Surely people like Stephen Fry will be demanding we stop sending foreign aid to India now?
And plenty of people on here who were critical of Russia's attitude to gay people will think it disgusting that we send money to such a government .
Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) 24/02/2014 08:47 India recriminalises homosexuality dailym.ai/1cGAPtA
It's very strange and shocking that progress is even being reversed in this area.
There is a very important reason why India makes homosexuality illegal. One expert witness in the trial gave evidence that if homosexuality was legalised, Indian soldiers would spend so much time having sex with each other, that they'd leave the country defenceless against Pakistani attack,
I am reminded that in the old Indian Army there was a regiment with a very fine fighting record that had a marching song the opening words of which were (translated from the Urdu),
"There is a boy across the river With a bottom like a peach Alas, I cannot swim..."
Surely people like Stephen Fry will be demanding we stop sending foreign aid to India now?
And plenty of people on here who were critical of Russia's attitude to gay people will think it disgusting that we send money to such a government .
Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) 24/02/2014 08:47 India recriminalises homosexuality dailym.ai/1cGAPtA
It's very strange and shocking that progress is even being reversed in this area.
There is a very important reason why India makes homosexuality illegal. One expert witness in the trial gave evidence that if homosexuality was legalised, Indian soldiers would spend so much time having sex with each other, that they'd leave the country defenceless against Pakistani attack,
I am reminded that in the old Indian Army there was a regiment with a very fine fighting record that had a marching song the opening words of which were (translated from the Urdu),
"There is a boy across the river With a bottom like a peach Alas, I cannot swim..."
"the yarn indeed so has it that the young Pathan, Thinks it peculiar if you would pass, Him by without some reference to his arse."
9 women applied to Labour selection in Blackburn. Council leader Kate Holler leads the field that also includes Nasrin Ali, Ann Courtney, Agnieska Grabianka-Hindley, Sara Ibrahim
"... it looks like the council is letting developers forget these lessons ..."
Not far from me is an early 1970s development where the houses had for the time extremely large back gardens that were always very soggy. The reason being there used to be a pleasure gardens with boating lakes on that land so the big gardens were an area where the water was so close to the surface it was deemed unsuitable for building. That was 40 years ago.
Now some smart-arse developer has managed to get planning permission to build a bunch of houses on those gardens. On Friday last they had a big excavator in to dig out the access road bed. They went down about 18 inches maybe a couple of feet. Over the weekend we had no significant rain. This morning on my way back from my morning walk I saw the ground-workers standing around shaking their heads and sucking their teeth in the manor of the English tradesman who has hit a snag. The 18 to 24 inch excavation was now about a foot deep in water.
The only people who are going to make money out of that development are the lawyers.
I'm going to be charitable here and suggest the original article he wrote tipped the kind of biddable functionary the member states would actually pick if they decided to ignore the parliament and make the decision themselves, but the editors changed it to Thorning-Schmidt without asking him because she was the only EU politician any of their readers had heard of.
I'm going to be charitable here and suggest the original article he wrote tipped the kind of biddable functionary the member states would actually pick if they decided to ignore the parliament and make the decision themselves, but the editors changed it to Thorning-Schmidt without asking him because she was the only EU politician any of their readers had heard of.
Quite hard to read that blog as it's so full of posy attitudes about the Eu, PCness, etc. - hard to make out if he actually has any information or is just spouting a bunch of prejudices.
Labour needs 68 gains for a majority. The only party to make such gains after a first term government was the Tories in 1950. But that was in the heyday of the cube-law. Far fewer seats change hands nowadays for each unit of swing.
For the record, the performance of first term Oppositions is 1950: +90 1955*: -18 1966*: -52 1974F*: +20 1974O*: -20 1983: -60 2001: +1
Morning, Mr. D., if only you could get over your aversion to visiting the South you could see for yourself the WWI tanks at Bovington (including the first armoured personnel carrier) and the display at the Imperial War Museum (one of the photos on that BBC page is taken from that). I'd be happy to be your personal guide and chauffeur.
The most interesting quote in that BBC article is,
""And the example of the tank gives the lie to the myth that World War One generals were backward and dullards."
Could it be that the BBC is prepared to at least think about the idea that the "Lions led by Donkeys" is actually a myth?
Which is a great opportunity to mention the Tank Museum at Bovington in Dorset, where you can actually get inside early tanks and realise what incredibly nasty beasts they were to operate - cramped, noisy and with engine fumes swilling around.
I'm going to be charitable here and suggest the original article he wrote tipped the kind of biddable functionary the member states would actually pick if they decided to ignore the parliament and make the decision themselves, but the editors changed it to Thorning-Schmidt without asking him because she was the only EU politician any of their readers had heard of.
Quite hard to read that blog as it's so full of posy attitudes about the Eu, PCness, etc. - hard to make out if he actually has any information or is just spouting a bunch of prejudices.
I think the latter - there doesn't seem to be any substantive new information in there. But credit where it's due, at least he's actually writing about the subject. The British press have to start somewhere...
re Messrs JosiasJessop, Hurstllama and MorrisDancer - quite so.
I would reserve judgement on the generals given the views often expressed on the way in which Haig rushed the first tanks into action in far too small numbers on unsuitable ground in 1916 and so broke the secret. At least the Germans got such a poor impression they decided not to bother developing their own tanks till it was pretty much too late ... anyway, it will be interesting to see how historians reassess this issue over the next few years.
The Tank Museum collection is indeed outstanding, above all for the Great War but with much of later interest.
Which is a great opportunity to mention the Tank Museum at Bovington in Dorset, where you can actually get inside early tanks and realise what incredibly nasty beasts they were to operate - cramped, noisy and with engine fumes swilling around.
Nevermind, Mr. Jessop, but on the subject of Bovington maybe Mr. Dancer and others would like to know that 2014 is a TankFest year.
TankFest, when many of those tanks in the museum stop being static displays and actually get driven around. Want to know what a Tiger tank looked and sounded like as it drove towards you? Well go to TankFest and find out. And not just Tiger, they will have the T34, Sherman, other WWII tanks and all sorts of more modern stuff (British, Yank and Soviet designs) on the move too.
Morning, Mr. D., if only you could get over your aversion to visiting the South you could see for yourself the WWI tanks at Bovington (including the first armoured personnel carrier) and the display at the Imperial War Museum (one of the photos on that BBC page is taken from that). I'd be happy to be your personal guide and chauffeur.
The most interesting quote in that BBC article is,
""And the example of the tank gives the lie to the myth that World War One generals were backward and dullards."
