The Brexit bill could be higher than we thought... Unless of course, we decide that leaving the customs union isn't worth it after all.
I wonder if they'll help set up customs ports in Dover? No, thought not.
Ils nous auraient à leur merci. If they rip up Le Touquet then the jungle moves to Dover so May has to preserve that arrangement at all costs.
Project Fear Mk 85.....
Once we leave the EU, there is no problem dealing with asylum seekers via the tunnel. You simply do what almost every other country does, which is to insist that the travel company check that everyone has a valid visa BEFORE they are allowed to board and fine them heavily if they deliver someone who does not have a visa (before immediately deporting them again). By law if asylum seekers come from the EU they are required to seek asylum there, so the UK does not have to provide any means by which they can reach the UK. Why do you think you cannot get onto a plane for the US and Australia etc without a valid visa?
Stowaways are not large in number and frankly for these guys it doesn't matter where the official border is because they are not using it.
I would have thought they could have raised that from business sponsorship with guarantee that sponsors are always on the VIP list for events ie nudge nudge you get chance to get your money back via direct access to world leaders / royalty etc.
Yep, a bond issue is the way I’d fund it, plenty of companies and businessmen who’d subscribe and it would get funded in about a week. A lottery’s a silly idea, people given the choice will refer to fund other good causes.
To those who pooh pooh the idea of a Royal yacht, the new money areas of the world absolutely LOVE things like this. Plenty of Americans, Arabs and Chinese will treasure their invitations from the Queen, even if they only got to meet Air Miles Andy and the Minister for Trade.
Bloody hell, Alistair Cook is in danger of both getting a Daddy and carrying his bat - which probably means he’ll be the last wicket on 199.
Avoided that at least, phew!
I know his average is low compared to others on the all time list, and he’s no Sanggakara or Tendulkar, but the additional challenge from being an opener I don’t think is acknowledged enough -generally openers are not the most fluid, talented scorers in a team, and it’s even harder to get not outs.t
Moving at a fair lick since Broad got in, and broad having one of his lucky innings, the only way he scores runs anymore.
Yes, Cook finally comes good with a brilliant innings, but sadly too late in the series for it to count for anything except the history books.
It’s a shame none of our top guys really performed when the urn was still up for grabs, but thems the breaks. As a child of the 90s, avoiding humiliation and hopefully winning one or two to count toward overall games won is better than nothing.
I don’t understand why Root didn’t decalre when Broad got his 50. Half a dozen ovcers left t be bowled at tired Aussie batsmen by a fired up Anderson and Broad. Oh well.
To those that comment that I've been vague or non-committal, that's because - surprisingly given the last few years - my best guess is that 2018 will be an essentially quiet political year against a news-filled background. At the end of the year Britain will still have a crap government implementing a crap Brexit, convincing and inspiring few. But I thought I ought to show my workings.
I'm expecting at least one and quite possibly all of the four bolded predictions to prove to be wrong (my predictions usually do poorly when reality bites). Life usually turns out to be more complicated than it seems.
Bloody hell, Alistair Cook is in danger of both getting a Daddy and carrying his bat - which probably means he’ll be the last wicket on 199.
Avoided that at least, phew!
I know his average is low compared to others on the all time list, and he’s no Sanggakara or Tendulkar, but the additional challenge from being an opener I don’t think is acknowledged enough -generally openers are not the most fluid, talented scorers in a team, and it’s even harder to get not outs.t
Moving at a fair lick since Broad got in, and broad having one of his lucky innings, the only way he scores runs anymore.
Yes, Cook finally comes good with a brilliant innings, but sadly too late in the series for it to count for anything except the history books.
It’s a shame none of our top guys really performed when the urn was still up for grabs, but thems the breaks. As a child of the 90s, avoiding humiliation and hopefully winning one or two to count toward overall games won is better than nothing.
I don’t understand why Root didn’t decalre when Broad got his 50. Half a dozen ovcers left t be bowled at tired Aussie batsmen by a fired up Anderson and Broad. Oh well.
When they’ve all struggled for runs, may as well just go for as many as possible and post a commanding total.
Amusingly Cook has never carried his bat apparently, and assuming they declare overnight, he probably won’t get the opportunity to again. Also, I note that as long a career as he has had, in order to move his career average up by a mere 1 he gas to score 200+ without getting out, rough.
Bloody hell, Alistair Cook is in danger of both getting a Daddy and carrying his bat - which probably means he’ll be the last wicket on 199.
Avoided that at least, phew!
I know his average is low compared to others on the all time list, and he’s no Sanggakara or Tendulkar, but the additional challenge from being an opener I don’t think is acknowledged enough -generally openers are not the most fluid, talented scorers in a team, and it’s even harder to get not outs.t
Moving at a fair lick since Broad got in, and broad having one of his lucky innings, the only way he scores runs anymore.
Yes, Cook finally comes good with a brilliant innings, but sadly too late in the series for it to count for anything except the history books.
It’s a shame none of our top guys really performed when the urn was still up for grabs, but thems the breaks. As a child of the 90s, avoiding humiliation and hopefully winning one or two to count toward overall games won is better than nothing.
I don’t understand why Root didn’t decalre when Broad got his 50. Half a dozen ovcers left t be bowled at tired Aussie batsmen by a fired up Anderson and Broad. Oh well.
When they’ve all struggled for runs, may as well just go for as many as possible and post a commanding total.
Amusingly Cook has never carried his bat apparently, and assuming they declare overnight, he probably won’t get the opportunity to again. Also, I note that as long a career as he has had, in order to move his career average up by a mere 1 he gas to score 200+ without getting out, rough.
I watched him several times at Essex last season and it seems impossibl;e to see whether he’s likely to score a lot of a little.
Bloody hell, Alistair Cook is in danger of both getting a Daddy and carrying his bat - which probably means he’ll be the last wicket on 199.
Avoided that at least, phew!
I know his average is low compared to others on the all time list, and he’s no Sanggakara or Tendulkar, but the additional challenge from being an opener I don’t think is acknowledged enough -generally openers are not the most fluid, talented scorers in a team, and it’s even harder to get not outs.t
Moving at a fair lick since Broad got in, and broad having one of his lucky innings, the only way he scores runs anymore.
Yes, Cook finally comes good with a brilliant innings, but sadly too late in the series for it to count for anything except the history books.
It’s a shame none of our top guys really performed when the urn was still up for grabs, but thems the breaks. As a child of the 90s, avoiding humiliation and hopefully winning one or two to count toward overall games won is better than nothing.
I don’t understand why Root didn’t decalre when Broad got his 50. Half a dozen ovcers left t be bowled at tired Aussie batsmen by a fired up Anderson and Broad. Oh well.
When they’ve all struggled for runs, may as well just go for as many as possible and post a commanding total.
Amusingly Cook has never carried his bat apparently, and assuming they declare overnight, he probably won’t get the opportunity to again. Also, I note that as long a career as he has had, in order to move his career average up by a mere 1 he gas to score 200+ without getting out, rough.
I watched him several times at Essex last season and it seems impossibl;e to see whether he’s likely to score a lot of a little.
His last six innings before this one, on the current tour. 2, 7, 37, 16, 7, 14, then 244* comes from nowhere! Last week we were all asking why they even bother selecting him any more.
Bloody hell, Alistair Cook is in danger of both getting a Daddy and carrying his bat - which probably means he’ll be the last wicket on 199.
Avoided that at least, phew!
I know his average is low compared to others on the all time list, and he’s no Sanggakara or Tendulkar, but the additional challenge from being an opener I don’t think is acknowledged enough -generally openers are not the most fluid, talented scorers in a team, and it’s even harder to get not outs.t
Moving at a fair lick since Broad got in, and broad having one of his lucky innings, the only way he scores runs anymore.
