drat01 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Another extremely bad day for the tory party yesterday. With the vote lost on the eu budget and rightly so, plus boris showing his bullingdon flashman trait is alive and well by calling hecklers tossers it shows that cameron and those around him are so out of their depth and screwed expect a leadership challenge very soon. No doubt clegg will look around and think wibble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Funny how the inward looking ukip supporters are now trying to make the vote a vote on eu membership when it was nothing of the sort. A rightful expectation of budget reductions when nearly all countries are doing the same is exactly what the uks opening stance should be. Cameron has no idea and the deep held and wrong views of the very right are trying to make this an excuse to get out of the eu. Hypocrisy talking bout opportunism but to be expected EDIT: Just another thing also, I remember the "bleating" that some Tory supporters go on about re Iraq. They forget that tactical voting by the Tory party MP's was the reason that got voted through in the HOC when many Labour MP's voted against that. It seems that was not a problem then to act like that but it is now. How does that work again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Just another thing also, I remember the "bleating" that some Tory supporters go on about re Iraq. They forget that tactical voting by the Tory party MP's was the reason that got voted through in the HOC when many Labour MP's voted against that. It seems that was not a problem then to act like that but it is now. How does that work again? Simple really. You lie to the HOC come up with a dodgy dossier of spurious claims about the Iraqi capability to fire nukes (where are those pesky missiles again drat, is Tony STILL playing hide and seek in the desert?) oh yeah, and bump off the poor bloke who risks exposing your pack of lies. A non binding vote on what the opening position at negotiations was always going to end that way. There will be a budget freeze, the budget term will come down to 5 years and the HOC will pass it. Steddy Eddy will try a make the government look as bad as possible to get back in, but where does he stand on Europe again? Seems to me like he is pissing on his own picnic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 ...the budget term will come down to 5 years... Where is that suggestion from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 George Osbourne on R4 this morning. One of the matters for negotiation as well as the amount of money in the budget, it the terms between agreements. IIRC the current term is 7 years. GO suggesting that a shorter term will be better. If no agreement is made or one or all of the member states veto the budget settlement, the mechanism is in place to have an annual EU budget settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) George Osbourne on R4 this morning. One of the matters for negotiation as well as the amount of money in the budget, it the terms between agreements. IIRC the current term is 7 years. GO suggesting that a shorter term will be better. If no agreement is made or one or all of the member states veto the budget settlement, the mechanism is in place to have an annual EU budget settlement. Sounds like the 5 years thing is an idea that the Treasury came up with overnight then? Edited November 1, 2012 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 1, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 1, 2012 Osbourne said he was "Trying to circle the square". Explains where he's been going wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Osbourne said he was "Trying to circle the square". Explains where he's been going wrong. Should give the portfolio to Floella Benjamin. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 1, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 1, 2012 Should give the portfolio to Floella Benjamin. That would mean another Villa fan in high places, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 That would mean another Villa fan in high places, too. I wondered about that as I gather her son is called Aston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 1, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 1, 2012 Yes, she is deffo a Villa fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 That would mean another Villa fan in high places, too. I wondered about that as I gather her son is called Aston. Big Al is in good company! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 1, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 1, 2012 It's an interesting question. Is it opportunistic, hypocritical, cynical, to vote against something you might broadly support simply in order to embarrass the government? Should a party vote at all times only according to the merits of the issue under consideration, with no thought of wider political gains? I would say the job of the Opposition is to bring down the government if they can, and to make it more likely that they will beat them at the next election if they can't bring them down. If their voting behaviour emphasises a damaging split in the ranks of the governing party, that's the sort of thing they should be doing. I think all parties in our system accept that, don't they? Exactly. parliament's website covers this and says that the main duties of the Leader of the Opposition are to be be ready to take office as Prime Minister to lead his party and that a major purpose of an Opposition is to oppose, but occasionally to set aside that opposition and instead offer limited co-operation to the Prime Minister, when the Prime Minister offers him access to confidential official information, or invites him to enter into consultations on government policy It's why the Tories supported Blair on Iraq, and it's why labour opposed the EU thing, yesterday. Absolutely opportunism, yesterday, but it's what they're