Politics Thread!

[k345y]

I don’t know how much the government actually wants it to pass. It is a free vote and those are normally for matters of conscience, not government policy. But they probably welcome the chance to highlight the SNP’s contradictory and unprincipled stance, supporting a policy in England which is the opposite of the one under their direct control in Scotland.

It's not unprincipled, it's quite the opposite. Using your political influence to the best of your ability in order to force a government with only one fucking seat in the country you represent is not unprincipled, it's quite the opposite. It's highly principled.

[zip accident]

that's just one survey, most have come out much more strongly against repealing

Yeah, but it's confused by the toffs issue, most people are against toffs. I personally don't understand how the Tories ever get elected.

[pogo]

It's not unprincipled, it's quite the opposite. Using your political influence to the best of your ability in order to force a government with only one fucking seat in the country you represent is not unprincipled, it's quite the opposite. It's highly principled.

If the SNP truly believed hunting with hounds wrong then they would have outlawed it in Scotland. The’ve had every opportunity. It could have happened when the law changed only in England and Wales. It could certainly have been done after the SNP gained an overall majority. That they haven’t done so must mean they support it, or at least don’t care about it. They certainly don’t oppose hunting with hounds on principal.

So if it’s not due to strongly held principals why are the opposing it? They’ve said, as revenge against the Tories for not letting the SNP rewrite the Scottish Bill. So yes, unprincipled. It’s not even good politics, as you suggest. By abandoning their normal practice of sitting out votes on English-only laws they have given the Tories an excuse to act on English Votes for English Laws. Doing so over such an unimportant issue was a very bad choice.

[k345y]

It's not good politics?
Yet here you are discussing it whilst getting the whole point of their deliberate abstinence wrong. So tell me, what makes good politics ?


You wouldn't have given a monkey's toss about the SNP and their stance, never less principals if they had just rolled over and accepted their tory ass fuck.

[pogo]

It's not good politics?
Yet here you are discussing it whilst getting the whole point of their deliberate abstinence wrong. So tell me, what makes good politics ?


You wouldn't have given a monkey's toss about the SNP and their stance, never less principals if they had just rolled over and accepted their tory ass fuck.

Good politics would have been, if they intended to hijack some English legislation for whatever reason, holding off until it was something more important, that actually matters, and that they could genuinely make a principled stand on, such as austerity. By then Labour should have a leader, and the SNP could have fun either tweaking a Labour leader who’s not progressive enough for them or if Labour elect Jeremy Corbyn giving him their full support on something more meaningful.

Good politics for the SNP would also be attending more closely to domestic matters that they’ve been neglecting. They’ve been trying to get more powers out of Westminster but they have yet to implement arguably the most important policies in the 2012 Scotland Act. That gave them the ability to raise or lower income tax, up to 10p in the £ either way, which they have done nothing with. It’s hard to take them seriously over going faster over devolution when they could be doing more themselves to raise money for their priorities.

[KlaxonCow]

It's highly principled.

on principal.

less principals

Okay, pogo, I've previously ignored the fact that you always consistently spell "principle" wrongly, because there's no sense getting all anally pedantic about a simple confusion of homophones - they sound the same, so the mix up between these words is understandable - when it's perfectly clear to everyone what you're trying to say and mentioning it would only unnecessarily derail the conversation.

But, as we can see in the above exchange, you're starting to infect others with your contagion, as k345y did know to use the right one - "principle" - and is now erroneously following your lead with "principal", so I must intervene before this "bad meme" starts spreading too far and everybody's doing it.

"Principle" is a noun, meaning a governing or guiding belief or rule.

"Principal" is an adjective, indicating that it's the main, primary or most important of something. And, via this meaning, it can also refer to the head of an institution or lead performer or "main person" as a noun, e.g. "I was sent to the Principal's office at our school for my misbehaviour" (Americans tend to use "Principal" where we Brits would use "Headteacher" or "Head") or "the principal in this ballet came from Russia" (that is, the lead ballet dancer is a Russian).

The principal principle here - that is, the chief governing rule - is that you shouldn't get your homophones mixed up like this, pogo!

[phattslagg]

less principals

Also: *Fewer*

[k345y]

It's not good politics?
Yet here you are discussing it whilst getting the whole point of their deliberate abstinence wrong. So tell me, what makes good politics ?


