Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by editor, Jul 4, 2011.
ffs, Andrew Marr's entertainment show though...
Ah, re-done the date arithmetic... November isn't "shortly after" July after all...
Suspect we've narrowed down the "colleagues" to one who talks to journalists while in his cups
Yes, it's getting closer to home, but still a long way from getting 'traction'. Killing the economy and NHS are his bigger worries. No sign the libdems are going to cause much trouble, apart from the odd muted squeal. Lab are still too compomised to lead any kind of crusade on this (or indeed anything). My money would still be on limping along till 2015. Just the possibility that the lib dem 'left' (or indeed any of the libdems) start to peel off in a couple of years is they see there's going to be no upturn that allows them to keep their seats.
I suspect I know the answer to this but did the entertaining Andrew Marr mention the Indie artice, or co-opt any questions crystalised therein?
Bercow has just pissed off the tories by allowing the tabling of an urgent question on Hunt, they'll pretty much have to put up Cameron to answer.
Cameron really hates that guy.
I must say, he's not been the sort of speaker i expected.
Statement to the House by Disco Dave "at about 3.30" - available on your usual 24-hours news channels.
Dave's fucked either way. This is a good thing. Wonder what line he'll take in the Commons?
Bercow's been a good Speaker imo. A Telegraph poll today has over 80% saying Hunt should be referred. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...Hunt-questions-in-Commons-this-afternoon.html
The lib-dem 'left' can peel off and the coalition can still limp on til 2015. The tories only need 19 lib-dems for a majority (and that's not counting Ulster Unionists) so they can ditch 40 LDs and still hang on. I wonder if it's just a co-incidence that 20 LDs have been given government posts? It certainly stitches up the numbers they need.
I mean it'd still be bad PR of course if loads of LDs flounce. But it's going to be 2015 unless some weird shit happens.
I get what you say about Bercow but I don't know that he really had any option on this one. It's clearly an issue that 'should' be addressed in the House - even a patsy speaker might have struggled to nix it.
I agree (on it probably being 2015). If some sort of self interested dissent started to develop amongst the libs, it would then be a calculation for the party about whether to stand up to the tories and thus bring about an election (rather than let their own party split). However any of that works out it'll be 90% self interest and at most 10% genuine distaste at the cuts that will be inspiring any lib dissenters. Suppose there's just the chance that 1 or 2 (literally) will jump ship to labour in a couple of years - though that will equally be an act of seat preservation, with the promise of ministerial posts in a Miliband government.*
*This may be the first time in recorded history that anyone has used the phrase 'Miliband government'.
I'm not sure if anything can stop the LDs splitting now. Historically there have been four previous Liberal/Whig coalitions (not including wartime); all have been with the tories, all have resulted in a split with a small rump joining the tories. I presume the first time was tragic and the second farcical but I'm not sure what the third, fourth and fifth have been/will be. Possibly "tediously predictable", "tediously predictable", and "will you please just fuck off into the dustbin of history now"?
Tories well pissed off, they can't do much about him ATM without looking like a bunch of spiteful losers, but if they get the chance I think they'll try and nobble him.
You'd expect some Tories to use it as an opportunity to berate Bercow, but given the PM refuses to employ the Ministerial Code it's not a difficult call.
This is still actually about Cameron, Hunt and the Murdochs.
Come friendly bombs and fall on Chipping Norton.
Bercow has been an awful speaker, though in his defence he was elected by an awful House of Commons who selected him specifically because of his awfulness.
Daves on now.
I doubt we will hear anything that hasn't already been said TBH.
Awful in terms of what? Not being a neutral proper speaker?
More in terms of how he handles MPs in the Commons, though he also appears to enjoy annoying certain Tories, and the way in which he went about getting elected has left a bit of a sour taste in the mouth.
TBH he also should ask himself why he allowed this emergency question in the first place - it would be right to have the PM questioned on his actions, but all that Miliband has done is deliver a set speech, which is what Miliband always does on such occasions. Emergency questions shouldnt be used for Labour to make it look as if they are doing something, or the value of them is lost.
milliband doing his angry nerd bit well.
Jack Straw now criticizing Cameron for allowing Hunt to hide behind his SPAD. Careful Jack, you might want to use that argument yourself soon enough.
This afternoon in the commons has been a bit of a waste of time really. It does however seem that Cameron will defend Hunt till the bitter end.
These are not awful things for me. See why you might.
Did you seriously expect it to be anything else?
FFS, the media are applying more pressure than a less than forensic Labour party.
Doesn't seem to have been much strategy on the Labour side for this debate. Didn't see Miliband, but most of the subsequent questions seem to be variations on a theme and doing the job of making Cameron sound reasonable.
Edit: that one was slightly better (about who approved the SPAD to negotiate in the first place).
Separate names with a comma.