leeslover Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Our argument is that you hate Woolas and I hate Catkins. The difference is I'm not going fully bonkers about it. Woolas is gone in disgrace, I couldn't give a monkeys about the other guy and George Osbourne is shagging your momma. Nowt for me to get worked up about! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelaticsfan Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 MP kicked out for lying, hmm edgy times for all MP's then, watkins is just as bad, if not worse, he already tried backtracking on some of his promises when he was shown to be favourite for the place, he wants the power but none of the responsibility, we need someone who will bring about real change, no party will though, as change would mean they lose a lot of their privelleges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 ...As long as the next guy does not drink or smoke and is bereft of sexual appetite and so on. And as long as he clocks on with you at nine o'clock sharp every day and clocks out at midnight. And as long as he doesn't spend a penny in expenses on anything you disapprove of, including somewhere to stay in London, and as long as Parliament moves out of the Palace and into a shoebox and as long as we have a permanent Tory dictatorship and no more of this democracy crap (which is what you're really against). You're just fine you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 as long as Parliament moves out of the Palace and into a shoebox A shoebox outside of Birmingham, please. Just think how much you could sell it off for! Might even pay Gordon's debt for a day or two! Could get cheaper staff to work there as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slurms mckenzie Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Andy Ritchie running as an independent would be a good choice as an MP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelaticsfan Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 ...As long as the next guy does not drink or smoke and is bereft of sexual appetite and so on. And as long as he clocks on with you at nine o'clock sharp every day and clocks out at midnight. And as long as he doesn't spend a penny in expenses on anything you disapprove of, including somewhere to stay in London, and as long as Parliament moves out of the Palace and into a shoebox and as long as we have a permanent Tory dictatorship and no more of this democracy crap (which is what you're really against). You're just fine you are. well theres a difference between that and what i said, i dont want extremities, I want someone who actually give a poo about us, can you honestly say oldham is doing well at the moment? and if you agree with me that it isnt, can you honestly say that any of the current candidates can change this? Im not one to talk about broken britain and how the world is turned on its head, because its not, although we need someone stable in to make the big calls or we will end up at that point, each one is only slightly different to the other at the moment! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelaticsfan Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Andy Ritchie running as an independent would be a good choice as an MP. do you think he would support our stadium plans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Mr. Tulsehill would argue black was white as long as it was wearing a red rosette. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Mr. Tulsehill would argue black was white as long as it was wearing a red rosette. But always with style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Judging by the new Range Rovers round here, white is the new black. No red rosettes though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Addendum: there's a fair bit of evidence that the Lib Dem candidate in Watford told lies about the Labour candidate. Now: the Lib Dem didn't win - the Tory did - but could it be successfully argued that in so telling lies, the Lib Dem candidate materially changed the result. I'm not doing the he lied, she lied nonsense - that's not the point at all. The point is that a minority party may affect the result, but the candidate telling the lies in that instance would face no sanction under the law. Only the winner can be done for telling lies - so if you think the Woolas ruling will lead to clean elections, think again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Addendum: there's a fair bit of evidence that the Lib Dem candidate in Watford told lies about the Labour candidate. Now: the Lib Dem didn't win - the Tory did - but could it be successfully argued that in so telling lies, the Lib Dem candidate materially changed the result. I'm not doing the he lied, she lied nonsense - that's not the point at all. The point is that a minority party may affect the result, but the candidate telling the lies in that instance would face no sanction under the law. Only the winner can be done for telling lies - so if you think the Woolas ruling will lead to clean elections, think again. No, as Labour came in 3rd, and if you look at the history the Labour MP had a swing against her of 11% from 2005, something suggests that between 2001 and 2005, Labour (on a national +/- regional level) did something that the people of Watford didn't like, but it wasn't strong enough to get rid of the Labour MP. That coupled with the overall mood of the country in 2010 = no Labour MP. Interestingly, it doesn't matter who lied and how successful the lie was in a libel/slander case, if its a lie on a personal level, its slander/libel, and the proof needed isn't as strong as Tulsehill thinks. So where's the libel case from the former labour MP, you can't have it both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 No, as Labour came in 3rd, and if you look at the history the Labour MP had a swing against her of 11% from 2005, something suggests that between 2001 and 2005, Labour (on a national +/- regional level) did something that the people of Watford didn't like, but it wasn't strong enough to get rid of the Labour MP. That coupled with the overall mood of the country in 2010 = no Labour MP. Interestingly, it doesn't matter who lied and how successful the lie was in a libel/slander case, if its a lie on a personal level, its slander/libel, and the proof needed isn't as strong as Tulsehill thinks. So where's the libel case from the former labour MP, you can't have it both ways. Funnily enough the Labour candidate took it on the chin, unlike cat man. You take my point though - without any concrete definition of what materially changing the result actually means, we're open to the ad hoc interpretation of judges. In that respect, the Woolas judgment does not set a precedent. Another court might decide that even if someone lost by 20,000, they can have their rerun. Is their a marked sliderule for making such calculations. I'll leave the science to you Doc. My point stands: it ain't fair if the minority candidates can change the results by telling lies and yet face no equivalent sanction. I didn't look up the Watford result, because it's more or less immaterial. You can change the result with lies without actually winning the seat was my point. This gets curiouser and curiouser... Cat man update. Apparently he stood for president of the union at the London School of Economics. But get this. He lost the poll, but became president after crying shennanigans. You could not make it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Verdict for the woolarse appeal due either today or tomorrow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Verdict for the woolarse appeal due either today or tomorrow? It depends what they mean by "expedited". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I said this court case is the Bosman of politics. It turns out that the first time the Liberals are faced with the prospect of defeat in a gloves-off poll contest, they start threatening court action. I told you so. Except it turns out that the gloves truly are off in a referendum, because no offence exists to penalise any claim about the outcome. How sad for the Liberal Democrats. How nice for all liberals and democrats. Funny old game is politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 You're treating a Chrish Huhne rant as LD policy? That's always been a foolish presumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 You're treating a Chrish Huhne rant as LD policy? That's always been a foolish presumption. Well let's see now. He's a senior Lib Dem. He's in Her Majesty's Government at no less than Cabinet level. You're right. It's obviously not Liberal policy to seek the adjudication if m'learned friends at the drop of a hat. You might expect him to know, on the other hand, that there's no recourse in the law to spurious claims made in a referendum. He's in the Cabinet though. He's done very well. The sooner they're all out of politics and into the law or business or whatever else, the better. By they I mean Liberal Democrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Well if everybody at such a senior level is on message, I presume your Dear Leader fully endorses Huhne's comments, being a fellow active member of the YES campaign (vacuous opportunist that he is). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Well if everybody at such a senior level is on message, I presume your Dear Leader fully endorses Huhne's comments, being a fellow active member of the YES campaign (vacuous opportunist that he is). He's an idiot. But then he's not a massive yes man, which is how it ought to be. The whole AV campaign is the highly toxic fall-out from the coalition negations, in which the Lib Dems conceded Tory cuts for the NHS and education and social security in exchange for a referendum on...wait for it...the alternative vote system. Big deal. Lib Dems are just nuclear-adjusted sixth formers. They've gone for the crappy, unimportant decorations among the flames of Rome. Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.