You wouldn't have given a monkey's toss about the SNP and their stance, never less principals if they had just rolled over and accepted their tory ass fuck.

Good politics would have been, if they intended to hijack some English legislation for whatever reason, holding off until it was something more important, that actually matters, and that they could genuinely make a principled stand on, such as austerity. By then Labour should have a leader, and the SNP could have fun either tweaking a Labour leader who’s not progressive enough for them or if Labour elect Jeremy Corbyn giving him their full support on something more meaningful.

Good politics for the SNP would also be attending more closely to domestic matters that they’ve been neglecting. They’ve been trying to get more powers out of Westminster but they have yet to implement arguably the most important policies in the 2012 Scotland Act. That gave them the ability to raise or lower income tax, up to 10p in the £ either way, which they have done nothing with. It’s hard to take them seriously over going faster over devolution when they could be doing more themselves to raise money for their priorities.

Unless referring to extremities then good politics, in a political union, country etc such as ours are subjective and a matter of opinion.

With big cuts coming the Scottish government is looking at streamlining budgets and utilising under-spends to keep things on more of an even pegging. That means tax can stay at current levels, you don't raise or lower tax just because you can! If need be and the streamlining doesn't work then the Scottish Finance Secretary may well consider a tax rise, through necessity and not to exercise a power just because he can.

[k345y]

less principals

Also: *Fewer*

[merman]

Spending review under way. Osborne asking for 40% budget cuts from "unprotected departments".

More than £20 billion in spending has to be saved by 2019-20.

Hope the people that voted for it are happy with all the under-funded and inadequate public services they get.

[pogo]

Spending review under way. Osborne asking for 40% budget cuts from "unprotected departments".

More than £20 billion in spending has to be saved by 2019-20.

Hope the people that voted for it are happy with all the under-funded and inadequate public services they get.

If it goes well they won’t need to. Because they managed to cut more last parliament without seriously impacting services. Most of the cuts happened last parliament, leaving less to be done this time round.

It will be harder this time, as the easiest cuts have already been made. But that does not mean nothing can be done. Departments are being asked to look at how to meet two targets, 25% and 40% by 2019-20, it’s not that everything is being cut by 40%. If the cuts are achieved spending will return to levels last seen in 2003, hardly disastrous.

[(o)(o)]

Spending review under way. Osborne asking for 40% budget cuts from "unprotected departments".

More than £20 billion in spending has to be saved by 2019-20.

Hope the people that voted for it are happy with all the under-funded and inadequate public services they get.

Don't know if he's trying to get civil war on the table - or more likely they'll throttle the public till it's near asphyxiated, then try and look like saints when they release just short of the outlined cuts.

Andy ...



.. Burnham has concluded it's a spineless worm today by stating

* Labour is "crying out for leadership"
* "As leader I would have opposed this bill last night."
* I didn't oppose this bill last night therefore I am a worm not a leader

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33608826

[tufty]

less principals

Also: *Fewer*

There were distinct problems with the sentence those two words were pulled from, but that wasn't one of them.

[pogo]

I started to write a post about the difficulty calling the Labour leadership election, but it was overtaken by this:

Jeremy Corbyn given huge lead in new poll of Labour leadership voters

Huge as in 43%, vs. 26% for Burnham in second. It may be closer than that though as that would lead to a run off between those two at which point Kendall and Cooper supporters will mostly give Burnham their second preference votes. But not enough for him to win: the poll predicts Corbyn winning with 53% of first and second preference votes.

This is from YouGov who correctly predicted the result of the last leadership election, apparently. Suddenly the election got a lot more interesting.

[(o)(o)]

This is from YouGov who correctly predicted the result of the last leadership election, apparently. Suddenly the election got a lot more interesting.

YouGov were wrong on the general election, out of whack on the week ahead Scottish referendum, out of sync with other surveys (hunting bill) and Cooper has directly criticised YouGov these figures but I suppose no pollster is perfect.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... emy-corbyn

I hope they are right though Corbyn is the only real contender he has REAL passion and he's honest jump to 7:11



Plus he's a vegetarian and it's about time we had a plant eater as head of state.