Yes, Cook finally comes good with a brilliant innings, but sadly too late in the series for it to count for anything except the history books.
It’s a shame none of our top guys really performed when the urn was still up for grabs, but thems the breaks. As a child of the 90s, avoiding humiliation and hopefully winning one or two to count toward overall games won is better than nothing.
I don’t understand why Root didn’t decalre when Broad got his 50. Half a dozen ovcers left t be bowled at tired Aussie batsmen by a fired up Anderson and Broad. Oh well.
When they’ve all struggled for runs, may as well just go for as many as possible and post a commanding total.
Amusingly Cook has never carried his bat apparently, and assuming they declare overnight, he probably won’t get the opportunity to again. Also, I note that as long a career as he has had, in order to move his career average up by a mere 1 he gas to score 200+ without getting out, rough.
I watched him several times at Essex last season and it seems impossibl;e to see whether he’s likely to score a lot of a little.
His last six innings before this one, on the current tour. 2, 7, 37, 16, 7, 14, then 244* comes from nowhere! Last week we were all asking why they even bother selecting him any more.
Apparently he’s been joined, for Christmas and his birthday, by his wife and children.
Bloody hell, Alistair Cook is in danger of both getting a Daddy and carrying his bat - which probably means he’ll be the last wicket on 199.
Avoided that at least, phew!
I know his average is low compared to others on the all time list, and he’s no Sanggakara or Tendulkar, but the additional challenge from being an opener I don’t think is acknowledged enough -generally openers are not the most fluid, talented scorers in a team, and it’s even harder to get not outs.t
Moving at a fair lick since Broad got in, and broad having one of his lucky innings, the only way he scores runs anymore.
Yes, Cook finally comes good with a brilliant innings, but sadly too late in the series for it to count for anything except the history books.
It’s a shame none of our top guys really performed when the urn was still up for grabs, but thems the breaks. As a child of the 90s, avoiding humiliation and hopefully winning one or two to count toward overall games won is better than nothing.
I don’t understand why Root didn’t decalre when Broad got his 50. Half a dozen ovcers left t be bowled at tired Aussie batsmen by a fired up Anderson and Broad. Oh well.
When they’ve all struggled for runs, may as well just go for as many as possible and post a commanding total.
Amusingly Cook has never carried his bat apparently, and assuming they declare overnight, he probably won’t get the opportunity to again. Also, I note that as long a career as he has had, in order to move his career average up by a mere 1 he gas to score 200+ without getting out, rough.
I watched him several times at Essex last season and it seems impossibl;e to see whether he’s likely to score a lot of a little.
His last six innings before this one, on the current tour. 2, 7, 37, 16, 7, 14, then 244* comes from nowhere! Last week we were all asking why they even bother selecting him any more.
Apparently he’s been joined, for Christmas and his birthday, by his wife and children.
If that’s all it took, we should have flown them out six weeks ago!
Bloody hell, Alistair Cook is in danger of both getting a Daddy and carrying his bat - which probably means he’ll be the last wicket on 199.
Avoided that at least, phew!
I know his average is low compared to others on the all time list, and he’s no Sanggakara or Tendulkar, but the additional challenge from being an opener I don’t think is acknowledged enough -generally openers are not the most fluid, talented scorers in a team, and it’s even harder to get not outs.t
Moving at a fair lick since Broad got in, and broad having one of his lucky innings, the only way he scores runs anymore.
Yes, Cook finally comes good with a brilliant innings, but sadly too late in the series for it to count for anything except the history books.
It’s a shame none of our top guys really performed when the urn was still up for grabs, but thems the breaks. As a child of the 90s, avoiding humiliation and hopefully winning one or two to count toward overall games won is better than nothing.
I don’t understand why Root didn’t decalre when Broad got his 50. Half a dozen ovcers left t be bowled at tired Aussie batsmen by a fired up Anderson and Broad. Oh well.
When they’ve all struggled for runs, may as well just go for as many as possible and post a commanding total.
Amusingly Cook has never carried his bat apparently, and assuming they declare overnight, he probably won’t get the opportunity to again. Also, I note that as long a career as he has had, in order to move his career average up by a mere 1 he gas to score 200+ without getting out, rough.
I watched him several times at Essex last season and it seems impossibl;e to see whether he’s likely to score a lot of a little.
His last six innings before this one, on the current tour. 2, 7, 37, 16, 7, 14, then 244* comes from nowhere! Last week we were all asking why they even bother selecting him any more.
Apparently he’s been joined, for Christmas and his birthday, by his wife and children.
That is interesting because in football, WAGs on tour has been blamed for England's lacklustre performances in World Cups. There was a golf tipster iirc who used to talk about the nappy factor -- a new arrival lifting a player's performance.
Can someone explain why there is such a dramatic divergence of view about whether the latest SW film is worth seeing, and how it compares to the last one? The common views appear to be that one is crap and one is great, differing as to which, and I haven't yet seen anyone argue that they are both great or both poor.
Ian, I would say both are very good. They are just not following the formula so the SW geeks are a bit shocked. If you look for them to be the meaning of life then it may be different , for me they were 2 hours of well made fiction and most enjoyable.
Leaders is an interesting topic of discussion. Barring medical woe, hard to see Corbyn going. May, obviously, is in a more precarious position. Someone here suggested the other day that the older Cabinet members who might want a tilt at the top job may try and get her removed sooner, rather than later.
I agree she'll likely still be there at the end of the year.
Of course, the critical question for 2018 is whether or not the Renault engine measures up to the Mercedes and Ferrari.
I would have thought they could have raised that from business sponsorship with guarantee that sponsors are always on the VIP list for events ie nudge nudge you get chance to get your money back via direct access to world leaders / royalty etc.
Yep, a bond issue is the way I’d fund it, plenty of companies and businessmen who’d subscribe and it would get funded in about a week. A lottery’s a silly idea, people given the choice will refer to fund other good causes.
To those who pooh pooh the idea of a Royal yacht, the new money areas of the world absolutely LOVE things like this. Plenty of Americans, Arabs and Chinese will treasure their invitations from the Queen, even if they only got to meet Air Miles Andy and the Minister for Trade.
Kind of typifies how crap this country is, idiots looking to feather nest mooching royals who have bank accounts of billions nicked from peasants. Have these people no shame that they will just keep stuffing their pockets with public funds even though they have so much they could not spend it even if they paid their own bills for a change.
I would have thought they could have raised that from business sponsorship with guarantee that sponsors are always on the VIP list for events ie nudge nudge you get chance to get your money back via direct access to world leaders / royalty etc.
Yep, a bond issue is the way I’d fund it, plenty of companies and businessmen who’d subscribe and it would get funded in about a week. A lottery’s a silly idea, people given the choice will refer to fund other good causes.
You have to wonder where the Telegraph found 50 MPs with such a political tin ear.
I would have thought they could have raised that from business sponsorship with guarantee that sponsors are always on the VIP list for events ie nudge nudge you get chance to get your money back via direct access to world leaders / royalty etc.
Those predictions look pretty sound, but few predictions survive contact with reality these days...
I think it is safer to predict that there will be a big surprise in 2018.
What could that surprise be though?
It does seem as if we are due a quiet year politically, without major elections or leadership contests. So I substantially go with AM.
UK will sign up to the EU "take it or leave it" deal, having had a hearty meal of humble pie. This will then be bounced and whipped through without proper scrutiny, setting up the nrxt political faultlines.
I think May will last the year, before running off to the wheatfields in 2019.
Cabinet departures? of course, but no one is indispensible. Polls are in a holding pattern so cannot see much change there.
What political surprises are out there? Perhaps it is more fun to pick a few:
May resigns as talks collapse, citing ill health. Economic uncertainty is the backdrop to the Tory leadership contest, won by JRM. The government falls over the Irish border. An autumn election sees Labour the largest party, but no one wants the poison chalice of coalition. By Christmas 2018, the country is looking ungovernable as it drifts onto the rocks. The world looks on in wonder....
The Department of Health is quoted: Nobody waiting for a cataract operation should face unnecessary delay but does not specify which patients should face unnecessary delays.
Bloody hell, Alistair Cook is in danger of both getting a Daddy and carrying his bat - which probably means he’ll be the last wicket on 199.
Avoided that at least, phew!
I know his average is low compared to others on the all time list, and he’s no Sanggakara or Tendulkar, but the additional challenge from being an opener I don’t think is acknowledged enough -generally openers are not the most fluid, talented scorers in a team, and it’s even harder to get not outs.t
Moving at a fair lick since Broad got in, and broad having one of his lucky innings, the only way he scores runs anymore.
Yes, Cook finally comes good with a brilliant innings, but sadly too late in the series for it to count for anything except the history books.
It’s a shame none of our top guys really performed when the urn was still up for grabs, but thems the breaks. As a child of the 90s, avoiding humiliation and hopefully winning one or two to count toward overall games won is better than nothing.
I don’t understand why Root didn’t decalre when Broad got his 50. Half a dozen ovcers left t be bowled at tired Aussie batsmen by a fired up Anderson and Broad. Oh well.
When they’ve all struggled for runs, may as well just go for as many as possible and post a commanding total.
Amusingly Cook has never carried his bat apparently, and assuming they declare overnight, he probably won’t get the opportunity to again. Also, I note that as long a career as he has had, in order to move his career average up by a mere 1 he gas to score 200+ without getting out, rough.
I watched him several times at Essex last season and it seems impossibl;e to see whether he’s likely to score a lot of a little.
His last six innings before this one, on the current tour. 2, 7, 37, 16, 7, 14, then 244* comes from nowhere! Last week we were all asking why they even bother selecting him any more.
Apparently he’s been joined, for Christmas and his birthday, by his wife and children.
If that’s all it took, we should have flown them out six weeks ago!
She’s needed on the farm! Children are a bit young for hotel life, too.
Not sure if this ranks as a blown full prediction, but maybe file under "wouldn't be surprised": having had an abnormally good 2017, Jeremy Corbyn will have an abnormally bad 2018. Those fickle souls who fell so head-over-heels will start to become badly let down by Brexit's Bezzy Mate....
Stowaways are not large in number and frankly for these guys it doesn't matter where the official border is because they are not using it.
The stowaway game will radically change if the checks are on the UK side of the tunnel. If they get caught now they are still in France and get fucked off back to looking for the cheapest noodles in Carrefour. If they get caught at the new UK checks then they claim asylum and its mission accomplished.
Also the enlarged prostates of the Daily Mail comments section will mightily throb if the checks move back to the UK. Perception will matter more than reality to the permanently bewildered who form the heart of May's support.
Those predictions look pretty sound, but few predictions survive contact with reality these days...
I think it is safer to predict that there will be a big surprise in 2018.
What could that surprise be though?
It does seem as if we are due a quiet year politically, without major elections or leadership contests. So I substantially go with AM.
UK will sign up to the EU "take it or leave it" deal, having had a hearty meal of humble pie. This will then be bounced and whipped through without proper scrutiny, setting up the nrxt political faultlines.
I think May will last the year, before running off to the wheatfields in 2019.
Cabinet departures? of course, but no one is indispensible. Polls are in a holding pattern so cannot see much change there.
What political surprises are out there? Perhaps it is more fun to pick a few:
May resigns as talks collapse, citing ill health. Economic uncertainty is the backdrop to the Tory leadership contest, won by JRM. The government falls over the Irish border. An autumn election sees Labour the largest party, but no one wants the poison chalice of coalition. By Christmas 2018, the country is looking ungovernable as it drifts onto the rocks. The world looks on in wonder....
Agree with last para. I also suspect Cable will be gone early in 2018, possibly due to ill-health and Swinson will take over with the sparky Layla Moran as her deputy. Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
Really the most striking thing is that nobody gets over 17% in either gender (and dividing it by gender is odd in itself). I wonder what a UK poll would say?
Not sure if this ranks as a blown full prediction, but maybe file under "wouldn't be surprised": having had an abnormally good 2017, Jeremy Corbyn will have an abnormally bad 2018. Those fickle souls who fell so head-over-heels will start to become badly let down by Brexit's Bezzy Mate....
Brexit could trip up Labour but is more likely to do for the Conservatives, since the Cabinet is just as split as the Shadow Cabinet but with the obvious problem that their policy actually matters.
Age and health might come into play not just for May, Corbyn and Cable but also some prominent ministers and shadows.
Those predictions look pretty sound, but few predictions survive contact with reality these days...
I think it is safer to predict that there will be a big surprise in 2018.
What could that surprise be though?
It does seem as if we are due a quiet year politically, without major elections or leadership contests. So I substantially go with AM.
UK will sign up to the EU "take it or leave it" deal, having had a hearty meal of humble pie. This will then be bounced and whipped through without proper scrutiny, setting up the nrxt political faultlines.
I think May will last the year, before running off to the wheatfields in 2019.
Cabinet departures? of course, but no one is indispensible. Polls are in a holding pattern so cannot see much change there.
What political surprises are out there? Perhaps it is more fun to pick a few:
May resigns as talks collapse, citing ill health. Economic uncertainty is the backdrop to the Tory leadership contest, won by JRM. The government falls over the Irish border. An autumn election sees Labour the largest party, but no one wants the poison chalice of coalition. By Christmas 2018, the country is looking ungovernable as it drifts onto the rocks. The world looks on in wonder....
Agree with last para. I also suspect Cable will be gone early in 2018, possibly due to ill-health and Swinson will take over with the sparky Layla Moran as her deputy. Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
Visited my family in Eastbourne over Christmas. The Lib Dems seem pretty well dug in there. I think they have a model that can get them back into contention in local areas if they do the spade work. And they do have a lot of members to do it. I wouldn't write them off.
Really the most striking thing is that nobody gets over 17% in either gender (and dividing it by gender is odd in itself). I wonder what a UK poll would say?
Dividing by gender is surely to ensure the top is not dominated by one gender, probably men, fairly or otherwise. Which is also presumably why acting awards etc will still be given out by gender when I can’t think if many reasons you’d need to - unlike many sports, no gender has an advantage at elite acting.
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
And before Tezza works out that legalisation of cannabis will be an old and blue turnout machine as its health benefits are made available to sufferers from chronic pain and other neurological conditions.
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
Even if they do, if labour then pick it up they’ll reap the rewards - after all, even if they come later to it, they can actually implement it one day.
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
They have; legalisation and licensing. Treat it like alcohol.
But they’re not talking about it, nor anything else apart from Brexit. When did the LDs last manage to get a story to lead the news, when did they last get someone on R4 at 08:10?
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
And before Tezza works out that legalisation of cannabis will be an old and blue turnout machine as its health benefits are made available to sufferers from chronic pain and other neurological conditions.
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
They have; legalisation and licensing. Treat it like alcohol.
But they’re not talking about it, nor anything else apart from Brexit. When did the LDs last manage to get a story to lead the news, when did they last get someone on R4 at 08:10?
That’s why I expect Cable to go; he’s no longer up to it. As someone else said weeks ago, that business with the Telegraph, and then losing his seat seems to have thrown him. I must admit that getting to 70 seemed to sap my get up and go, and I’ve noticed that in other people.nNot to mention starting health problems. Incidentally, approaching 80 doesn’t seem any better, and that’s from a bit lower starting point!
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
And before Tezza works out that legalisation of cannabis will be an old and blue turnout machine as its health benefits are made available to sufferers from chronic pain and other neurological conditions.
I cannot imagine how completely and utterly fucked the tories would have to be to decide legalisation of cannabis was the answer. Although you never know with Brexit...
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
They have; legalisation and licensing. Treat it like alcohol.
But they’re not talking about it, nor anything else apart from Brexit. When did the LDs last manage to get a story to lead the news, when did they last get someone on R4 at 08:10?
That’s why I expect Cable to go; he’s no longer up to it. As someone else said weeks ago, that business with the Telegraph, and then losing his seat seems to have thrown him. I must admit that getting to 70 seemed to sap my get up and go, and I’ve noticed that in other people.nNot to mention starting health problems. Incidentally, approaching 80 doesn’t seem any better, and that’s from a bit lower starting point!
I think that was probably me, although I think several people have noticed it.
One reason to be doubtful about Corbyn's longer-term prospects is his age. 70 in less than 18 months and while he is still securely in post, we all thought that about May seven months ago.
I actually wrote the dialogue a long time ago (Blair might've been PM at the time) but it's still oddly fitting. Anyway, if you want a light-hearted bit of daftness, do give it a look.
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
And before Tezza works out that legalisation of cannabis will be an old and blue turnout machine as its health benefits are made available to sufferers from chronic pain and other neurological conditions.
I cannot imagine how completely and utterly fucked the tories would have to be to decide legalisation of cannabis was the answer. Although you never know with Brexit...
If they elect JRM as leader we'll know they've anticipated the legalisation of cannabis.
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
They have; legalisation and licensing. Treat it like alcohol.
But they’re not talking about it, nor anything else apart from Brexit. When did the LDs last manage to get a story to lead the news, when did they last get someone on R4 at 08:10?
That’s why I expect Cable to go; he’s no longer up to it. As someone else said weeks ago, that business with the Telegraph, and then losing his seat seems to have thrown him. I must admit that getting to 70 seemed to sap my get up and go, and I’ve noticed that in other people.nNot to mention starting health problems. Incidentally, approaching 80 doesn’t seem any better, and that’s from a bit lower starting point!
Yes, he should retire gracefully and let someone younger with more passion take over. I’m not even sure why he stood for Parliament again, except that maybe he was annoyed at having being dumped in favour of a Tory by the electorate, having served in Cabinet with them.
Drugs policy is a great differentiator, and as others have said it may end up that Labour can benefit from adopting it if the LDs don’t make a point of owning it for themselves. As I’ve said many times before, drugs policy either needs to be like Portugal and Amsterdam or like Singapore and Dubai, a wishy washy middle way just doesn’t work.
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
And before Tezza works out that legalisation of cannabis will be an old and blue turnout machine as its health benefits are made available to sufferers from chronic pain and other neurological conditions.
I cannot imagine how completely and utterly fucked the tories would have to be to decide legalisation of cannabis was the answer. Although you never know with Brexit...
You would have said exactly the same about gay marriage too, I suspect.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
I would have thought they could have raised that from business sponsorship with guarantee that sponsors are always on the VIP list for events ie nudge nudge you get chance to get your money back via direct access to world leaders / royalty etc.
Yep, a bond issue is the way I’d fund it, plenty of companies and businessmen who’d subscribe and it would get funded in about a week. A lottery’s a silly idea, people given the choice will refer to fund other good causes.
You have to wonder where the Telegraph found 50 MPs with such a political tin ear.
Blue passports, a royal yacht, Big Ben’s chimes ... these are genuinely important pieces of symbolism for a fair chunk of the Tory voting population and their representatives. Nostalgia is hugely political in the UK. The leaderships and memberships of both major parties hanker back these days; they do not look forwards.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Indeed Mr P; as one who canvassed etc for the Libs and then the LD’s for manyn years I was horrified by some of the things to which they agreed. For me, the worst thing was the emasculation of Legal Aid.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
The mistake was having all candidates photographed with a card saying they would block tuition fee increases. So it wasn't just Clegg.
That said, I wonder how Corbyn's backtracking on the issue would have gone down had he got into government and found his 'fully costed' manifesto depended on some, ummmm, 'optimistic' figures.
I would have thought they could have raised that from business sponsorship with guarantee that sponsors are always on the VIP list for events ie nudge nudge you get chance to get your money back via direct access to world leaders / royalty etc.
Yep, a bond issue is the way I’d fund it, plenty of companies and businessmen who’d subscribe and it would get funded in about a week. A lottery’s a silly idea, people given the choice will refer to fund other good causes.
You have to wonder where the Telegraph found 50 MPs with such a political tin ear.
Blue passports, a royal yacht, Big Ben’s chimes ... these are genuinely important pieces of symbolism for a fair chunk of the Tory voting population and their representatives. Nostalgia is hugely political in the UK. The leaderships and memberships of both major parties hanker back these days; they do not look forwards.
Later today, no doubt some of pb's Conservatives will be fretting about how they can make themselves seem more relevant to younger voters.
I would have thought they could have raised that from business sponsorship with guarantee that sponsors are always on the VIP list for events ie nudge nudge you get chance to get your money back via direct access to world leaders / royalty etc.
Yep, a bond issue is the way I’d fund it, plenty of companies and businessmen who’d subscribe and it would get funded in about a week. A lottery’s a silly idea, people given the choice will refer to fund other good causes.
You have to wonder where the Telegraph found 50 MPs with such a political tin ear.
Blue passports, a royal yacht, Big Ben’s chimes ... these are genuinely important pieces of symbolism for a fair chunk of the Tory voting population and their representatives. Nostalgia is hugely political in the UK. The leaderships and memberships of both major parties hanker back these days; they do not look forwards.
It is not the royal yacht that is the problem but the diversion of lottery funds from what might be seen as better, more deserving causes (even if there could be hypothecated games). If a royal yacht really will help trade then just buy one or use hypothecated bonds. That is where the MPs are tin-eared.
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
And before Tezza works out that legalisation of cannabis will be an old and blue turnout machine as its health benefits are made available to sufferers from chronic pain and other neurological conditions.
It is a shame we can't separate this into two entirely separate issues, A. therapeutic cannabis in proper pharmacologically prepared form and B. recreational use. A. should automatically be a thing if it meets the usual tests for prescription drugs. As to B, the unfettered abuse of high quality modern cannabis (doesn't even have to be skunk) produces full on batshit craziness in both the short, medium and long term. Legalising it is an utterly terrible idea.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
Strictly speaking all of them were offered a peerage. Not all of them accepted. Admittedly the exceptions, the likes of Neville Chamberlain, are very rare.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
Isn't that because by almost convention they're entitled to a Peerage, if they want it?
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
Strictly speaking all of them were offered a peerage. Not all of them accepted. Admittedly the exceptions, the likes of Neville Chamberlain, are very rare.
When was Neville Chamberlain Deputy Prime Minister?
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
Maybe the current opposition leader has been less keen to nominate Blair or Brown.
Indeed Mr P; as one who canvassed etc for the Libs and then the LD’s for manyn years I was horrified by some of the things to which they agreed. For me, the worst thing was the emasculation of Legal Aid.
Charles Kennedy was one of the true gentlemen of politics. And transformed his party into a campaigning and successful party on the up. They took his alcoholism as an excuse to not just remove him but utterly change direction. That their electorate didn't support their new policies didn't matter, simply publicly hold up pledge cards for the press whilst simultaneously telling your shadow team that the policy wouldn't work and would be the first thing in the bin.
That Clegg was openly exposed being so two-faced was bad enough. But then they decided that coalition meant openly supporting every policy the Tories threw down no matter how much it contradicted their ethos and shamed their membership. That they managed to stick a yellow bow tie on the dog turd was supposed to be something people would be grateful for.
Farron - one of a tiny handful of MPs not to support the coalition - was supposed to be the guy to drag them away from the Tories, But with so few MPs left he embarrassed himself desperately trying to get called at PMQs then on the odd occasion he did talkedat500mphtotryandcramitallin. Nobody listened. Until he started channelling Glenn Hoddle. Then they listened. And so we have Sir Vince. A man once popular for one well delivered gag at PMQs and reviled for 5 years of sitting in the heart of the coalition.
If they don't have a clue what they stand for any more, its no surprise that the voters don't either.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
Strictly speaking all of them were offered a peerage. Not all of them accepted. Admittedly the exceptions, the likes of Neville Chamberlain, are very rare.
When was Neville Chamberlain Deputy Prime Minister?
Mr. Tyndall, isn't Blair the blockage, in that PMs are meant to get the Order of the Garter but the Queen doesn't want to give one to Blair, so she's delaying rather than skipping over and making it quite overt he's been snubbed?
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
They may have been offered one and refused it of course. However by tradition Blair and Cameron should be offered the Garter, and that means waiting for a vacancy in the order. Brown should be the Thistle - not sure if there needs to be a vacancy there or if the Committee just hasn't sat on it yet.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
Former PMs are offered special Knighthoods, The Order of the Garter.
However there can only ever be 24 members of that Order, so it maybe a while before Blair, Brown, and Cameron get Knighthoods.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
I expect the other three are waiting for the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Thistle. I imagine they've been sounded out for peerages and declined.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
Strictly speaking all of them were offered a peerage. Not all of them accepted. Admittedly the exceptions, the likes of Neville Chamberlain, are very rare.
When was Neville Chamberlain Deputy Prime Minister?
Mr. Tyndall, isn't Blair the blockage, in that PMs are meant to get the Order of the Garter but the Queen doesn't want to give one to Blair, so she's delaying rather than skipping over and making it quite overt he's been snubbed?
I hadn't heard that. She should just snub him anyway. It would be a laugh.
I would have thought they could have raised that from business sponsorship with guarantee that sponsors are always on the VIP list for events ie nudge nudge you get chance to get your money back via direct access to world leaders / royalty etc.
Yep, a bond issue is the way I’d fund it, plenty of companies and businessmen who’d subscribe and it would get funded in about a week. A lottery’s a silly idea, people given the choice will refer to fund other good causes.
You have to wonder where the Telegraph found 50 MPs with such a political tin ear.
Blue passports, a royal yacht, Big Ben’s chimes ... these are genuinely important pieces of symbolism for a fair chunk of the Tory voting population and their representatives. Nostalgia is hugely political in the UK. The leaderships and memberships of both major parties hanker back these days; they do not look forwards.
Later today, no doubt some of pb's Conservatives will be fretting about how they can make themselves seem more relevant to younger voters.
Some of them just seem to be content sleeping with younger voters.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
I expect the other three are waiting for the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Thistle. I imagine they've been sounded out for peerages and declined.
Yup, Blair declined a peerage because as a member of the House of Lords you have to disclose all your outside earnings
I would have thought they could have raised that from business sponsorship with guarantee that sponsors are always on the VIP list for events ie nudge nudge you get chance to get your money back via direct access to world leaders / royalty etc.
Yep, a bond issue is the way I’d fund it, plenty of companies and businessmen who’d subscribe and it would get funded in about a week. A lottery’s a silly idea, people given the choice will refer to fund other good causes.
You have to wonder where the Telegraph found 50 MPs with such a political tin ear.
Blue passports, a royal yacht, Big Ben’s chimes ... these are genuinely important pieces of,i symbolism for a fair chunk of the Tory voting population and their representatives. Nostalgia is hugely political in the UK. The leaderships and memberships of both major parties hanker back these days; they do not look forwards.
It is not the royal yacht that is the problem but the diversion of lottery funds from what might be seen as better, more deserving causes (even if there could be hypothecated games). If a royal yacht really will help trade then just buy one or use hypothecated bonds. That is where the MPs are tin-eared.
Exactly! Lottery players would much rather see their money go to community projects, sport and the arts, than to something like a Royal yacht. Let the Department of International Trade either make the case for public funding or (more sensibly) raise the cash privately. It’s not a lot of money either, would be single figures millions per year to buy and run it.
Mr. Tyndall, isn't Blair the blockage, in that PMs are meant to get the Order of the Garter but the Queen doesn't want to give one to Blair, so she's delaying rather than skipping over and making it quite overt he's been snubbed?
I hadn't heard that. She should just snub him anyway. It would be a laugh.
There are apparently three vacancies in the order at present, so the decision not to at least offer them to Blair and Cameron does look a bit odd.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
I expect the other three are waiting for the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Thistle. I imagine they've been sounded out for peerages and declined.
Ta. I must admit that although I love the history and ceremony surrounding all these awards, I don't really like them from a political point of view so have not paid any attention to who is supposed to get what and for why.
I would have thought they could have raised that from business sponsorship with guarantee that sponsors are always on the VIP list for events ie nudge nudge you get chance to get your money back via direct access to world leaders / royalty etc.
Yep, a bond issue is the way I’d fund it, plenty of companies and businessmen who’d subscribe and it would get funded in about a week. A lottery’s a silly idea, people given the choice will refer to fund other good causes.
You have to wonder where the Telegraph found 50 MPs with such a political tin ear.
Blue passports, a royal yacht, Big Ben’s chimes ... these are genuinely important pieces of,i symbolism for a fair chunk of the Tory voting population and their representatives. Nostalgia is hugely political in the UK. The leaderships and memberships of both major parties hanker back these days; they do not look forwards.
It is not the royal yacht that is the problem but the diversion of lottery funds from what might be seen as better, more deserving causes (even if there could be hypothecated games). If a royal yacht really will help trade then just buy one or use hypothecated bonds. That is where the MPs are tin-eared.
Exactly! Lottery players would much rather see their money go to community projects, sport and the arts, than to something like a Royal yacht. Let the Department of International Trade either make the case for public funding or (more sensibly) raise the cash privately. It’s not a lot of money either, would be single figures millions per year to buy and run it.
I remember there was real outrage when Blair diverted money from the lottery to the NHS. Even Major, who was extraordinarily magnanimous to all his successors as PM and Party Leader even when they were brutally trashing him, went on Frost to give Blair a bollocking.
I cannot imagine this would go down better. It just feels wrong.
Mr. Tyndall, isn't Blair the blockage, in that PMs are meant to get the Order of the Garter but the Queen doesn't want to give one to Blair, so she's delaying rather than skipping over and making it quite overt he's been snubbed?
I hadn't heard that. She should just snub him anyway. It would be a laugh.
There are apparently three vacancies in the order at present, so the decision not to at least offer them to Blair and Cameron does look a bit odd.
There's normally a few years wait before they leave office and become a member of the Order of the Garter.
Sir John Major became a member nearly a decade after he left office.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
They may have been offered one and refused it of course. However by tradition Blair and Cameron should be offered the Garter, and that means waiting for a vacancy in the order. Brown should be the Thistle - not sure if there needs to be a vacancy there or if the Committee just hasn't sat on it yet.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
I expect the other three are waiting for the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Thistle. I imagine they've been sounded out for peerages and declined.
Ta. I must admit that although I love the history and ceremony surrounding all these awards, I don't really like them from a political point of view so have not paid any attention to who is supposed to get what and for why.
The Knighthood I wanted was to become a Knight Grand Cross of The Order of St Michael and St George, it would have given me the post nominal GCMG, which stands for 'God Calls Me God'
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
I expect the other three are waiting for the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Thistle. I imagine they've been sounded out for peerages and declined.
Ta. I must admit that although I love the history and ceremony surrounding all these awards, I don't really like them from a political point of view so have not paid any attention to who is supposed to get what and for why.
Oh I'm with you. I think the whole thing is a nonsense (though honours are a very cheap way of incentivising public servants). Within the confines of the system, Nick Clegg is fully deserving of his award on the usual rules.
I'd have thought it's pretty obvious why Nigel Farage has yet to receive an honour. The relevant committee is presumably waiting to see what if anything comes out of the FBI investigation where he has been named as a person of interest. It would be excruciatingly embarrassing to honour someone who was immediately the subject of sensational revelations. Better to wait and see.
Mr. Tyndall, isn't Blair the blockage, in that PMs are meant to get the Order of the Garter but the Queen doesn't want to give one to Blair, so she's delaying rather than skipping over and making it quite overt he's been snubbed?
I hadn't heard that. She should just snub him anyway. It would be a laugh.
There are apparently three vacancies in the order at present, so the decision not to at least offer them to Blair and Cameron does look a bit odd.
There's normally a few years wait before they leave office and become a member of the Order of the Garter.
Sir John Major became a member nearly a decade after he left office.
And Blair left office more than a decade ago.
It is worth adding that Baldwin was made a KG even before leaving office, as was Churchill (1953) as was Eden (1956). Wilson was April 1976. Callaghan was 1981. Thatcher was 1995. Attlee was also 1956 - I'm assuming he refused it until after he had resigned as Labour leader.
It is worth adding that Baldwin was made a KG even before leaving office, as was Churchill (1953) as was Eden (1956). Wilson was April 1976. Callaghan was 1981. Thatcher was 1995. Attlee was also 1956 - I'm assuming he refused it until after he had resigned as Labour leader.
This delay looks odd.
I suppose they delayed it until after the Chilcot inquiry.
Churchill and honours is worthy of book on its own.
Didn't he decline a Dukedom/Hereditary peerage because he wanted his son/grandkids to follow him in Parliament, and at the time it was nigh on impossible to disclaim a title.
I thought the Order of the Garter was in the Queen’s rather than in the government’s gift?
I don’t see why ex-PMs should automatically get honours, frankly. And the idea that they should be allowed to turn down an honour until they get something better seems absurd to me. It should be an honour not an entitlement.
Ex-PMs should only get honours if they make a useful contribution to public life after their departure.
Honours should be for ordinary people doing something exceptional not those who have already been well rewarded and will continue to be so.
As for the Royal Yacht, what a nonsense. It is not a priority for public money nor is a proper use of lottery money. If the Royal Family want one they have the resources to pay for it. This is just some silly Tory MPs with a tin ear for modern times.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
I expect the other three are waiting for the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Thistle. I imagine they've been sounded out for peerages and declined.
Yup, Blair declined a peerage because as a member of the House of Lords you have to disclose all your outside earnings
If so, he’s put money above honour and there should be no question of any further honour for him.
I would have thought they could have raised that from business sponsorship with guarantee that sponsors are always on the VIP list for events ie nudge nudge you get chance to get your money back via direct access to world leaders / royalty etc.
Yep, a bond issue is the way I’d fund it, plenty of companies and businessmen who’d subscribe and it would get funded in about a week. A lottery’s a silly idea, people given the choice will refer to fund other good causes.
You have to wonder where the Telegraph found 50 MPs with such a political tin ear.
Blue passports, a royal yacht, Big Ben’s chimes ... these are genuinely important pieces of,i symbolism for a fair chunk of the Tory voting population and their representatives. Nostalgia is hugely political in the UK. The leaderships and memberships of both major parties hanker back these days; they do not look forwards.
It is not the royal yacht that is the problem but the diversion of lottery funds from what might be seen as better, more deserving causes (even if there could be hypothecated games). If a royal yacht really will help trade then just buy one or use hypothecated bonds. That is where the MPs are tin-eared.
Exactly! Lottery players would much rather see their money go to community projects, sport and the arts, than to something like a Royal yacht. Let the Department of International Trade either make the case for public funding or (more sensibly) raise the cash privately. It’s not a lot of money either, would be single figures millions per year to buy and run it.
I remember there was real outrage when Blair diverted money from the lottery to the NHS. Even Major, who was extraordinarily magnanimous to all his successors as PM and Party Leader even when they were brutally trashing him, went on Frost to give Blair a bollocking.
I cannot imagine this would go down better. It just feels wrong.
Yes, it’s one of those things that, no matter what the real-world benefits of it, it’s difficult to make a case for funding at a time of public spending restraint. To many people it probably seems excessive and frivolous, however there would absolutely be a long line of businessmen willing to stump up the cash for seats on it.
Major was completely right to challenge Blair, the lottery was set up for specific purposes not for general public spending. Blair and Brown wanted to find ways of raising money without raising headline tax rates - of course in the end they just borrowed a trillion instead.
It is worth adding that Baldwin was made a KG even before leaving office, as was Churchill (1953) as was Eden (1956). Wilson was April 1976. Callaghan was 1981. Thatcher was 1995. Attlee was also 1956 - I'm assuming he refused it until after he had resigned as Labour leader.
This delay looks odd.
I suppose they delayed it until after the Chilcot inquiry.
Churchill and honours is worthy of book on its own.
Didn't he decline a Dukedom/Hereditary peerage because he wanted his son/grandkids to follow him in Parliament, and at the time it was nigh on impossible to disclaim a title.
On a similar theme, there is a fantastic financial biography of Churchill, called No More Champagne, I think.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
I expect the other three are waiting for the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Thistle. I imagine they've been sounded out for peerages and declined.
Yup, Blair declined a peerage because as a member of the House of Lords you have to disclose all your outside earnings
If so, he’s put money above honour and there should be mo question of any further honour for him.
Except Sir John Major did the same and got The Order of the Garter.
Maybe Blair and Brown don't want a gong? Wouldn't fit wit the very humble way that Brown has gone about his charity work. And Blair is a Brand. Doesn't need anything adding to it that Blair can't add himself (like talking cash from tinpot dictators)
As for Clegg, I'm not arguing that he isn't entitled to one as an ex-DPM. I'm making the point that his own party members think he destroyed the party and shouldn't accept one as a token of humility.
Maybe Blair and Brown don't want a gong? Wouldn't fit wit the very humble way that Brown has gone about his charity work. And Blair is a Brand. Doesn't need anything adding to it that Blair can't add himself (like talking cash from tinpot dictators)
As for Clegg, I'm not arguing that he isn't entitled to one as an ex-DPM. I'm making the point that his own party members think he destroyed the party and shouldn't accept one as a token of humility.
I'm feeling generous. Yesterday I said something nice about Corbyn. Today I will add that while I consider Brown was the worst Prime Minister since the abject Goderich in 1827-28, his conduct since leaving office has unlike Blair's or Thatcher's been pretty much irreproachable. Good for him. The only minor blemish would be staying in Parliament while not attending, but there he was placed in a pretty difficult position - nobody wanted a by-election or him chuntering away from the back benches.
Maybe Blair and Brown don't want a gong? Wouldn't fit wit the very humble way that Brown has gone about his charity work. And Blair is a Brand. Doesn't need anything adding to it that Blair can't add himself (like talking cash from tinpot dictators)
As for Clegg, I'm not arguing that he isn't entitled to one as an ex-DPM. I'm making the point that his own party members think he destroyed the party and shouldn't accept one as a token of humility.
