it doesn’t mean that it is a foregone conclusion.

We won’t accept not having that choice however.

Some of us assume the choice made in Sept 2014, billed as a once in a generation choice, is a democratic decision which needs to be respected for a while – perhaps even a generation.

Can you imagine a role reversal situation where, following a Yes vote but before separation, a revival of unionist leaning Labour and decline in SNP support justified another poll,just to check? I can imagine lots of SNP demands that the referendum result be respected.

The right wing press have gone into some type of feeding frenzy

Alternatively, something more pragmatic from William Hague.

He didn’t sing the national anthem? Seriously? Who gives a ****?

Two members of Shadow Cabinet and a Labour peer apparently.

fly in the face of democracy

We had democracy last Sept. So it is done for quite a while.

Perhaps the SNP might see about using the next 15 or 20 years and increased devolved powers to demonstrate the capacity of Scotland to thrive as it gains more autonomy.

Last time there was too much supposition, baseless assertion and uncertainty to bridge. As the gap in powers between devolution and independence narrows it becomes easier to argue how to get across it.

Politics eh

Indeed. Have you looked at any of Jim Sillars’ book that’s just out? Details lots of the internal politics of the “yes” campaign and suggests there were many strategic errors. When he suggests some of those in the campaign thought AS took the wrong approach, it suggests some outside criticism of him wasn’t entirely unreasonable.

Its amazing how all those who spent a great deal of time telling us how AS was a liar and full of shit now insist his honest proclamation must be adhered to

Not really.

With two results possible and a number of statements made which related only to one or other result it is logical only those relating to the “no” vote come in to play.

Clearly had there been a “yes” he’d have got to negotiate on all the ridiculous promises and the question of another referendum (even for disappointed no voters) wouldn’t have arisen.

They can’t claim to be a democratic party if Scotland continually approves referendum manifestos

Whilst that argument has some merit, the pre IndyRef “once in a generation” narrative also cannot be ignored.

Several friends voted SNP in May because they felt it would be safe to do so following the IndyRef result and because they were disillusioned with Labour. If it goes back on the table, that support won’t be there.

I suspect the SNP achieved a high point because at the same time they could point to nasty Tories against a background of spending cuts, useless Labour and pointless LibDems. I struggle to see how that set of circumstances can be repeated or improved upon.

The influence of Corbyn on Scottish Labours performance next May will be interesting to watch.

OOB, might I suggest you look up who Colin Parry OBE is before you dig yourself a deeper hole. I can’t imagine a man less likely to value someone because they murder people.

No, it isn’t grum. Think back to Paxman and Michael Howard.

Crossed posts Ernie? Googling what Corbyn said to Nolan. I’m not sure he’s said anything new on the IRA for a while.

I’ve no idea what outofbreath heard either, although I suggested a possibility earlier.

Pretty clear, so why keep asking the question?

As mud. If you’re going to make specific mention of the British Army and Bloody Sunday then why not feel able to be equally pointed about, say, Enniskillen or Warrenpoint? It makes him appear less critical of IRA activity. He was handed a great opportunity there to be even handed and statesmanlike yet he couldn’t take it.

Your language is deteriorating Ernie. Google would take you less time than me giving you a link. I don’t know what outofbreath has heard, but please don’t insult the dead in NI. It is where I’m from and some of the friends I left behind aren’t above ground.

Nolan transcript

If you read the transcript of his interview with Stephen Nolan on Radio Ulster Ernie, Corbyn refuses repeatedly to condemn the IRA’s actions. He is quite happy to condemn the British Army by name and “all other sides” but not the IRA by name.

It may be some others are attributing John McDonnell’s historic comments to Corbyn.

You were suggesting that the mandate came from the election manifesto. I doubt the people who voted for Corbyn back in May see it that way…

I was covering two points together in those posts – (a) that the electorate put them there, not the labour party members and (b) they were elected on the basis of the manifesto not any subsequent change of leadership and policy.

Those two points mean there is no need to resign.

An MP’s mandate comes from the constituents who voted for them. That is the electoral system we have.

Which was exactly the point being made, as opposed to the suggestion those disagreeing with the leader should consider their position.

It might be considered by some to be a problem if Ms Eagle only got the job to satisfy gender bias concerns rather than because she was sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject to carry the portfolio.

We’ll never know and as we’ll be able to form our own opinion on her capability relatively soon, it matters little.

Ernie – Woppit’s comment seemed (to me) more related to the economic outcome were they to be elected, rather than the possibility of election.

You have just given an example of a country where the Left have repeatedly won elections one after the other for many years

Venezuelan economy is in crisis and has been for some time.

But, they can only get a mandate from a general election and that’s up to the tories to call

Indeed. Still doesn’t mean individual MPs need to resign because their party has changed direction since they got their mandate.

If MPs can no longer support the party which they stood for, they should resign from the party

True. But if the party changes so that it ceases to be or offer what it presented to the electorate, then by your logic it should also resign and seek a new mandate.

Just to be clear, I’m not arguing for either – just responding to a comment that MPs should consider their position. I don’t think they have to until it comes to GE 2020 candidate selection and whether or not the proposition from the party at that point is one they can support.

You think the people who voted for Corbyn did so on the basis of Labour’s manifesto

Doesn’t matter what you or I think and it doesn’t really matter what anyone’s motivation for voting was. That’s the mandate the MPs have and there were about 20 times more votes for Labour at the GE than in the party leadership election.

If they really can’t accept the democratic wishes of the party then they should consider their positions

In what way? Those MPs were elected by the electorate on the basis of the election manifesto and have an obligation to serve. I’d argue that’s a higher obligation than to party.

If the party wishes to move materially from that Manifesto then it is the Party’s mandate from the electorate which is in question, not the position of MPs who were elected.

The alternative to trident is no trident, then spending the money saved on something useful like education.

Of course it is, but politicians seems to like maintaining defence spending to cover “international responsibilities” and the illusion of the UK’s (or perhaps their) importance in the world.

nobody believes Trident is essential any more

Well, given the capacity of both recent colours of government to want to send the conventional military overseas, I’m quite glad there’s a chunk of defence spending spent on something they won’t use. I suspect an alternative to Trident would be more conventional forces and so increase the temptation for the politicians to use them.

2009. The shares in my then employer hit rock bottom and I tried to persuade my wife to delay the new kitchen for a bit so we could buy a few. She wasn’t for budging. We’d have no mortgage now if we’d done that.

Cameron claims Boycott & Dickie Bird agree with him. So that’s OK then.

Also, don’t take the asset list and book value as gospel. Check everything exists, is of use to your plans, and what it is worth to you / available on market for. Plenty of places have had overvalued assets on the books come sale time.

Always taken this to be the case but with an expectation that there’d be some normal commuting to a base if there was a fixed office. Last formal policy, from memory, was 40 mins / day taken as saved commuting time but everything after that was “work”.

Norman did not mention Radcliffe by name but she responded: “Maybe he didn’t understand that to all intents and purposes he may as well have mentioned my name.

This is the thing that I can see reasonable winds her up. If you drew a venn diagram of Jesse Norman’s suggestions with athlete names in the circles under each suggestion, Paula’s would jump out as being in the wrong intersection. That suggests either he’s making a specific allegation or is an idiot who doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. She’s left unable to ignore it and can’t win no matter what she says.

Canyon Strive 2011. No reviews available when I ordered, but the geometry looked right and the spec for the price was unbeatable. Does everything I want it to uphill & down, flatters my ability and no plans to change it.

Try asking on UK climbing.
My rack is still in the cupboard because selling it was worth sod all. Sold the ice screws & pegs as that was the only stuff worth parting with.

As you can see, apart from the Disco, I’m struggling to see why it shouldn’t be an XC90. The Disco is lovely, but is it really worth that much more than the Volvo? Really not sure.

Depends. If you really want 7 seats for bigger people lots of the time, possibly. For occasional small people, probably not. New Disco out soon may see the residuals of older ones decline a little.

If you’re in the country, then to maintain stereotypes, don’t you have to have a Discovery?

working from home, my study is about 20 feet from the bedroom. But as the bike lives in the study I’ll use it just this once

I read her comments as more being about blaming herself for what she suffered more than commenting on any other situation.

Beat me to it Matt. Do go sometime – riding and walking both worthwhile. And kayak for whale watching on occasion. Rum in the castle hostel lounge afterwards.