Could it be that the BBC is prepared to at least think about the idea that the "Lions led by Donkeys" is actually a myth?
To be fair to the French, they were also developing 'chars' on about the same timescale, though when each side actually found out about the other I am not sure! They (like the Germans) started off with a couple of ghastly armoured boxes plonked on tractor chassis, not so well done as the British rhomboids. But the little two man Renault FT was more innovative - it did have suspension, an engine at the back, and a proper rotating turret on top, so is in some ways closer to the modern model.
I'd be inclined to reserve judgement, given the widespread view of how Haig rushed them into action on unsuitable ground far too early in 1916 and lost the secret - indeed, it was so awful that the Germans ironically enough decided to delay serious invstigation of development of their own tanks because they thought them so unimpressive. It'll be interesting to see what revisionist histories for the centenary have t say.
I think that might be unfair: can you think of one new and revolutionary weapons system that operated well on its first taste of battle and was used effectively? There's only one I can think of, and that's the big one. And even that was tested at Trinity.
Machine guns had many predecessors, from the Puckle gun (which allegedly could fire different shaped bullets at Christians or Turks!) to the Agar and then the Gatling. Even though the Gatling gun was available for the American Civil War, it wasn't used much.
Likewise submarines: the Hunley sunk a ship, but sunk three times, including in the last attack. It killed far more of its own sailors than the enemies. And First World War submarines were often very ineffective.
Aeroplanes were used extensively in the First World War, but were initially used for reconnaissance and evolved slowly into a combat role.
Expecting a brand new and revolutionary type of machine to win a battle at its first usage is rather optimistic, especially when only available in low numbers. For one thing, people need to learn how to use them effectively, and that can mostly only be done in the heat of battle.
Morning, Mr. D., if only you could get over your aversion to visiting the South you could see for yourself the WWI tanks at Bovington (including the first armoured personnel carrier) and the display at the Imperial War Museum (one of the photos on that BBC page is taken from that). I'd be happy to be your personal guide and chauffeur.
The most interesting quote in that BBC article is,
""And the example of the tank gives the lie to the myth that World War One generals were backward and dullards."
Could it be that the BBC is prepared to at least think about the idea that the "Lions led by Donkeys" is actually a myth?
To be fair to the French ...
Never!
Though you make a good point. Did not the 2 man Renault come later though about the same time as the British Whippet (1917)?.
As to your earlier point about Haig et al using the tank to early and in too small numbers, I think you are being a bit unfair. The numbers were smaller than wanted and expected because of production problems (this was very new technology), the ground of the battle was chosen at strategic, governmental, level and Haig and his generals were doing everything they could to get the breakthrough HMG demanded. Just think of the fuss some would make if the tanks had not been used ASAP.
In the 1970s we (as kids) got to drive (no steering wheel but 2 levers) chieftain battle tanks on open days on a flat field at low speed around some bollards.
The noise in those idealised conditions was incredible and the idea of going across rough terrain at speed in one of those things (supposedly very advanced for its day) mind blowing. How anyone comes out of the tank corp without a ricked back is beyond me.
I'm going to be charitable here and suggest the original article he wrote tipped the kind of biddable functionary the member states would actually pick if they decided to ignore the parliament and make the decision themselves, but the editors changed it to Thorning-Schmidt without asking him because she was the only EU politician any of their readers had heard of.
Quite hard to read that blog as it's so full of posy attitudes about the Eu, PCness, etc. - hard to make out if he actually has any information or is just spouting a bunch of prejudices.
I think the latter - there doesn't seem to be any substantive new information in there. But credit where it's due, at least he's actually writing about the subject. The British press have to start somewhere...
Of potentially more interest, what will the EU Parliament do if its candidate is rejected by the member states? And are there any member states that might actively enjoy a constitutional battle?
I'm assuming that Britain's current government would rather like to see Brussels consumed by constitutional wrangles over the Commission and the Parliament. I'm doubtful that it would suit many other countries though.
So the EU member states will presumably be inclined go quietly and accept one of the EU Parliament's nominees. Though they might not go for the main bloc's choice if he or she is less congenial to them than one of the other bloc's choices.
I'm sure American Shermans look far more comfortable than WW1 tanks, but they were far more dangerous, because their opposition was the German tiger.
The Sherman had an awful tendency to explode into flames when hit with a tiger shell and the Germans called it 'the tommy cooker'.
The Allied would have been far better off buying a job lot of T-34s off Stalin.
I'd argue (and IANAE) that the Tiger and similar tanks were a major contributor to the Germans losing the war. They were the best in the world, but they could make so few of them, and maintenance was a pig - for instance the offset wheels meant to change one, you often had to take three off.
I've heard a story - and I can't remember the source, so treat as apocryphal - that the Tiger engine was a precise instrument and tremendously difficult to make. Indeed, that the Tiger was designed to have a life of twenty or so years. In comparison, they ran a T34's engine and then changed the oil to get all the oil shavings out. The Russians realised there was no point in building a tank to last years if it might get destroyed in battle after only a few months. Make it good enough to do the job, and then scrap it.
Checking Wiki, the Germans made about 1,900 Tiger I's and II's between 1942 and 1945.In comparison, the Russians made 57,000 T-34 derivatives in the same period. (1) Quantity has a quality all of its own.
Likewise, the V1 and V2 weapons were tremendous technological achievements, but a tremendous waste of manpower and resources that only hastened the end of the war.
I'd be inclined to reserve judgement, given the widespread view of how Haig rushed them into action on unsuitable ground far too early in 1916 and lost the secret - indeed, it was so awful that the Germans ironically enough decided to delay serious invstigation of development of their own tanks because they thought them so unimpressive. It'll be interesting to see what revisionist histories for the centenary have t say.
I think that might be unfair: can you think of one new and revolutionary weapons system that operated well on its first taste of battle and was used effectively? There's only one I can think of, and that's the big one. And even that was tested at Trinity.
Machine guns had many predecessors, from the Puckle gun (which allegedly could fire different shaped bullets at Christians or Turks!) to the Agar and then the Gatling. Even though the Gatling gun was available for the American Civil War, it wasn't used much.
Likewise submarines: the Hunley sunk a ship, but sunk three times, including in the last attack. It killed far more of its own sailors than the enemies. And First World War submarines were often very ineffective.
Aeroplanes were used extensively in the First World War, but were initially used for reconnaissance and evolved slowly into a combat role.
Expecting a brand new and revolutionary type of machine to win a battle at its first usage is rather optimistic, especially when only available in low numbers. For one thing, people need to learn how to use them effectively, and that can mostly only be done in the heat of battle.