supposed to do. It's their job to oppose the Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 But surely the bit that was hopefully taken for granted was 'for the betterment of the country', and not as is normally the case 'for the sake of the party and those that serve the party'. Sometimes we accidentally presume stuff doesn't need writing down (don't rent your house for income, pocket that income, rent somewhere else off a fellow MP and claim that rent back on expenses). What we see today is three parties happy to step on each others heads and ours to further their own position rather than help the country. Any one of them given a choice of 'a' stay in power or 'b' see the lot of the people improved, would choose 'a' every time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Exactly Chris, politicians too concerned about the next election, instead of statesmen concerned about the next 25 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 A rightful expectation of budget reductions when nearly all countries are doing the same is exactly what the uks opening stance should be. could you name these other countries that are doing nearly the same ...... as Clegg seems to disagree with you He (Clegg) also said there is "no hope" of a cut in the EU budget, as demanded by more than 50 Tory rebels and the Labour Party, because no other country is demanding such a reduction. interesting speech from Clegg today though He said: “Labour has now taken a different position – as we saw last night – having had a change of heart. Ed Balls knows only too well, from bitter experience, that there is absolutely no prospect of securing a real terms cut to the EU budget. “But at the eleventh hour, and having stayed silent on this issue for months, Labour now proclaims that, actually, this is what they’ve wanted all along. And they can wave a magic wand over the Council negotiations and convince 26 other countries to agree… Their change of heart is dishonest, it’s hypocritical.” Adding: “We’ve been waiting for years for the Labour party to announce how they would cut spending. Now they have finally come out in favour of cuts – but in a way they know is undeliverable, and in a way that would hurt British taxpayers. And it turns out even their cuts cost money. “I’ve heard people describe it as clever opposition politics – and I suppose it is. But it’s not the behaviour of a party serious about government.“ Personally I like this little gem from a left leaning website , assume they will be going on the axis of evil list if they keep this up :-) In its haste to inflict humiliation on David Cameron, Labour last night about-turned on their pro-Europeanism of government and handed victory to the eurosceptic Tory right – without offering any real alternative, without making the case for reform, siding with individuals who at best want looser ties with Europe and a complete renegotion of our relationship; at worst, outright withdrawal. Just as under John Smith over Maastricht, Labour have sacrificed pro-Europe principle for petty partisan politics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) They ought to listen to that Mr Clegg - he knows his stuff when it comes to dishonesty and putting the desire for office over principle. On the Europe debate, there is much too little leeway given to people to take nuanced positions regarding different aspects of the EU, the council of Europe, &c. People appear to have to be either 'pro-Europe' or 'anti-Europe'; though there may be a rare few who are one or the other and nothing else, generally (as with most things) it's nonsense. Edit: Infinitive repaired. Edited November 1, 2012 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 But surely the bit that was hopefully taken for granted was 'for the betterment of the country', and not as is normally the case 'for the sake of the party and those that serve the party'. Sometimes we accidentally presume stuff doesn't need writing down (don't rent your house for income, pocket that income, rent somewhere else off a fellow MP and claim that rent back on expenses). What we see today is three parties happy to step on each others heads and ours to further their own position rather than help the country. Any one of them given a choice of 'a' stay in power or 'b' see the lot of the people improved, would choose 'a' every time. People's definition of the betterment of the country are likely to vary widely. And since few things will benefit all the country equally, often it's about the betterment of one group or groups in relation to others. One thing which tends to make people angry with politicians is when they can see them pursue policies which advantage groups they are members of, at the significant disadvantage of a great many other people. Even more so when a sectional interest is cloaked in appeals to national unity, and lies about everyone bearing the same burden. That's why "we're all in this together" provokes such acid comments. Heseltine's report is interesting here. He is clear that the policies which are being followed are just too crassly self-interested, and a bit more subtlety would help the tories do better. It's still self-interest, but a lot less in-your-face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I say! What's it coming to when a chap can't even have a quiet stroll with a few media reptiles without some damn oik sounding off. Hanging's too good for 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I say! What's it coming to when a chap can't even have a quiet stroll with a few media reptiles without some damn oik sounding off. Hanging's too good for 'em. I suspect this will be another boost for Boris, a bit like the John Prescott punch. I'd say the people in the wrong in that video are the people chanting 'scum' and a load of bleeped expletives at someone whilst he is just going about his job. It shows a lack of basic common decency from the 'protesters'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts