Yeah, that isn't really how the Freedom of Information Act works, regardless of your interpretation.

 

oh there are plenty of loopholes, "confidentiality" of private business finances clauses (I know one council hiding behind that one), and anything which might have Legal consequences/Legal confidentiality, data protection of individuals - bottom line though, is if it's writing (which the email was) then it's subject to disclosure in a FOI request. there has to be a specific reason for exclusion by law. In this case, no-one had asked for it, I grant, as no-one knew it existed but the law is: if it's an email it's public domain.

 

End of the day, politicians are required to be open and honest, would have thought that was the number one lesson they have learnt over the last 10 years. If the email is a fake, then someone made it up and they should be taken to court over it.

The Lib Dems undoubtedly have far less to lose from a pact, but they're also in no position to negotiate. The two parties' potential voters are too different to reconcile, it might have worked better in 2010.

all parties potential voters are happy to vote for anyone, it seems, from reactionary right-wing to nationalist. The old voter patterns don't work anymore and no parties can take anything for granted. The Libdems have a core support which has always been about 8% (going back to liberal days) I dont see that going away nor of moving towards the right in any way. If you're talking about gaining back lost Tory defectors - they appeared to vote Tory to keep Labour/SNP out so presumably they would stay with Tory unless they become highly unpopular by 2020. I don't see the libdems chasing labour, why would they? It will be the other way round, if Labour look shaky by 2020....

 

I also disagree about less to lose from a pact, recent history shows the minor party has everything to lose and nothing to gain. Once bitten...

My work is covered by FOI legislation. (It may be different this side of the border) we have the option not to comply with a request if it is "too difficult" to comply or would take too much work to do so.

Yes, there is a provision to refuse a request on grounds of cost.

all parties potential voters are happy to vote for anyone, it seems, from reactionary right-wing to nationalist. The old voter patterns don't work anymore and no parties can take anything for granted. The Libdems have a core support which has always been about 8% (going back to liberal days) I dont see that going away nor of moving towards the right in any way. If you're talking about gaining back lost Tory defectors - they appeared to vote Tory to keep Labour/SNP out so presumably they would stay with Tory unless they become highly unpopular by 2020. I don't see the libdems chasing labour, why would they? It will be the other way round, if Labour look shaky by 2020....

 

I also disagree about less to lose from a pact, recent history shows the minor party has everything to lose and nothing to gain. Once bitten...

Pact in opposition is very different from a coalition government. Besides, you said yourself that there will always be an 8% Liberal core - how much do they have to lose this time?

Is there always an 8% Liberal core? A good % or two of their vote this time must surely have been made up of people voting for their local LibDem MP as a person rather than anything to do with the party.

My work is covered by FOI legislation. (It may be different this side of the border) we have the option not to comply with a request if it is "too difficult" to comply or would take too much work to do so.

 

yes as Suedehead says it's 20 hours work (for everyone in the council) in ours. I regularly have to work out if it's going to take me longer than 20 hours to comply, but then these sort of FOI requests are just time-wasters or bloody journalists getting the tax payer to pay for non-stories. A very specific request - could I please have a copy of the emails or minutes of meetings of december 12th 2014 which relate to a meeting with the French Ambassador, well, a bit specific and hard to argue it would take 20 hours to dig out.

 

 

Pact in opposition is very different from a coalition government. Besides, you said yourself that there will always be an 8% Liberal core - how much do they have to lose this time?

 

I meant in government, not in opposition, which as you say is a whole nother kettle of fish (I was assuming Labour would win an election with assistance and require the Libdems in a governmental sort of way - not much point entering into a pact where that isn't the outcome, why bother, unless it's not standing in each others seats to defeat Tories - that would probably backfire on both though.

I meant in government, not in opposition, which as you say is a whole nother kettle of fish (I was assuming Labour would win an election with assistance and require the Libdems in a governmental sort of way - not much point entering into a pact where that isn't the outcome, why bother, unless it's not standing in each others seats to defeat Tories - that would probably backfire on both though.

The latter was what I assumed you meant by a pact.

Not surprisingly, the press have started their campaign of smears against the candidates

 

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/...taffs-lies.html

Good. If they can't come out of it standing they probably shouldn't be leader.

Not surprisingly, the press have started their campaign of smears against the candidates

 

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/...taffs-lies.html

 

They should go on the attack with regard to the press and threaten to sue over any false statements. That would publicise the case against the falsehoods more than a 3-line apology on page 27 which no-one will notice.

 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but no-one is entitled to print lies (or factual errors as they would describe them, despite living a world where google exists)

Good. If they can't come out of it standing they probably shouldn't be leader.

But, as the piece points out, the Wail have deliberately chosen a victim to take part in the attack. A lot of people will automatically believe the victim, regardless of the fact that they are demonstrably spouting rubbish. Any attempt by Burnham to argue against the smear will be portrayed as an attack on a victim.

Good. If they can't come out of it standing they probably shouldn't be leader.

Easy to say when there's nothing to smear Kendall with that matches up to what she says herself.

Easy to say when there's nothing to smear Kendall with that matches up to what she says herself.

 

:lol:

 

Have to admit though I'm slightly worried by that Labourlist poll last week which showed the "Blair Witch Project" close-ish to Burnham.

Edited May 25, 201510 yr by Danny

Easy to say when there's nothing to smear Kendall with that matches up to what she says herself.

Oh, there'll doubtless be something. For someone who's claimed to be delightful company in all the inevitable fawning profiles I'd be very shocked if - as with most people who aren't dull - she didn't have a skeleton somewhere.

 

And if there isn't then all the more reason to pick her *.*

(And yes, if Burnham can't deal with the Mid Staffs stuff now then he totally doesn't deserve to be leader. If he can deal with it, I'm sure I can live with him winning.)

(And yes, if Burnham can't deal with the Mid Staffs stuff now then he totally doesn't deserve to be leader. If he can deal with it, I'm sure I can live with him winning.)

I have no doubt he'll be able to deal with it fine. If he couldn't, the childcare pitch has pushed me slightly closer to Cooper.

 

As an aside, my nearest Labour MP is so far the only one to have endorsed Mary Creagh.

I'm still struggling to understand what question on earth Mary Creagh thought she'd be the answer to.

I could see questions Yvette Cooper would be the answer to, but I can't see any she's answered.