There's a lot of truth in what you say. The situation at the time was absolutely appalling and there was something of a Hobson's choice - wrong (or right) whatever they did. And the pressure was appalling in terms of trying to break the deadlock. On the other hand, I do get the impression that there was a feeling amongst the tankies that they had been thrown away just a bit too early in peculiarly unsuitable conditions and had not been allowed to show what they could do even by the early standards - though that may in part be to do with the later struggle to establish and maintain themselves as a distinct arm beside the infantry and horse cavalry. I'm looking forward to the crop of books which come out in 1916 and 1917.
BTW, the Haynes Workshop Manual [not really! - but it's called that] for the Mark IV by David Fletcher is an excellent intro to this important GW tank.
Presumably this is the same model that is predicting crossover by May 1 Rod? That's in ~70 days' time so I guess we will see whether you and it are right.
Presumably this is the same model that is predicting crossover by May 1 Rod? That's in ~70 days' time so I guess we will see whether you and it are right.
No, that's just my hunch. And to be clear, I'm predicting a Tory lead in some poll by May. Then it'll be nip-and-tuck until about January 2015. Then the Tories will pull away decisively...
Joking aside Rod, surely you would agree that L&N is clearly wrong. Even other pieces of evidence you point to give a much better than 0% chance for Labour. The fact that a first-term opposition has gained 68 seats once since the war is not consistent with it being a 1999/1 shot chance. The fact that they currently have a 5% lead, while lower than previous winning oppositions, is not consistent with it being a 1999/1 shot chance. And so on.
I'm sure American Shermans look far more comfortable than WW1 tanks, but they were far more dangerous, because their opposition was the German tiger.
The Sherman had an awful tendency to explode into flames when hit with a tiger shell and the Germans called it 'the tommy cooker'.
The Allied would have been far better off buying a job lot of T-34s off Stalin.
I'd argue (and IANAE) that the Tiger and similar tanks were a major contributor to the Germans losing the war. They were the best in the world, but they could make so few of them, and maintenance was a pig - for instance the offset wheels meant to change one, you often had to take three off.
I've heard a story - and I can't remember the source, so treat as apocryphal - that the Tiger engine was a precise instrument and tremendously difficult to make. Indeed, that the Tiger was designed to have a life of twenty or so years. In comparison, they ran a T34's engine and then changed the oil to get all the oil shavings out. The Russians realised there was no point in building a tank to last years if it might get destroyed in battle after only a few months. Make it good enough to do the job, and then scrap it.
Checking Wiki, the Germans made about 1,900 Tiger I's and II's between 1942 and 1945.In comparison, the Russians made 57,000 T-34 derivatives in the same period. (1) Quantity has a quality all of its own.
Likewise, the V1 and V2 weapons were tremendous technological achievements, but a tremendous waste of manpower and resources that only hastened the end of the war.
I'd differ. The V-1 was a crappy bit of mass-produced junk that could fairly easily be shot down. BUT it makes your point perfectly. It carried the same warhead as a V-2 and drove the Allies wild and tied up huge numbers of AA guns, radars, fighters, and support staff for months, as well as bombers and fighter-bombers trying to kill the launch sites. By contrast each V-2 cost far, far more - a hundred or a thousand times a smuch - but in a sense killed more workers on the German side than the Allied (because of its construction by concentration camp workers). And because it was launched from totally mobile launchers, and there was no defence against it, all one could do was repair the houses (mostly) that it blew to bits. the V-1 cost to effect ratio was far, far higher than the V-2. Of course, the V-2 (or rather its sister missiles) could be developed into Scuds and Redstones and R-7s, but the Gwrmans didn't have the nukes or spacecraft tto put on them.
Edit: whether it was rght to attack London rather than the south coast invasion ports is another matter, though both were also directed at Antwerp of course.
Whilst we are spectacularly off-topic and talking about tanks, I thought I'd mention that today is the 200th anniversary of the construction of the Bridge at Bayonne, a fascinating act near the end of the Peninsula War. In fact, they started across the sandbanks at the mouth of the Adour about 200 years ago this very hour.
I'm sure American Shermans look far more comfortable than WW1 tanks, but they were far more dangerous, because their opposition was the German tiger.
The Sherman had an awful tendency to explode into flames when hit with a tiger shell and the Germans called it 'the tommy cooker'.
The Allied would have been far better off buying a job lot of T-34s off Stalin.
Any tank of the era tended to go bang when hit by an high-velocity 88mm, including the T34 so I am not sure what would have been gained by copying the T34 design (we couldn't have bought them because Russia could barely make enough to replace his own losses).
The T34 was from an engineering point of view a heap of junk, worse even than a British Leyland Allegro. From a military point of view the early versions with their 2 man turrets and absence of radios were not altogether successful. Later on with the developments that came from experience that changed, but then the late 1944 Sherman was a very different beast from those that first went into combat in North Africa.
Joking aside Rod, surely you would agree that L&N is clearly wrong. Even other pieces of evidence you point to give a much better than 0% chance for Labour. The fact that a first-term opposition has gained 68 seats once since the war is not consistent with it being a 1999/1 shot chance. The fact that they currently have a 5% lead, while lower than previous winning oppositions, is not consistent with it being a 1999/1 shot chance. And so on.
Well, if the Tories produce any kind of vote lead in May 2015, the chance of a Labour majority is effectively zero.
The L&N model currently thinks they will have a clear lead...
History will judge Osborne's 2012 Budget as the moment the Tories lost the 2015 GE. Cutting the 50p tax was a monumental error. It doesn't matter what happens to the economy between now and May 2015, a lot of people just remember that when communities and the Country were mired in Tory imposed relentless austerity, wages were falling and living standards were plummeting, the priority for Cameron and Osborne was to give big tax cuts to the richest 1%. That will not be forgotten.
A little titbit: At the time of that Budget Ed Balls and Ed Miliband had prepared two responses because they genuinely did not believe Osborne would be so stupid as to go through with cutting the 50p tax. He is and was so stupid!! When Labour form the next Government at every election all they will have to do is remind voters of this one policy to remind voters Tories are only for the very very richest.
I'm going to be charitable here and suggest the original article he wrote tipped the kind of biddable functionary the member states would actually pick if they decided to ignore the parliament and make the decision themselves, but the editors changed it to Thorning-Schmidt without asking him because she was the only EU politician any of their readers had heard of.
Quite hard to read that blog as it's so full of posy attitudes about the Eu, PCness, etc. - hard to make out if he actually has any information or is just spouting a bunch of prejudices.