I'm feeling generous. Yesterday I said something nice about Corbyn. Today I will add that while I consider Brown was the worst Prime Minister since the abject Goderich in 1827-28, his conduct since leaving office has unlike Blair's or Thatcher's been pretty much irreproachable. Good for him. The only minor blemish would be staying in Parliament while not attending, but there he was placed in a pretty difficult position - nobody wanted a by-election or him chuntering away from the back benches.
I would have thought they could have raised that from business sponsorship with guarantee that sponsors are always on the VIP list for events ie nudge nudge you get chance to get your money back via direct access to world leaders / royalty etc.
Yep, a bond issue is the way I’d fund it, plenty of companies and businessmen who’d subscribe and it would get funded in about a week. A lottery’s a silly idea, people given the choice will refer to fund other good causes.
You have to wonder where the Telegraph found 50 MPs with such a political tin ear.
Blue passports, a royal yacht, Big Ben’s chimes ... these are genuinely important pieces of symbolism for a fair chunk of the Tory voting population and their representatives. Nostalgia is hugely political in the UK. The leaderships and memberships of both major parties hanker back these days; they do not look forwards.
Later today, no doubt some of pb's Conservatives will be fretting about how they can make themselves seem more relevant to younger voters.
We're going to install Spotify on the yacht. Win-win.
Maybe Blair and Brown don't want a gong? Wouldn't fit wit the very humble way that Brown has gone about his charity work. And Blair is a Brand. Doesn't need anything adding to it that Blair can't add himself (like talking cash from tinpot dictators)
As for Clegg, I'm not arguing that he isn't entitled to one as an ex-DPM. I'm making the point that his own party members think he destroyed the party and shouldn't accept one as a token of humility.
I'm feeling generous. Yesterday I said something nice about Corbyn. Today I will add that while I consider Brown was the worst Prime Minister since the abject Goderich in 1827-28, his conduct since leaving office has unlike Blair's or Thatcher's been pretty much irreproachable. Good for him. The only minor blemish would be staying in Parliament while not attending, but there he was placed in a pretty difficult position - nobody wanted a by-election or him chuntering away from the back benches.
+1
With the one obvious exception, I think all of the living former PMs have distinguished themselves since leaving office.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
I expect the other three are waiting for the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Thistle. I imagine they've been sounded out for peerages and declined.
Yup, Blair declined a peerage because as a member of the House of Lords you have to disclose all your outside earnings
If so, he’s put money above honour and there should be mo question of any further honour for him.
Except Sir John Major did the same and got The Order of the Garter.
I didn’t know that. If the Garter is in the Queen’s gift, it might explain it though. Major has been an exemplary ex-PM. Blair rather less so.
All these politicians wailing about not getting honours is pretty repellent, frankly. Honours should go to people like the restaurant owner barricading his restaurant to protect his customers from the London Bridge attackers.
Maybe Blair and Brown don't want a gong? Wouldn't fit wit the very humble way that Brown has gone about his charity work. And Blair is a Brand. Doesn't need anything adding to it that Blair can't add himself (like talking cash from tinpot dictators)
As for Clegg, I'm not arguing that he isn't entitled to one as an ex-DPM. I'm making the point that his own party members think he destroyed the party and shouldn't accept one as a token of humility.
I'm feeling generous. Yesterday I said something nice about Corbyn. Today I will add that while I consider Brown was the worst Prime Minister since the abject Goderich in 1827-28, his conduct since leaving office has unlike Blair's or Thatcher's been pretty much irreproachable. Good for him. The only minor blemish would be staying in Parliament while not attending, but there he was placed in a pretty difficult position - nobody wanted a by-election or him chuntering away from the back benches.
+1
With the one obvious exception, I think all of the living former PMs have distinguished themselves since leaving office.
Indeed. I was actually quite touched with Brown's resignation speech.
Though this might have something to do with the fact that I'd been laid up with prawn poisoning for a few days and so watched 24 hour rolling news about the coalition negotiations.
Maybe Blair and Brown don't want a gong? Wouldn't fit wit the very humble way that Brown has gone about his charity work. And Blair is a Brand. Doesn't need anything adding to it that Blair can't add himself (like talking cash from tinpot dictators)
As for Clegg, I'm not arguing that he isn't entitled to one as an ex-DPM. I'm making the point that his own party members think he destroyed the party and shouldn't accept one as a token of humility.
I'm feeling generous. Yesterday I said something nice about Corbyn. Today I will add that while I consider Brown was the worst Prime Minister since the abject Goderich in 1827-28, his conduct since leaving office has unlike Blair's or Thatcher's been pretty much irreproachable. Good for him. The only minor blemish would be staying in Parliament while not attending, but there he was placed in a pretty difficult position - nobody wanted a by-election or him chuntering away from the back benches.
+1
With the one obvious exception, I think all of the living former PMs have distinguished themselves since leaving office.
I presume you mean Blair?
But I disagree about 'one'. Thatcher's behaviour - the constant carping about how much better she was and her meddling in policy matters - was absolutely awful and undoubtedly a big factor in the major crisis that her successors in the Conservative party faced.
Edit - sorry, just noticed you said 'living'. But even if we add dead, only Heath's behaviour comes close to matching hers.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
I expect the other three are waiting for the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Thistle. I imagine they've been sounded out for peerages and declined.
Ta. I must admit that although I love the history and ceremony surrounding all these awards, I don't really like them from a political point of view so have not paid any attention to who is supposed to get what and for why.
Oh I'm with you. I think the whole thing is a nonsense (though honours are a very cheap way of incentivising public servants). Within the confines of the system, Nick Clegg is fully deserving of his award on the usual rules.
I'd have thought it's pretty obvious why Nigel Farage has yet to receive an honour. The relevant committee is presumably waiting to see what if anything comes out of the FBI investigation where he has been named as a person of interest. It would be excruciatingly embarrassing to honour someone who was immediately the subject of sensational revelations. Better to wait and see.
Regardless of that, why the hell should Farage get any sort of honour at all? His antics with the AfD and his remarks about Jewish influence should disqualify him. IMO.
Maybe Blair and Brown don't want a gong? Wouldn't fit wit the very humble way that Brown has gone about his charity work. And Blair is a Brand. Doesn't need anything adding to it that Blair can't add himself (like talking cash from tinpot dictators)
As for Clegg, I'm not arguing that he isn't entitled to one as an ex-DPM. I'm making the point that his own party members think he destroyed the party and shouldn't accept one as a token of humility.
I'm feeling generous. Yesterday I said something nice about Corbyn. Today I will add that while I consider Brown was the worst Prime Minister since the abject Goderich in 1827-28, his conduct since leaving office has unlike Blair's or Thatcher's been pretty much irreproachable. Good for him. The only minor blemish would be staying in Parliament while not attending, but there he was placed in a pretty difficult position - nobody wanted a by-election or him chuntering away from the back benches.
+1
With the one obvious exception, I think all of the living former PMs have distinguished themselves since leaving office.
Thatcher was awful once she left office.
She was worse than Ted Heath, constantly undermining her successor.
Although the fault must lie also with those that exploited her early onset dementia.
It is worth adding that Baldwin was made a KG even before leaving office, as was Churchill (1953) as was Eden (1956). Wilson was April 1976. Callaghan was 1981. Thatcher was 1995. Attlee was also 1956 - I'm assuming he refused it until after he had resigned as Labour leader.
This delay looks odd.
I suppose they delayed it until after the Chilcot inquiry.
Churchill and honours is worthy of book on its own.
Didn't he decline a Dukedom/Hereditary peerage because he wanted his son/grandkids to follow him in Parliament, and at the time it was nigh on impossible to disclaim a title.
