Now my knowledge of scottish politics, really isn't that great, but can someone please explain to me why the liberal democrats were even considering jumping into bed with the scots nationalists when the whole point of them going into coalition with Labour after the last election was to keep them out?

And why is it that they have been so quick to rule out resuming that coalition this time around instead of allowing scotland slip into minority nationalist rule?

They really do deserve to be pounded for this.

Why is our country accepting being bullied by these evil iranians?

Where is the protest outside of the iranian embassy?

No, I'm not advocating military action, although in the long run I believe there will be military confrontation with Iran. But all this nonsense 'jaw jaw' on our part is only leading to them humiliating us.

What's the mood, do you folks favour some sort of sanctions?

I do, I think it's about time we responded with some tougher action.

This whole debacle has further shown the UN to be completely impotent. The Russians and Chinese have further shown how corrupt they are, and we look like idiots.

We are being bullied, and continuing to assert the same tired cliches is only giving the Iranians strength.

Lets stop being scared of these bullies and start telling them and showing them more importantly that we can respond.

A poll I saw yesterday showed nearly one in four favour saying sorry, knowing we have nothing to be sorry about.

Is this an option? I really hope not. If it was a choice between esculating this and saying sorry, I would have to go with the former.

How pathetic and desperate.

"Press reports last month suggested that Mr Osborne "invited himself in" to Mr Law's office at the Commons and told him he would be offered a shadow cabinet position if he defected to the Conservatives."

Doesn't surprise me, he really is a junior Tory sleaze in the making.

Maybe you should spend more time thinking up an economic policy you big dope!

Is it not time to give them there final warning?

I say yes, they've done this not just once too many times, they've done it TWICE.

An act of war is this, a completely illegal one at that.

....and for me, you perhaps wasted your greastest opportunity at one.

He will be the prime minister that helped oversee the most radical democratic reform is centuries, yet at the time it mattered most, the vote, he chose an option his own party near enough unanimously rejected.

You all know by now that I am one of the few Blairites around here, but I just find it so hard to believe that Tony Blair could be stupid enough to have taken a stand on 50/50.

He needed to personify all those buzz words more than ever in this. 'Bold' and 'progressive' spring to mind.

Whoever helped make those decisions needs to be sacked with immediate effect or resign in disgrace.

I'm delighted by this news, its a historic day, but I am massively gutted that the government itself didn't collectively go all the way.

This doesn't strike me as 'reverse gear' it strikes me as leaving you car on an escarpment and taking the handbreak off.

The Tory leadership went further by supporting an 80% elected house and come the next election, should Gordon Brown try and laud this historic move, the Tories will quite rightly remind us all.

That said, I don't yet know which option he voted for, although I would assume he went with the government. Anyone know?

I know some won't like discussing this, but this was an absolute disgrace that should profoundly embarrass Labour bloggers to the core.

You proved your influence, the story apparently flew around the internet, and while it may have been completely innocent, it was a very poor decision to publish such an unsubstantiated rumour. We'll leave that to idiots like 'guido' and co.

I'm sure near enough 100% of Labour members/voters etc are massively opposed to Thatcher and her legacy, but surely that doesn't extened to wishing her death?

Hopefully a lesson will be learned and all can be forgotten and forgiven.

We've not really had a debate about this and its something I myself am really quite undecided about even if nearly 2 million of our fellow citizens aren't.

I certainly can't see that being the case.

Applications down 9%

Removals UP 16%

Since 1997 removals have risen 127%

So somebody please tell me why it has been open season when it comes to the governments immigration policy?

The last time the figures were this low was during the Major economic disaster, whereas we have achieved the same progress with a completely healthy economy.

My question is, what exactly is preventing them from sustaining theur vote in favour next year?

Also, they prevented the 90 day detention in the 2006 act under the guise that they were so very liberal and yet, instead of what ammounts to house arrest as in control orders, they want to take people merely suspected in a rather loose way 'off our streets', apparently even where their is not enough evidence to even charge.

Is it just me or is this gross hypocrisy on their part or am I completely missing something?

Say these IDIOTS.

Lets face it, they'd sooner see israel engulfed in a mushroom cloud before they decided to take action.

Tehran has no interest in negotiations with the west. It has been nothing more than a delay tactic for them.

I wonder if he was thinking of that when he registered:

"31 May 2005, loan of a private jet for two domestic flights from Netjets plc. (Registered 14 June 2005)"

Into the register of members interests:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?d=2006-05-12#10658

Of course there is 'no reason at all' for it is there Mr Yeo?

Raises an interesting debate however.

Mr Yeo appears to love his golf, so maybe he should be taxed extra for his many foreign golf trips, while he could just as easily make his way to one of our many dozens of excellent courses, on a train, that no doubt, will be twenty minutes late.