I think the latter - there doesn't seem to be any substantive new information in there. But credit where it's due, at least he's actually writing about the subject. The British press have to start somewhere...
Of potentially more interest, what will the EU Parliament do if its candidate is rejected by the member states? And are there any member states that might actively enjoy a constitutional battle?
I'm assuming that Britain's current government would rather like to see Brussels consumed by constitutional wrangles over the Commission and the Parliament. I'm doubtful that it would suit many other countries though.
So the EU member states will presumably be inclined go quietly and accept one of the EU Parliament's nominees. Though they might not go for the main bloc's choice if he or she is less congenial to them than one of the other bloc's choices.
I think we could well see a stand-off with the parliament refusing to pass the member states' nominee. The member states would probably rather avoid that, but some of them won't want to set the precedent of letting the voters make the call.
I guess Juncker (if that's who the EPP pick) would be the kind of person the member states would want anyhow, especially as the governments still lean EPP. The alternative, pre-Lisbon principle was left-right Buggins' Turn, so if the right get their guy where they wouldn't otherwise, and he's an experienced, low-key fixer of the kind they like to work with, it's hard to see why they'd pick a fight. The question is whether they'll accept Schulz though, especially if his mandate isn't very convincing. Maybe they'd try to shove through somebody less outspoken from the PES...
I'd differ. The V-1 was a crappy bit of mass-produced junk that could fairly easily be shot down. BUT it makes your point perfectly. It carried the same warhead as a V-2 and drove the Allies wild and tied up huge numbers of AA guns, radars, fighters, and support staff for months, as well as bombers and fighter-bombers trying to kill the launch sites. By contrast each V-2 cost far, far more - a hundred or a thousand times a smuch - but in a sense killed more workers on the German side than the Allied (because of its construction by concentration camp workers). And because it was launched from totally mobile launchers, and there was no defence against it, all one could do was repair the houses (mostly) that it blew to bits. the V-1 cost to effect ratio was far, far higher than the V-2. Of course, the V-2 (or rather its sister missiles) could be developed into Scuds and Redstones and R-7s, but the Gwrmans didn't have the nukes or spacecraft tto put on them.
Edit: whether it was rght to attack London rather than the south coast invasion ports is another matter, though both were also directed at Antwerp of course.
Hmmm, I'd still disagree. The problem was targeting: airborne bombing was terribly inaccurate, even with the Norden Bombsight, Pathfinders and similar - and V1 and V2 accuracy was much, much worse. It caused terror, but didn't have that much effect to industry. Carpet bombing did not break the spirits of people in the cities of Germany or Britain; untargeted terror weapons would not either. ANd it sure as heck would not badly effect industry.
It would have been a very different ball game if they'd got targeting sorted, but that was a good 10-15 years away, even for the Russians and Americans.
There's a few goods books on this, for instance "Rockets and the Reich" and 'Hitler's V Weapons'.
'' A cracking discussion there on tanks and weapons of the great wars" the boys said. "Wonder why more women don;t visit the site....."
Fair point, Mr. Taffys, perhaps ladies are more attracted to 24/7 posts (I'll not say discussions because they ain't) on the Topic of Scottish Independence.
However, I'l take you wider point and concede that a conversation on tanks has nothing to do with politics or betting and withdraw.
Joking aside Rod, surely you would agree that L&N is clearly wrong. Even other pieces of evidence you point to give a much better than 0% chance for Labour. The fact that a first-term opposition has gained 68 seats once since the war is not consistent with it being a 1999/1 shot chance. The fact that they currently have a 5% lead, while lower than previous winning oppositions, is not consistent with it being a 1999/1 shot chance. And so on.
Well, if the Tories produce any kind of vote lead in May 2015, the chance of a Labour majority is effectively zero.
The L&N model currently thinks they will have a clear lead...
True, but looked at probabilistically you must recognise the 0% is an error. I believe that Labour will win the next election, probably with a vote lead of 3-4% and a majority of 50 or so. But I also believe that a Labour lead of 150, or a Tory lead of 100, is a possibility albeit an unlikely one. Because probability forms a bell-curve in situations like elections, and I find it difficult to believe that there can be a 0% tail on the Lab Maj side of your prediction. Either the L&N is predicting a 600-seat domination for the Tories, or it's bell-curve is far too narrow. Either way, surely an error?
History will judge Osborne's 2012 Budget as the moment the Tories lost the 2015 GE. Cutting the 50p tax was a monumental error. It doesn't matter what happens to the economy between now and May 2015, a lot of people just remember that when communities and the Country were mired in Tory imposed relentless austerity, wages were falling and living standards were plummeting, the priority for Cameron and Osborne was to give big tax cuts to the richest 1%. That will not be forgotten.
A little titbit: At the time of that Budget Ed Balls and Ed Miliband had prepared two responses because they genuinely did not believe Osborne would be so stupid as to go through with cutting the 50p tax. He is and was so stupid!! When Labour form the next Government at every election all they will have to do is remind voters of this one policy to remind voters Tories are only for the very very richest.
So what was the top rate of tax for all but one month under the last labour government?
Plan B is that we keep the £ without a currency union with no lender of last resort.
Does he simply not care about our financial services industry? I mean, what does he think he is doing to our tax base?
With this and the cabinet taking it into their heads to highlight the significance and future of north sea oil by sitting in Aberdeen you seriously begin to wonder if anyone wants to actually win this referendum.
Dumb and dumber come to mind but you can select your own order according to taste.
History will judge Osborne's 2012 Budget as the moment the Tories lost the 2015 GE. Cutting the 50p tax was a monumental error. It doesn't matter what happens to the economy between now and May 2015, a lot of people just remember that when communities and the Country were mired in Tory imposed relentless austerity, wages were falling and living standards were plummeting, the priority for Cameron and Osborne was to give big tax cuts to the richest 1%. That will not be forgotten.
A little titbit: At the time of that Budget Ed Balls and Ed Miliband had prepared two responses because they genuinely did not believe Osborne would be so stupid as to go through with cutting the 50p tax. He is and was so stupid!! When Labour form the next Government at every election all they will have to do is remind voters of this one policy to remind voters Tories are only for the very very richest.
Utter bollocks.
If lowering the tax rate brings in more revenue are you still opposed to it? Should we tax the better off as a punishment regardless of whether it costs the treasury money?
It's quite easy for the Tories to point out that the top tax rate was lower for virtually all of the Labour administration, that Labour removed the 10p tax rate and penalised the lowest earners' and that the coalition of have taken the lowest earners out of tax altogether.
