<
The Sun

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Sun
#1
[Image: 1280px-The_Sun.svg.png]

The Sun is the biggest newspaper in the UK and is traditionally centre-right with a circulation of 1,978,702
"We all know that Mary has a nice cat" - Fairbanks
"Nice pussy" - Coombes
"Nice pussy" - Max
"Oh look, it's Mary's massive pussy" - Keynes
"Aw. Mary touching her pussy" - Fairbanks

"Mary loves pussy" - Ed

Keynes: "@Mad_Mary do you want normies off your stream?"
Me: "NORMIES GET OFF MY STREAM REEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
Reply
Thanks given by:
#2
An Editorial by Robert Finch-Knatchbull, MP.

Quote:The Scottish Independence Referendum is behind us, and Scotland has made the commendable decision to remain a part of the United Kingdom. This news, although not “new” at this time, has been well received across the country and we can all be thankful that our centuries-old union remains, even to this day, in place. However, on the back of the referendum, we have made a commitment to the Scottish people that we would increase devolved authority to the Scottish Assembly, thereby making it, perhaps, the most powerful devolved assembly in the world. The Conservative Government has come through on its promise to the people of Scotland and introduced the Scotland Act of 2015. Through this bill, the Scottish Assembly shall not only be empowered with new decision-making authority on things ranging from tax rates to traffic signs, but its existence and authority are to be enshrined in the constitution of this fair country. Certainly, the Scotland Act of 2015 is a massive step; and like all massive steps, it is one which must be considered very carefully by all.

The Scotland Act of 2015 will give unprecedented authority to the Scottish Assembly and, by enshrining its powers, will create a system of de facto federalism in the United Kingdom. Certainly, this is not in the venerable governing tradition of our country, but your readers may be surprised to find out that I am not inherently opposed to the idea. As previously noted, this Act is a response to an independence referendum and it is the fulfillment of a promise; furthermore, it is a clarion call to the Scottish people and their elected government in Holyrood: here is your chance to govern Scotland as you have always said you wanted. However, Westminster must make clear to the Scottish Parliament that this increase in authority is also an increase in responsibility, and the Government must alleviate the reasonable concerns of English, Welsh, and Northern Irish voters: namely, that should the Scottish Parliament prove reckless and wanton in its governance, the English, Welsh, and Northern Irish taxpayer will not be on the hook to pay for Holyrood’s mistakes. Indeed it would be a grievous error -- and a challenge to the unity of our country -- to expect the English, Welsh, and Northern Irish to continue to fund an increasingly independent Scottish government, especially where that Scottish government is reckless.

The introduction of the Scotland Act of 2015 highlights yet another concern: that, as things stand, English voters are under-represented in Westminster, while Scottish voters are over-represented. While English MPs will have no right to legislate on a whole number of issues in Scotland, Scottish MPs are still, to this very day, given the opportunity to cast their vote on matters in England which have been devolved in Scotland. This is especially concerning given the electoral success of the Scottish National Party north of the border: a gaggle of MPs who have sworn their allegiance to Scotland first are now authorized to vote on the Income Tax Rate charged in England, while their colleagues in Holyrood exercise sole legislating authority (constitutionally given) on the Income Tax Rate charged in Scotland.

Due to the circumstances surrounding the genesis of the Scotland Act of 2015, it would be imprudent to suggest that it should be defeated. A very strong case can be made that the Scottish voters supported the maintenance of union with England, Wales, and Northern Ireland on the basis of the promises made during the campaign. By reneging on this promise, the Government would imperil the union and put the country in danger of another referendum. Still, the disparity must be addressed. That is why I propose English Votes for English Laws in Westminster. Practically, this means that when a provision or bill deals with matters which have been devolved to a National Assembly, only the MPs from constituencies in the regions which have not had this power devolved shall have the right to vote on the matter. To take my earlier example of Income Tax Rate, this would mean that Scottish MPs will not be able to influence the setting of the rate in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland since the Scottish people already have the authority to set their own taxes from Holyrood.