Comments
Once we leave the EU, there is no problem dealing with asylum seekers via the tunnel. You simply do what almost every other country does, which is to insist that the travel company check that everyone has a valid visa BEFORE they are allowed to board and fine them heavily if they deliver someone who does not have a visa (before immediately deporting them again). By law if asylum seekers come from the EU they are required to seek asylum there, so the UK does not have to provide any means by which they can reach the UK. Why do you think you cannot get onto a plane for the US and Australia etc without a valid visa?
Stowaways are not large in number and frankly for these guys it doesn't matter where the official border is because they are not using it.
To those who pooh pooh the idea of a Royal yacht, the new money areas of the world absolutely LOVE things like this. Plenty of Americans, Arabs and Chinese will treasure their invitations from the Queen, even if they only got to meet Air Miles Andy and the Minister for Trade.
I'm expecting at least one and quite possibly all of the four bolded predictions to prove to be wrong (my predictions usually do poorly when reality bites). Life usually turns out to be more complicated than it seems.
Amusingly Cook has never carried his bat apparently, and assuming they declare overnight, he probably won’t get the opportunity to again. Also, I note that as long a career as he has had, in order to move his career average up by a mere 1 he gas to score 200+ without getting out, rough.
Leaders is an interesting topic of discussion. Barring medical woe, hard to see Corbyn going. May, obviously, is in a more precarious position. Someone here suggested the other day that the older Cabinet members who might want a tilt at the top job may try and get her removed sooner, rather than later.
I agree she'll likely still be there at the end of the year.
Of course, the critical question for 2018 is whether or not the Renault engine measures up to the Mercedes and Ferrari.
It does seem as if we are due a quiet year politically, without major elections or leadership contests. So I substantially go with AM.
UK will sign up to the EU "take it or leave it" deal, having had a hearty meal of humble pie. This will then be bounced and whipped through without proper scrutiny, setting up the nrxt political faultlines.
I think May will last the year, before running off to the wheatfields in 2019.
Cabinet departures? of course, but no one is indispensible. Polls are in a holding pattern so cannot see much change there.
What political surprises are out there? Perhaps it is more fun to pick a few:
May resigns as talks collapse, citing ill health. Economic uncertainty is the backdrop to the Tory leadership contest, won by JRM. The government falls over the Irish border. An autumn election sees Labour the largest party, but no one wants the poison chalice of coalition. By Christmas 2018, the country is looking ungovernable as it drifts onto the rocks. The world looks on in wonder....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/27/patients-going-blind-due-six-month-waiting-lists-cataract-surgery/
The Department of Health is quoted: Nobody waiting for a cataract operation should face unnecessary delay but does not specify which patients should face unnecessary delays.
Also the enlarged prostates of the Daily Mail comments section will mightily throb if the checks move back to the UK. Perception will matter more than reality to the permanently bewildered who form the heart of May's support.
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/27/obama-beats-trump-again-as-most-admired-american-man-in-poll
Really the most striking thing is that nobody gets over 17% in either gender (and dividing it by gender is odd in itself). I wonder what a UK poll would say?
Age and health might come into play not just for May, Corbyn and Cable but also some prominent ministers and shadows.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/27/i-want-structural-not-piecemeal-change-laura-pidcocks-first-months-as-an-mp
Incidentally, approaching 80 doesn’t seem any better, and that’s from a bit lower starting point!
One reason to be doubtful about Corbyn's longer-term prospects is his age. 70 in less than 18 months and while he is still securely in post, we all thought that about May seven months ago.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/tales-of-knights-and-nitwits-episode-1.html
I actually wrote the dialogue a long time ago (Blair might've been PM at the time) but it's still oddly fitting. Anyway, if you want a light-hearted bit of daftness, do give it a look.
Drugs policy is a great differentiator, and as others have said it may end up that Labour can benefit from adopting it if the LDs don’t make a point of owning it for themselves. As I’ve said many times before, drugs policy either needs to be like Portugal and Amsterdam or like Singapore and Dubai, a wishy washy middle way just doesn’t work.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
That said, I wonder how Corbyn's backtracking on the issue would have gone down had he got into government and found his 'fully costed' manifesto depended on some, ummmm, 'optimistic' figures.
That Clegg was openly exposed being so two-faced was bad enough. But then they decided that coalition meant openly supporting every policy the Tories threw down no matter how much it contradicted their ethos and shamed their membership. That they managed to stick a yellow bow tie on the dog turd was supposed to be something people would be grateful for.
Farron - one of a tiny handful of MPs not to support the coalition - was supposed to be the guy to drag them away from the Tories, But with so few MPs left he embarrassed himself desperately trying to get called at PMQs then on the odd occasion he did talkedat500mphtotryandcramitallin. Nobody listened. Until he started channelling Glenn Hoddle. Then they listened. And so we have Sir Vince. A man once popular for one well delivered gag at PMQs and reviled for 5 years of sitting in the heart of the coalition.
If they don't have a clue what they stand for any more, its no surprise that the voters don't either.
However there can only ever be 24 members of that Order, so it maybe a while before Blair, Brown, and Cameron get Knighthoods.
(Brown might get The Order of the Thistle though)
I cannot imagine this would go down better. It just feels wrong.
Sir John Major became a member nearly a decade after he left office.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Knights_and_Ladies_of_the_Garter
I quite like the idea of the Queen not wanting to give one to Blair though.
I'd have thought it's pretty obvious why Nigel Farage has yet to receive an honour. The relevant committee is presumably waiting to see what if anything comes out of the FBI investigation where he has been named as a person of interest. It would be excruciatingly embarrassing to honour someone who was immediately the subject of sensational revelations. Better to wait and see.
It is worth adding that Baldwin was made a KG even before leaving office, as was Churchill (1953) as was Eden (1956). Wilson was April 1976. Callaghan was 1981. Thatcher was 1995. Attlee was also 1956 - I'm assuming he refused it until after he had resigned as Labour leader.
This delay looks odd.
Churchill and honours is worthy of book on its own.
Didn't he decline a Dukedom/Hereditary peerage because he wanted his son/grandkids to follow him in Parliament, and at the time it was nigh on impossible to disclaim a title.
I don’t see why ex-PMs should automatically get honours, frankly. And the idea that they should be allowed to turn down an honour until they get something better seems absurd to me. It should be an honour not an entitlement.
Ex-PMs should only get honours if they make a useful contribution to public life after their departure.
Honours should be for ordinary people doing something exceptional not those who have already been well rewarded and will continue to be so.
As for the Royal Yacht, what a nonsense. It is not a priority for public money nor is a proper use of lottery money. If the Royal Family want one they have the resources to pay for it. This is just some silly Tory MPs with a tin ear for modern times.
Major was completely right to challenge Blair, the lottery was set up for specific purposes not for general public spending. Blair and Brown wanted to find ways of raising money without raising headline tax rates - of course in the end they just borrowed a trillion instead.
As for Clegg, I'm not arguing that he isn't entitled to one as an ex-DPM. I'm making the point that his own party members think he destroyed the party and shouldn't accept one as a token of humility.
All these politicians wailing about not getting honours is pretty repellent, frankly. Honours should go to people like the restaurant owner barricading his restaurant to protect his customers from the London Bridge attackers.
Though this might have something to do with the fact that I'd been laid up with prawn poisoning for a few days and so watched 24 hour rolling news about the coalition negotiations.
But I disagree about 'one'. Thatcher's behaviour - the constant carping about how much better she was and her meddling in policy matters - was absolutely awful and undoubtedly a big factor in the major crisis that her successors in the Conservative party faced.
Edit - sorry, just noticed you said 'living'. But even if we add dead, only Heath's behaviour comes close to matching hers.
She was worse than Ted Heath, constantly undermining her successor.
Although the fault must lie also with those that exploited her early onset dementia.