Going to be challenging to combine that with "you can't trust Labour to pay down the debt", isn't it?
Agreed, avery's analysis suggests the chancellor has no room to do anything for ordinary people this time around. Nevertheless, it does seem logical as a strategy.
Mr. T, please do feel free to ask how long I could go without having three books in Amazon's top 10
I presumed you'd already achieved that.
Re Salmond, he's cornered now. Sterlingisation is disastrous - an actively, provably foolish policy that endangers Scotland's economy. Can he possibly sell this?
If the Better Togetherers can't tear him to pieces, on this question, then they need to resign en masse in favour of people with actual brains.
The Larry Elliott article from Sunday's Observer I link to below nails it totally.
Salmond and Sturgeon are (knowingly) peddling fibs. They do not trust Scots to vote Yes if they are told the truth.
Yes. Salmond is actively lying, and apparently doesn't care about damaging Scotland just as long as he wins. He's gone from guileful to venal.
It's always been the tactic: say and do whatever it takes to get a Yes, then work from there. They are nationalists above all else. And for nationalists of whatever kind, independence of whatever kind is the goal. Nothing else matters.
But hitherto he's never come up with an idea which is palpably stupid, and pointlessly risky and negative for Scotland's economy.
He has exposed a flank (which was bound to happen when he offered Plan B, hence his reluctance to do so). He is now clearly vulnerable.
True. If he did not really know that this was bound to happen he's more of a fool than many of us thought. If you knowingly tell fibs, you have to expect to be called out on it.
You are very insistent that the rich should pay a lot more tax and I would like a cogent reason as to why.
I have been working with a scientist to build up an international business, during which he has had to make immense personal and financial sacrifices that have affected markedly his family. He has ploughed back all profits to grow the business and employ people and he has paid himself the minimum and not had a holiday for ten years and works about 12 hours per day, seven days a week. . So now as the business is becoming successful, why should he pay more tax and especially more tax on employing people which tax Labour loves so much?
He may as well move the business out of the UK to a less highly taxed regime - so why should he keep it here?
In the same manner why should James Dyson keep his business in the UK, as he sacrificed a lot in the early days of developing his inventions?
Overtaxing the wealth creators will drive them away overseas and so offer fewer employment opportunities in the UK.
I favour Land Taxes and Property Taxes as well as high Inheritance Tax.
People who are rich because of the value of their homes have done nothing to "earn" that wealth. They are benefiting from a severe shortage of suitable housing pushing price very high.
People who inherit money have not "earned" that money, their family/relative has.
I do support the 50p tax. Those who have the most wealth should contribute the most. As Obama and the Democrats have said in the US, business benefit from infrastructure, educated workforce, conditions created in the country for their business to survive. And in Britain businesses benefit from their employees having 'free' healthcare and things like tax credits etc etc.
I'm skeptical that this Tory attack will be that effective, not least because we all know the Tories are open to these type of attacks, but Labour do have an advantage in people believing they understand their problems better despite being formed of much the same stuff as the Tories, and the 'Ed M is weak' argument got torpedoed last year and they switched to 'Ed M is dangerous', and they clearly want to reassert the weakness argument by pointing to hypocrisy.
It really is hard to see how that will work, as Ed M could outright admit that his upbringing means he has not personally experienced the difficulties or normal people, and he and Labour will still claim they are best placed to know what those difficulties are, and the voters will broadly agree as we see time and again in polling. We know this because it happened over three years ago. I like to keep this quote handy whenever Labour like to suggest that being out of touch (euphemistically used from anything from not having direct experience of everyday life for normal people, to being a way to call someone a posh git without syaing so) automatically means you cannot understand peoples' issues.
"I come from a relatively privileged background. I am not going to pretend that I grew up in poverty," [Ed M] said.
He added he was "not part of the squeezed middle" but he said he could "listen to and understand" voters' aspirations and "make a difference to the lives".
It was always that , just Westminster and media are too stupid to read or listen to what was said.