It is also easy to point out that the better you do under Labour the more you will be penalised.
Not sure the Nats are able to dismiss the Aberdeen poll as glibly as all that.
Why?
Because it echoes the ICM poll from yesterday which also showed a sharp swing to No following the currency clash.
Yes yes yes. ICM changed their methodology, the P&J poll is tiny, and regional, but taken together they imply that doubts are eating away at the effectiveness of Salmond's bluster.
Usual bollocks from you, you are morphing into Scottp
I see Cameron and his cowardy custards are in hiding , in a secret location, scared to come out and debate independence. Will be nice to see them scuttling for their limos and private/RAF jets tonight as they run back to London. Cameron sent his wee boy Alexander out to challenge Salmond as he is too feart to do it himself.
With the latest polling in NE Scotland showing 65% NO vs 17% YES, I'd suggest that Cameron and his Cabinet are playing at home while Salmond's crew are entering enemy territory.
I think it's rather amusing that Salmond is having his cabinet meeting in Portlethen, a small town 7 miles outside of Aberdeen, while Cameron is in the city itself. Cameron looks like he is playing in the Championship while Salmond is in the Highland League.
I don't know who tried to be clever here by having the meetings clash, but some one in the SNP needs to ask a few questions about their tactics.
True, but looked at probabilistically you must recognise the 0% is an error. I believe that Labour will win the next election, probably with a vote lead of 3-4% and a majority of 50 or so. But I also believe that a Labour lead of 150, or a Tory lead of 100, is a possibility albeit an unlikely one. Because probability forms a bell-curve in situations like elections, and I find it difficult to believe that there can be a 0% tail on the Lab Maj side of your prediction. Either the L&N is predicting a 600-seat domination for the Tories, or it's bell-curve is far too narrow. Either way, surely an error?
Well, it's not exactly zero, as I've explained.
The central prediction is a 6.0% Tory vote lead. Standard dev 1.7%.
The more I read on here about the Scottish question the more I think that devomax might be the best solution for all concerned....except perhaps labour.
Plan B is that we keep the £ without a currency union with no lender of last resort.
Does he simply not care about our financial services industry? I mean, what does he think he is doing to our tax base?
With this and the cabinet taking it into their heads to highlight the significance and future of north sea oil by sitting in Aberdeen you seriously begin to wonder if anyone wants to actually win this referendum.
Dumb and dumber come to mind but you can select your own order according to taste.
David, I wonder about your grip on reality. Cameron and his cowardy custards spouting lies in Aberdeen means nothing. It is only because they want to rob us for another 40 years. Not even an idiot could be taken in by their naked politics. Do they really think we are stupid. Last week the oil was drying up , this week we are promised another £200B. These guys are donkeys.
I'd argue (and IANAE) that the Tiger and similar tanks were a major contributor to the Germans losing the war. They were the best in the world, but they could make so few of them, and maintenance was a pig - for instance the offset wheels meant to change one, you often had to take three off.
I've heard a story - and I can't remember the source, so treat as apocryphal - that the Tiger engine was a precise instrument and tremendously difficult to make. Indeed, that the Tiger was designed to have a life of twenty or so years. In comparison, they ran a T34's engine and then changed the oil to get all the oil shavings out. The Russians realised there was no point in building a tank to last years if it might get destroyed in battle after only a few months. Make it good enough to do the job, and then scrap it.
Checking Wiki, the Germans made about 1,900 Tiger I's and II's between 1942 and 1945.In comparison, the Russians made 57,000 T-34 derivatives in the same period. (1) Quantity has a quality all of its own.
Likewise, the V1 and V2 weapons were tremendous technological achievements, but a tremendous waste of manpower and resources that only hastened the end of the war.
This old story makes a similar point http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html . The trick to winning is not to hang around endlessly preparing a perfect response, you throw the one you have into the battle and iteratively improve it (and your production methods) until you have something that wins.
'This seems (yet another) incredibly stupid move by Salmond:'
Expected Salmond's sterling currency union malarkey to last a bit longer,still his plan B is at least within his control,appears he has given up on financial services.
History will judge Osborne's 2012 Budget as the moment the Tories lost the 2015 GE. Cutting the 50p tax was a monumental error. It doesn't matter what happens to the economy between now and May 2015, a lot of people just remember that when communities and the Country were mired in Tory imposed relentless austerity, wages were falling and living standards were plummeting, the priority for Cameron and Osborne was to give big tax cuts to the richest 1%. That will not be forgotten.
A little titbit: At the time of that Budget Ed Balls and Ed Miliband had prepared two responses because they genuinely did not believe Osborne would be so stupid as to go through with cutting the 50p tax. He is and was so stupid!! When Labour form the next Government at every election all they will have to do is remind voters of this one policy to remind voters Tories are only for the very very richest.
So what was the top rate of tax for all but one month under the last labour government?
It doesn't matter what the top rate of tax was under Labour. There wasn't austerity under Labour or falling living standards and wages. When the Financial Crisis hit and the richest were asked to contribute more, the Tories helped them and no-one else out.
Cutting the 50p tax was toxic because ordinary people were feeling the pain but the priority of the Tory party was to give a big tax cut to the wealthiest. Why do you think Labour have committed themselves to reintroducing it, so far out of a GE? Because it's popular, it's a vote winner among those whose votes Labour need. Ed's Miliband and Balls could not have hoped for better publicity than assorted knights, Sirs, elites, corporatists, Davos types and millionaires complaining hysterically about this policy a few weeks ago. To borrow a phrase from the Tories, "If it ain't hurtin, it ain't workin!!"
The richest people have got a lot of wealth and it's time they contributed more. Only the other day the Mail reported that closing the stamp duty loophole, whereby the richest use companies to buy property has raised 5 times more than predicted, in just one year. As Ed Balls has said, he's planning a proper wealth tax.
History will judge Osborne's 2012 Budget as the moment the Tories lost the 2015 GE. Cutting the 50p tax was a monumental error. It doesn't matter what happens to the economy between now and May 2015, a lot of people just remember that when communities and the Country were mired in Tory imposed relentless austerity, wages were falling and living standards were plummeting, the priority for Cameron and Osborne was to give big tax cuts to the richest 1%. That will not be forgotten.
A little titbit: At the time of that Budget Ed Balls and Ed Miliband had prepared two responses because they genuinely did not believe Osborne would be so stupid as to go through with cutting the 50p tax. He is and was so stupid!! When Labour form the next Government at every election all they will have to do is remind voters of this one policy to remind voters Tories are only for the very very richest.