I believe that your readers will see the reasonable nature of this proposal for what it is: an effort to maintain a peaceful union between the four constituent nations of this country under difficult circumstances. Were things different, I would oppose the continued devolution of powers to National Assemblies, but we must all, in these times, strive to be practical and proactive. I believe that English Votes for English Laws is the best way address the disparity existing between English and Scottish voters at this time and hope that your readers will join me in calling for its swift implementation.

Robert Finch-Knatchbull is the Conservative Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath and a member of the Cornerstone Group.
"We all know that Mary has a nice cat" - Fairbanks
"Nice pussy" - Coombes
"Nice pussy" - Max
"Oh look, it's Mary's massive pussy" - Keynes
"Aw. Mary touching her pussy" - Fairbanks

"Mary loves pussy" - Ed

Keynes: "@Mad_Mary do you want normies off your stream?"
Me: "NORMIES GET OFF MY STREAM REEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
Reply
Thanks given by:
#3
CLIFTON IN TROUBLE?


Earlier this afternoon a Labour Source told the BBC there was a group of MPs at odds with the Party Leadership over Welfare Policy. The same Labour Source also told the BBC that all options were on the table , meaning there is a  possibility we could see a "significant number" of MPs breakaway from the party.

It is yet unclear how "significant" the number of MPs is that we are talking about here, whether they have the numbers to split Labour or indeed launch a challenge against James Clifton is at this time unknown. As per the Labour Leadership rules however, a candidate has to have 20% of Labour MPs and MEPs backing in order to launch a formal challengen it does remain unclear if this source at odds with the Labour Leadership has the support or even intends to launch a leadership challenge against James Clifton

So far the Labour Leadership have shown no sign of confirming or denying the development, but the development reported to the BBC raises questions over if James Clifton has the full support of his party, or if he is slowly losing control because he is at odds with his party over policies . This development does not look great for the Labour Leadership, but time will tell if there are further cracks which could appear.
Chief Admin

Si vis pacem, para bellum  - "If you want peace, prepare for war"
Reply
Thanks given by:
#4
[Image: _89136160__81877350_026263473-1.jpg]

Triple Whammy by-election test for Commie Clifton and Queen Johanna

With by-elections likely to occur in the seats of the three MPs implicated in the Panama Papers, it is important to assess the chances of each of the main parties in these three races. Two of the three by-elections take place in ultramargial seats - Hampstead & Kilburn a Tory gain in the last parliament by 125 votes, and Hartlepool a Labour hold over UKIP by 697 votes. While the third seat, Stoke-on-Trent Central, is comparatively safe - all three of the seats have the potential to flip in the upcoming by-elections. A good night for the Tories would see them retaining Hampstead, and gaining potentially Hartlepool and even Stoke-on-Trent Central, while a good night for Labour would see them retaining their two seats, and regaining the traditionally Labour seat of Hampstead & Kilburn. UKIP meanwhile has been touted as being the favourite challenger to Labour in the two Labour held seats, while the LDs can potentially look at an outside surprise victory in Hampstead & Kilburn if things going perfectly for them in the London by-election.

Hampstead, like many seats notionally safe Labour seats in 1983, was surprisingly won by the Conservatives in Margaret Thatcher's landslide victory of Michael Foot's Labour Party. Indeed Conservative Sir Geoffrey Finsberg held the seat until 1992, when Glenda Jackson defeated Tory Oliver Letwin by nearly fifteen hundred votes. Jackson, in her final election in 2010, would hold the seat by 42 votes over Tory Chris Philp and Liberal Democrat Edward Fordham, making the seat a curious three-way ultramarginal. This trend continued into the last general election when the Conservative candidate Simon Marcus defeated Labour's Tulip Siddiq by 125 votes (0.23%). The Liberal Democrats' new candidate, broadcaster and campaigner Maajid Nawaz would see the party's vote collapse, falling into fourth place with under 3,000 votes - behind Magnus Nielsen of UKIP - who won over 4,000 votes. The Greens performed reasonably well, taking nearly 2,500 votes. The seat interestingly was contested by Ronnie 'The Eurovisionary' Carroll who represented the UK in the Eurovision song contest in 1962 and 1963. Carroll, a Hampstead resident, died before the election, yet his name remained on the ballot, and despite his professed wish of winning no votes, Carroll would win 113 votes.