Did anyone happen to see PMQS today?

Surely somebody else could be put up to doing PMQS. Prescott has had most of his other jobs taken from him.

Usually, it's a laugh (mostly at him, but he can crack a good joke every now and then), but even by his own awful standards, it was an embarrassment.

How pathetic does the Labour Party look when a quick clever and informed debater like Hague comes up against a man that could do little more than throw out insults, a man that has next to no credibility and a man with about as good a grasp of the facts as I do of Kazakhstan politics.

For all his many faults, I always quite liked Prescott because I like many others perceived him to be honest, and Labour to the core. In light of his shameful conduct, I find it hard to believe he could be given such a responsibility, not withstanding the fact he's as honourable as Jeffrey Archer, the man is terrible at his job.

That  being said, any suggestions as to who could have been put up to the job?

Would have been nice to perhaps throw somebody like David Miliband in there or perhaps John Reid.

 - My words, but it means pretty much the same thing.

Is it not a bigger scandal that our MPs have so much influence here?

Which mps didn't think the original letter  was 'sexy' enough?

This investigation has been poorly handled from start to finish, with leaks all over the place.

And now this. A complete shambles.

In light of her comments, so pathetically denied, I would certainly favour her being sacked, but we all know its a few years too late for that to be a real possibility.

She should however, do the right thing and resign.
Those happy enough to prop their anti war arguements with her, should ask themselves where she was back in 2003 - 'following the leader'.

Why do people say such stupid things?

Alot of you might not have heard of this story before, but apparently the current president who needs no introduction, was involved the embassy hostage crisis.

None of these stories seem to get followed up on, but there is plenty of evidence against this man.

If so what questions does that raise about how we deal with such a man and regime in the future?

I find it difficult to watch question time. When it starts to get too 'deep' I find I just get frustrated. There is a certain cut off point, and this was it for me last night, and here's why.

'He told BBC One's Question Time he had no evidence but the timing of the verdict was "deeply suspect".'

The words of one Malcolm Rifkind.

Maybe he should get his facts right before he comes onto national television and further makes a mockery of the facts thrown onto the public regarding Iraq.

Firstly, SADDAMS lawyers had also called for it to be postponed.

Secondly, it was delayed last month because of requests from the tribunal reviewing the stacks of evidence.

Indeed just a couple of days before the verdict the chief prosecutor was saying it might be delayed further.

If you think all these people were trying to help out the american government, you are subscribing to baseless conspiracy theories. The Iraqi government has been plenty combatitive to the Americans.

Not to mention, it would be a huge risk that could have backfired. Massive violence was expected, that thankfully didn't occur, but what if it had? I'd imagine another couple of seats would be lost for the GOP.

 

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-11-08T134226Z_01_L089 13805_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-LIVINGSTONE.xml

Why did this go so under the radar?

This man is a disgrace. Steeling from the poor to give to the rich.

Supporting a nasty demagogue.

Why not stop acting the galloway and stay in london and work on london issues as he was elected to?

If anyone should be offering subsidies to the people of venezuela, of which around 20% live below the poverty line, it should be us to them.

The conservatives suggesting blair had 'complained' are doing so without ANY PROOF.

Look at the clip, the PM began to get up to answer and THEN the speaker interupts. They are using the pathetic excuse that the speaker is technically a labour MP to smear the PM.

Why should the PM be 'afraid' when he gave such a fantastic response?

He was great at PMQS today, the labour benches were as supportive as I've seen them in a while, and blair was on top of a desperate cameron.

Why he didn't slam him on his disgraceful way way off predictions of nhs job cuts is beyond me.

Most importantly though, doesn't this tell you something about saint cameron who came to clear up 'punch and judy' politics, yet has taken it to new heights of desperation?

He gets a few questions, ONCE a week, and time and again, despite all the problems he says he wants to 'work with the government' to solve, he launches what can only be described as personal attacks on the pm.

Shambolic if you ask me, and if I were a voter in a tory constituency, which sadly I am, I'd be writing to my mp telling him what a disgrace his leader is.

The first idea I like: 'legal age harmonising'

But the second is just quite absurd.

He talks of confusion, yet he comes up with an idea like this? How could it ever possibly work. Legally, it would be a complete mess.

Potentially allowing 16 year olds to purchase alcohol in the pub?

Perhaps even giving them the vote. What a can of worms he could open. Human rights lawyers would have a field day.

Being responsible at that age and 'showing maturity' is about NOT doing those things. Yes most of us did, but it is because we didn't follow the law. The sort of people he would be in effect enfranchising are those that wouldn't be interested in the more promiscuous activities adults get up to.

18 is a sensible age, messing around with means testing for privileges is in my opinion, his most ridiculous 'sort of' policy yet!

About time too.

Won't be fully democratic untill its fully elected, but its a start.