Utter bollocks.
If lowering the tax rate brings in more revenue are you still opposed to it? Should we tax the better off as a punishment regardless of whether it costs the treasury money?
It's quite easy for the Tories to point out that the top tax rate was lower for virtually all of the Labour administration, that Labour removed the 10p tax rate and penalised the lowest earners' and that the coalition of have taken the lowest earners out of tax altogether.
It is also easy to point out that the better you do under Labour the more you will be penalised.
You are in utter denial.
Cutting the 50p tax in the 2012 Budget has cost the Tories any hope of winning the 2015 GE. It re-toxified them in a couple of seconds it took to announce it. Labour have announced they will bring back the 50p rate, so far away from the 2015 GE, because it's popular and it will win votes and that is how you win in democratic countries.
It doesn't matter what the rate was under Labour. All people know is that Tories give big tax cuts to the rich and Labour expect the rich to pay their fair share.
Plan B is that we keep the £ without a currency union with no lender of last resort.
Does he simply not care about our financial services industry? I mean, what does he think he is doing to our tax base?
With this and the cabinet taking it into their heads to highlight the significance and future of north sea oil by sitting in Aberdeen you seriously begin to wonder if anyone wants to actually win this referendum.
Dumb and dumber come to mind but you can select your own order according to taste.
May I suggest that the senior SNP personnel, whilst clever and successful politicians and perfectly nice people, do not actually know how to administer an independent state?
The Irish, following their war of independence and *during* a destructive civil war, managed to construct a functional civil service, police service, prison service, border control, government, legislature, judiciary, tax collection, ambassadorial accreditation to all the counties of the world, every appurtenance of a modern state, within about six years of independence. Even if they had to tie the punt to the pound, they still managed to do it.
Wheras the SNP senior staff think Scotland is in the EU (it isn't), the Commonwealth (it isn't), don't need a central bank (you really do) nor an independent currency (you lose a lot of control if you don't have one), think the border will be where they want it (it won't be), etc, etc, etc...
I recognise the right of the Scots to an independent country and that the referendum might actually create one. This isn't meant to dispute that. What I am saying is that the SNP don't come across as knowing what they're doing.
Plan B is that we keep the £ without a currency union with no lender of last resort.
Does he simply not care about our financial services industry? I mean, what does he think he is doing to our tax base?
With this and the cabinet taking it into their heads to highlight the significance and future of north sea oil by sitting in Aberdeen you seriously begin to wonder if anyone wants to actually win this referendum.
Dumb and dumber come to mind but you can select your own order according to taste.
David, I wonder about your grip on reality. Cameron and his cowardy custards spouting lies in Aberdeen means nothing. It is only because they want to rob us for another 40 years. Not even an idiot could be taken in by their naked politics. Do they really think we are stupid. Last week the oil was drying up , this week we are promised another £200B. These guys are donkeys.
Not my personal opinion but what impact it must have on wider opinion: when I went to the paper shop this morning I was instantly struck by what must seem to many people the utter incongruity between the headlines and what the Unionist campaign has been saying for years - that the oil is about to run out/going to be too cheap/not worth worrying about. And if that is so for the Scots, it must be 12x so for the UK as a whole, not worth Mr Osborne getting out of bed for.
But now the Cabinet has come all the way to Aberdeen to say the complete opposite - that it is worth lots and lots. And you can imagine that more than a few voters are seeing Tories paddling in a money fountain.
Point noted about the P&J poll, but I'll wait and see as they don't inspire confidence. The last time I tried to look into a poll published by them I realised it was so awful with so many conclusions being drawn from absurdly small samples I gave up.
Plan B is that we keep the £ without a currency union with no lender of last resort.
Does he simply not care about our financial services industry? I mean, what does he think he is doing to our tax base?
With this and the cabinet taking it into their heads to highlight the significance and future of north sea oil by sitting in Aberdeen you seriously begin to wonder if anyone wants to actually win this referendum.
Dumb and dumber come to mind but you can select your own order according to taste.
May I suggest that the senior SNP personnel, whilst clever and successful politicians and perfectly nice people, do not actually know how to administer an independent state?
The Irish, following their war of independence and *during* a destructive civil war, managed to construct a functional civil service, police service, prison service, border control, government, legislature, judiciary, tax collection, ambassadorial accreditation to all the counties of the world, every appurtenance of a modern state, within about six years of independence. Even if they had to tie the punt to the pound, they still managed to do it.
Wheras the SNP senior staff think Scotland is in the EU (it isn't), the Commonwealth (it isn't), don't need a central bank (you really do) nor an independent currency (you lose a lot of control if you don't have one), think the border will be where they want it (it won't be), etc, etc, etc...
I recognise the right of the Scots to an independent country and that the referendum might actually create one. This isn't meant to dispute that. What I am saying is that the SNP don't come across as knowing what they're doing.
Assuming you are a worldwide expert, that has me shaking in my boots. Personally I would say you are a deluded fool who is talking out of his exterior about something which he has no clue about.
Plan B is that we keep the £ without a currency union with no lender of last resort.
Does he simply not care about our financial services industry? I mean, what does he think he is doing to our tax base?
With this and the cabinet taking it into their heads to highlight the significance and future of north sea oil by sitting in Aberdeen you seriously begin to wonder if anyone wants to actually win this referendum.
Dumb and dumber come to mind but you can select your own order according to taste.
May I suggest that the senior SNP personnel, whilst clever and successful politicians and perfectly nice people, do not actually know how to administer an independent state?
The Irish, following their war of independence and *during* a destructive civil war, managed to construct a functional civil service, police service, prison service, border control, government, legislature, judiciary, tax collection, ambassadorial accreditation to all the counties of the world, every appurtenance of a modern state, within about six years of independence. Even if they had to tie the punt to the pound, they still managed to do it.
Wheras the SNP senior staff think Scotland is in the EU (it isn't), the Commonwealth (it isn't), don't need a central bank (you really do) nor an independent currency (you lose a lot of control if you don't have one), think the border will be where they want it (it won't be), etc, etc, etc...
I recognise the right of the Scots to an independent country and that the referendum might actually create one. This isn't meant to dispute that. What I am saying is that the SNP don't come across as knowing what they're doing.
Assuming you are a worldwide expert, that has me shaking in my boots. Personally I would say you are a deluded fool who is talking out of his exterior about something which he has no clue about.