The seat would seem to provide an excellent testing ground for the two conflict messages and values of Johanna Fairbanks and James Clifton in this middle-class artisan part of London - will Fairbanks' social liberalism or Clifton's democratic socialism resonate with the voters more? It is suspected that the Conservative campaign will he slightly harmed by the fact that the outgoing MP, Simon Marcus, has been implicated in the Panama Papers. Nonetheless the generally middle-class constituency may recoil at the thought of voting for a candidate affiliated with the increasingly left-leaning Labour Party. Hampstead itself contains some of the wealthiest parts of the UK, yet also has an intellectual, artistic middle-class vote which is associated with the intelligentsia, something that also exists in Kilburn. Meanwhile Kilburn contains a considerable Irish community, which may prove to be a reasonably receptive area for the socially conservative message of UKIP. Nonetheless this seat is expected to be a two-horse race between the Conservatives and Labour - a victory here, while not having any real indicator of the political wind in the country as a whole, will prove to be a welcome victory for whichever party emerges victorious. Some may pay attention to the showings of UKIP and the LDs to see if UKIP can improve its generally lacklustre showing in London, and if the Liberal Democrats can potentially begin the road to recovery in this formerly fertile area for the party.

Hartlepool, like most seats in County Durham has been held since time immemorial by Labour, however Hartlepool has become an increasingly marginal seat for Labour. Ever since the 2005 general election the Labour majority in this seat has tumbled from around 7,500 down to 5,500 and finally down to a mere 697 votes. Since Peter Mandelson's resignation as the MP for the County Durham seat in 2004, the main opponent to Labour has shifted from the Liberal Democrats (who came within 2,000 votes of winning in 2004), to the Tories to UKIP. Like Hampstead and Kilburn at the 2010 general election, Hartlepool is an example of a close three way ultramarginal seat. Labour won last time with 11,653 votes to Phillip Broughton of UKIP's 10,956 and Conservative Richard Royal's 10,852. The fact that less than a thousand votes separates first and third in this seat has made many commentators and observers interested in this by-election.

It would however be potentially wrong to consider this seat a barometer for the nation mood, or indeed a particularly fertile target for the Tories despite their close third place last time around. The further leftward shift of the party under Johanna Fairbanks is potentially likely to see the party's vote get squeezed by both of the other parties. There is also talk that the shift towards the left by James Clifton could harm Labour in this rather Eurosceptic constituency. This seat is UKIP's to lose in the current climate. Whoever is elected the new leader of UKIP in the coming month will have a lot of questions to answer if they fail to capture this seat from Labour. The Liberal Democrats' main objective in this seat is not to win, nor to even really poll that well, but is to rather maintain their deposit - gone are the days when the party polled over 10,000 votes. At the general election the party was not only forced out of third place, but was also pushed behind the Independent candidacy of Stephen Picton (who won nearly 3,000 votes), the Greens' Michael Holt on 1,341 and Sandra Allison running on the Save Hartlepool Hospital who won 680 votes - five votes ahead of the Liberal Democrats, who were able to come ahead of Independent John Hobbs - though only by a few hundred votes. Shock results can happen in this north eastern seat, after all for over a decade the town's directly elected Mayor was Stuart Drummond, also known as H'Angus the Monkey - Hartlepool United F.C.'s mascot.

The turnout in Stoke-on-Trent Central at the last general election was among the handful of seats that dipped below 50% - 49.9% of the seat's electorate opted to turn out. Before 2010 the Labour vote never dipped below around 50%, that was until Labour parachuted Cambridge born and educated historian and broadcaster Trimstram Hunt, who was selected from a shortlist that included no one local to Stoke-on-Trent. This led to the secretary of the local Constituency Labour Party, Gary Elsby to stand against Hunt as an Independent. While Hunt won with a large 17% majority, the Labour vote had fallen down to less than 40% of the vote - the BNP meanwhile won 2,500 votes. At the last general election Hunt won a substantially decreased majority of 3,826 (12.31%), over UKIP's Mick Harold - who won 8,300 votes. Liam Marshall-Ascough, the Conservative candidate won 5,904 votes, while anti-Hunt Independent Labour candidate Mark Breeze won 2,124 votes. The LibDems and Greens meanwhile won 1,229 and 1,123 votes apiece.