My personal characteristics, whether real or alleged, are not relevant. My point was that the SNP senior staff have shown a lack of knowledge of subjects (EU, Commonwealth, NATO, central bank, independent currency) that somebody at that level should know about, and that that lack makes me question their ability.
Comments
"There is a boy across the river
With a bottom like a peach
Alas, I cannot swim..."
Thinks it peculiar if you would pass,
Him by without some reference to his arse."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25109879
Hung: 86% chance
Con Maj: 14%
Lab maj: 0%
Not far from me is an early 1970s development where the houses had for the time extremely large back gardens that were always very soggy. The reason being there used to be a pleasure gardens with boating lakes on that land so the big gardens were an area where the water was so close to the surface it was deemed unsuitable for building. That was 40 years ago.
Now some smart-arse developer has managed to get planning permission to build a bunch of houses on those gardens. On Friday last they had a big excavator in to dig out the access road bed. They went down about 18 inches maybe a couple of feet. Over the weekend we had no significant rain. This morning on my way back from my morning walk I saw the ground-workers standing around shaking their heads and sucking their teeth in the manor of the English tradesman who has hit a snag. The 18 to 24 inch excavation was now about a foot deep in water.
The only people who are going to make money out of that development are the lawyers.
Titters ....
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/bruno-in-brussels-eu-unplugged/brusselsbruno/691/helle-thorning-schmidt-the-next-president-of-the-european-commission/
I'm going to be charitable here and suggest the original article he wrote tipped the kind of biddable functionary the member states would actually pick if they decided to ignore the parliament and make the decision themselves, but the editors changed it to Thorning-Schmidt without asking him because she was the only EU politician any of their readers had heard of.
The only party to make such gains after a first term government was the Tories in 1950.
But that was in the heyday of the cube-law.
Far fewer seats change hands nowadays for each unit of swing.
For the record, the performance of first term Oppositions is
1950: +90
1955*: -18
1966*: -52
1974F*: +20
1974O*: -20
1983: -60
2001: +1
* could be described as "cut and run" elections.
The most interesting quote in that BBC article is,
""And the example of the tank gives the lie to the myth that World War One generals were backward and dullards."
Could it be that the BBC is prepared to at least think about the idea that the "Lions led by Donkeys" is actually a myth?
http://www.tankmuseum.org/
Well worth a visit IMHO.
Bah! Mr Llama beat me to it!
I would reserve judgement on the generals given the views often expressed on the way in which Haig rushed the first tanks into action in far too small numbers on unsuitable ground in 1916 and so broke the secret. At least the Germans got such a poor impression they decided not to bother developing their own tanks till it was pretty much too late ... anyway, it will be interesting to see how historians reassess this issue over the next few years.
The Tank Museum collection is indeed outstanding, above all for the Great War but with much of later interest.
TankFest, when many of those tanks in the museum stop being static displays and actually get driven around. Want to know what a Tiger tank looked and sounded like as it drove towards you? Well go to TankFest and find out. And not just Tiger, they will have the T34, Sherman, other WWII tanks and all sorts of more modern stuff (British, Yank and Soviet designs) on the move too.
TankFest: 28th June 2014 to 29th June 2014
Details and tickets here:
http://www.tankmuseum.org/ixbin/indexplus?record=ART3982
The Sherman had an awful tendency to explode into flames when hit with a tiger shell and the Germans called it 'the tommy cooker'.
The Allied would have been far better off buying a job lot of T-34s off Stalin.
Machine guns had many predecessors, from the Puckle gun (which allegedly could fire different shaped bullets at Christians or Turks!) to the Agar and then the Gatling. Even though the Gatling gun was available for the American Civil War, it wasn't used much.
Likewise submarines: the Hunley sunk a ship, but sunk three times, including in the last attack. It killed far more of its own sailors than the enemies. And First World War submarines were often very ineffective.
Aeroplanes were used extensively in the First World War, but were initially used for reconnaissance and evolved slowly into a combat role.
Expecting a brand new and revolutionary type of machine to win a battle at its first usage is rather optimistic, especially when only available in low numbers. For one thing, people need to learn how to use them effectively, and that can mostly only be done in the heat of battle.
Though you make a good point. Did not the 2 man Renault come later though about the same time as the British Whippet (1917)?.
As to your earlier point about Haig et al using the tank to early and in too small numbers, I think you are being a bit unfair. The numbers were smaller than wanted and expected because of production problems (this was very new technology), the ground of the battle was chosen at strategic, governmental, level and Haig and his generals were doing everything they could to get the breakthrough HMG demanded. Just think of the fuss some would make if the tanks had not been used ASAP.
The noise in those idealised conditions was incredible and the idea of going across rough terrain at speed in one of those things (supposedly very advanced for its day) mind blowing. How anyone comes out of the tank corp without a ricked back is beyond me.
I'm assuming that Britain's current government would rather like to see Brussels consumed by constitutional wrangles over the Commission and the Parliament. I'm doubtful that it would suit many other countries though.
So the EU member states will presumably be inclined go quietly and accept one of the EU Parliament's nominees. Though they might not go for the main bloc's choice if he or she is less congenial to them than one of the other bloc's choices.
I've heard a story - and I can't remember the source, so treat as apocryphal - that the Tiger engine was a precise instrument and tremendously difficult to make. Indeed, that the Tiger was designed to have a life of twenty or so years. In comparison, they ran a T34's engine and then changed the oil to get all the oil shavings out. The Russians realised there was no point in building a tank to last years if it might get destroyed in battle after only a few months. Make it good enough to do the job, and then scrap it.
Checking Wiki, the Germans made about 1,900 Tiger I's and II's between 1942 and 1945.In comparison, the Russians made 57,000 T-34 derivatives in the same period. (1) Quantity has a quality all of its own.
Likewise, the V1 and V2 weapons were tremendous technological achievements, but a tremendous waste of manpower and resources that only hastened the end of the war.
(1): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II#Heavy_tanks
Machine guns had many predecessors, from the Puckle gun (which allegedly could fire different shaped bullets at Christians or Turks!) to the Agar and then the Gatling. Even though the Gatling gun was available for the American Civil War, it wasn't used much.
Likewise submarines: the Hunley sunk a ship, but sunk three times, including in the last attack. It killed far more of its own sailors than the enemies. And First World War submarines were often very ineffective.
Aeroplanes were used extensively in the First World War, but were initially used for reconnaissance and evolved slowly into a combat role.
Expecting a brand new and revolutionary type of machine to win a battle at its first usage is rather optimistic, especially when only available in low numbers. For one thing, people need to learn how to use them effectively, and that can mostly only be done in the heat of battle.
There's a lot of truth in what you say. The situation at the time was absolutely appalling and there was something of a Hobson's choice - wrong (or right) whatever they did. And the pressure was appalling in terms of trying to break the deadlock. On the other hand, I do get the impression that there was a feeling amongst the tankies that they had been thrown away just a bit too early in peculiarly unsuitable conditions and had not been allowed to show what they could do even by the early standards - though that may in part be to do with the later struggle to establish and maintain themselves as a distinct arm beside the infantry and horse cavalry. I'm looking forward to the crop of books which come out in 1916 and 1917.
BTW, the Haynes Workshop Manual [not really! - but it's called that] for the Mark IV by David Fletcher is an excellent intro to this important GW tank.
Think it best to let them shoot themselves in their own feet! They are good at that.
Is there a shred of evidence that Indian men are more prone to promiscuous homosexuality than any other racial group?
Quite right.
Edit: whether it was rght to attack London rather than the south coast invasion ports is another matter, though both were also directed at Antwerp of course.
The T34 was from an engineering point of view a heap of junk, worse even than a British Leyland Allegro. From a military point of view the early versions with their 2 man turrets and absence of radios were not altogether successful. Later on with the developments that came from experience that changed, but then the late 1944 Sherman was a very different beast from those that first went into combat in North Africa.
The L&N model currently thinks they will have a clear lead...
A little titbit: At the time of that Budget Ed Balls and Ed Miliband had prepared two responses because they genuinely did not believe Osborne would be so stupid as to go through with cutting the 50p tax. He is and was so stupid!! When Labour form the next Government at every election all they will have to do is remind voters of this one policy to remind voters Tories are only for the very very richest.
I guess Juncker (if that's who the EPP pick) would be the kind of person the member states would want anyhow, especially as the governments still lean EPP. The alternative, pre-Lisbon principle was left-right Buggins' Turn, so if the right get their guy where they wouldn't otherwise, and he's an experienced, low-key fixer of the kind they like to work with, it's hard to see why they'd pick a fight. The question is whether they'll accept Schulz though, especially if his mandate isn't very convincing. Maybe they'd try to shove through somebody less outspoken from the PES...
It would have been a very different ball game if they'd got targeting sorted, but that was a good 10-15 years away, even for the Russians and Americans.
There's a few goods books on this, for instance "Rockets and the Reich" and 'Hitler's V Weapons'.
However, I'l take you wider point and concede that a conversation on tanks has nothing to do with politics or betting and withdraw.
Plan B is that we keep the £ without a currency union with no lender of last resort.
Does he simply not care about our financial services industry? I mean, what does he think he is doing to our tax base?
With this and the cabinet taking it into their heads to highlight the significance and future of north sea oil by sitting in Aberdeen you seriously begin to wonder if anyone wants to actually win this referendum.
Dumb and dumber come to mind but you can select your own order according to taste.
If lowering the tax rate brings in more revenue are you still opposed to it? Should we tax the better off as a punishment regardless of whether it costs the treasury money?
It's quite easy for the Tories to point out that the top tax rate was lower for virtually all of the Labour administration, that Labour removed the 10p tax rate and penalised the lowest earners' and that the coalition of have taken the lowest earners out of tax altogether.
It is also easy to point out that the better you do under Labour the more you will be penalised.
I don't know who tried to be clever here by having the meetings clash, but some one in the SNP needs to ask a few questions about their tactics.
The central prediction is a 6.0% Tory vote lead. Standard dev 1.7%.
'It's quite easy for the Tories to point out that the top tax rate was lower for virtually all of the Labour administration,'
All but one month.
"you seriously begin to wonder if anyone wants to actually win this referendum. "
Well, does anyone? I see no evidence anyone does.
I see plenty of Anglophobia but like all phobias nothing that adds up into a coherent world view.
'This seems (yet another) incredibly stupid move by Salmond:'
Expected Salmond's sterling currency union malarkey to last a bit longer,still his plan B is at least within his control,appears he has given up on financial services.
Cutting the 50p tax was toxic because ordinary people were feeling the pain but the priority of the Tory party was to give a big tax cut to the wealthiest. Why do you think Labour have committed themselves to reintroducing it, so far out of a GE? Because it's popular, it's a vote winner among those whose votes Labour need. Ed's Miliband and Balls could not have hoped for better publicity than assorted knights, Sirs, elites, corporatists, Davos types and millionaires complaining hysterically about this policy a few weeks ago. To borrow a phrase from the Tories, "If it ain't hurtin, it ain't workin!!"
The richest people have got a lot of wealth and it's time they contributed more. Only the other day the Mail reported that closing the stamp duty loophole, whereby the richest use companies to buy property has raised 5 times more than predicted, in just one year. As Ed Balls has said, he's planning a proper wealth tax.
Quite some time ago my uncle took me a military vehicles museum. Unsure where it was (I have the vague notion it was to the south).
Given the top 1% of earners in Britain already pay 30% of all the taxes, how much more? 40%? 50%?
You are in utter denial.
Cutting the 50p tax in the 2012 Budget has cost the Tories any hope of winning the 2015 GE. It re-toxified them in a couple of seconds it took to announce it. Labour have announced they will bring back the 50p rate, so far away from the 2015 GE, because it's popular and it will win votes and that is how you win in democratic countries.
It doesn't matter what the rate was under Labour. All people know is that Tories give big tax cuts to the rich and Labour expect the rich to pay their fair share.
The Irish, following their war of independence and *during* a destructive civil war, managed to construct a functional civil service, police service, prison service, border control, government, legislature, judiciary, tax collection, ambassadorial accreditation to all the counties of the world, every appurtenance of a modern state, within about six years of independence. Even if they had to tie the punt to the pound, they still managed to do it.
Wheras the SNP senior staff think Scotland is in the EU (it isn't), the Commonwealth (it isn't), don't need a central bank (you really do) nor an independent currency (you lose a lot of control if you don't have one), think the border will be where they want it (it won't be), etc, etc, etc...
I recognise the right of the Scots to an independent country and that the referendum might actually create one. This isn't meant to dispute that. What I am saying is that the SNP don't come across as knowing what they're doing.
But now the Cabinet has come all the way to Aberdeen to say the complete opposite - that it is worth lots and lots. And you can imagine that more than a few voters are seeing Tories paddling in a money fountain.
Point noted about the P&J poll, but I'll wait and see as they don't inspire confidence. The last time I tried to look into a poll published by them I realised it was so awful with so many conclusions being drawn from absurdly small samples I gave up.
'nuff said. :-(