This seat, if the Tories play their cards right, has the potential to be an interesting three way marginal - though most commentators are writing down the government's chances in this seat, where its vote fell last time around to its lowest in a decade. Nonetheless Labour has a double handicap in this seat - the fact their former MP was implicated in the Panama Papers while poverty levels remain as they are in this seat, and also due to the fact he was Tristram Hunt. Hunt according to a local Labour CLP member is "unlikely to be missed, especially after the Panama Papers revelations" - thought it is still up to debate whether UKIP or the Tories can pry away this seat that was last held by a Conservative in 1931, when the Labour vote was divided by the entrance of Oswald Mosley, heading his New Party.

Still everything is to play for, especially for the Tories and Labour in these three exciting by-elections, the first electoral tests of the three, soon to be four, new party leaders.
James
Responsibilities for Local Government & Regions, Home Affairs, Elections, Bible Bashing, Newspapers, Liberal Democrats

"Anyone wishing to communicate with Americans should do so by e-mail, which has been specially invented for the purpose, involving neither physical proximity nor speech." - Auberon Waugh
Reply
Thanks given by: Edward
#5
[Image: young-ukip-leaders-paul-nuttall-future-o...941267.jpg]

LABOUR MUST CONQUER THE PUBS TO SURVIVE

Pushed between a wall of electoral annihilation and a host of increasingly powerful minor parties, Labour must adapt to Britain's modern political landscape to survive. With the split of Labour's right under highly questionable circumstances to become the "Social Union Party" - a name many of our readers find surprisingly extreme right sounding - Labour's leader James Clifton now is virtually free to remodel the party as he wishes. The hardest of dissenters are gone, they've given up on Labour and now likely will have given up on their seats, leaving Clifton free reign to amend party policy, rules and structures as he wishes after his landslide victory only a few months ago.

Clifton however now faces one of the deepest dips in Labour's polling in just under a decade, polling at a similar level to Gordon Brown's Government during the financial crisis. This is largely due to the collapse of Labour's internal coalition, but the timing could not be worse with two Labour seats subject to by elections next month and one Conservative that under normal circumstances could have been a win for Labour. Something is notably clear about each and every one of these by elections so far, something must be done by Labour to fight UKIP.

Polling within the top three positions in every single by election and barely down on their 16% score in the popular vote in the General Election earlier this year, UKIP has now elected a leader who preaches populist and even somewhat left wing economics while appealing to the social conservatism of many people in the working class. Labour faces an immediate threat that must be countered - and the way to do it is easy. UKIP's popularity stems from it's sole issue for Governance - Britain's exit from the EU - it is the sole party that believes in such a proposal that people are increasingly beginning to back; in a poll commissioned by the Sun from YouGov today it shows the British public clearly favour a vote on the issue. The new Labour leader himself suggested several times during the leadership election debates that Labour should offer some kind of vote, and should he promise one - alongside a renegotiation - it may work wonders for Labour's polling.

To get back to where they were Labour's best hope is to conquer Britain's pub-goers and patriots. Many of them recognize UKIP's very limited ability to gain seats in elections - a reality that may be pushed back should UKIP win any of the upcoming by elections - and many of them would openly consider their best options to get the referendum that for most UKIP voters is the issue in British politics right now. Whatever Clifton does, he must act decisively and fast to save Labour - and in doing so he may well just win back his seats.
Edward
Special Advisor for the Treasury and Foreign Office
Advisor for the Labour Party

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." ~ Milton Friedman
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: Lady Molly Mountstuart (Unmasked), 1 Guest(s)