Indeed. You have it to the posh idiots and bubble thinkers on PB. Next thing they'll be trying to claim millionaire son of a marxist was theirs in their drunken stupidity.
Alex Salmond himself didn't know this last Monday.
Funny, PB's favourite Somerset-based Cybernat seemed to know it 10 days ago.
'(*Nicola Sturgeon all but screamed the Scottish Government’s “Plan B” on currency into Andrew Neil’s ear on the Daily Politics yesterday. Once again, Neil and the rest of the nation’s media either just weren’t listening, or didn’t understand basic Politician. Anyone still telling you we don’t know what “Plan B” is is a slack-jawed halfwit.)'
Explain the lengthy references to the George Tax last week in the context of this week's Plan B. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice. However if the Westminster parties has chosen to go Tonto, he'll regretfully but sensibly outline a back up position. Whether you think that will have less currency with the electorate than Westminster stonewalling, well, you'll just have to use your intimate sense of what's happening in Scotland to work that out.
You are very insistent that the rich should pay a lot more tax and I would like a cogent reason as to why.
I have been working with a scientist to build up an international business, during which he has had to make immense personal and financial sacrifices that have affected markedly his family. He has ploughed back all profits to grow the business and employ people and he has paid himself the minimum and not had a holiday for ten years and works about 12 hours per day, seven days a week. . So now as the business is becoming successful, why should he pay more tax and especially more tax on employing people which tax Labour loves so much?
He may as well move the business out of the UK to a less highly taxed regime - so why should he keep it here?
In the same manner why should James Dyson keep his business in the UK, as he sacrificed a lot in the early days of developing his inventions?
Overtaxing the wealth creators will drive them away overseas and so offer fewer employment opportunities in the UK.
I favour Land Taxes and Property Taxes as well as high Inheritance Tax.
People who are rich because of the value of their homes have done nothing to "earn" that wealth. They are benefiting from a severe shortage of suitable housing pushing price very high.
People who inherit money have not "earned" that money, their family/relative has.
I do support the 50p tax. Those who have the most wealth should contribute the most. As Obama and the Democrats have said in the US, business benefit from infrastructure, educated workforce, conditions created in the country for their business to survive. And in Britain businesses benefit from their employees having 'free' healthcare and things like tax credits etc etc.
You are very insistent that the rich should pay a lot more tax and I would like a cogent reason as to why.
I have been working with a scientist to build up an international business, during which he has had to make immense personal and financial sacrifices that have affected markedly his family. He has ploughed back all profits to grow the business and employ people and he has paid himself the minimum and not had a holiday for ten years and works about 12 hours per day, seven days a week. . So now as the business is becoming successful, why should he pay more tax and especially more tax on employing people which tax Labour loves so much?
He may as well move the business out of the UK to a less highly taxed regime - so why should he keep it here?
In the same manner why should James Dyson keep his business in the UK, as he sacrificed a lot in the early days of developing his inventions?
Overtaxing the wealth creators will drive them away overseas and so offer fewer employment opportunities in the UK.
I favour Land Taxes and Property Taxes as well as high Inheritance Tax.
People who are rich because of the value of their homes have done nothing to "earn" that wealth. They are benefiting from a severe shortage of suitable housing pushing price very high.
People who inherit money have not "earned" that money, their family/relative has.
I do support the 50p tax. Those who have the most wealth should contribute the most. As Obama and the Democrats have said in the US, business benefit from infrastructure, educated workforce, conditions created in the country for their business to survive. And in Britain businesses benefit from their employees having 'free' healthcare and things like tax credits etc etc.
Those who earn the most do indeed contribute the most. The UK's tax and benefits system is highly redistributive.
In other news, Heroes is reportedly coming back to TV. Whilst I rather liked the first series (though it had its flaws) the later ones were rather lacklustre and it was too soapy (not enough characters actually died).
I've also heard a new Farscape film is being considered. That'd be bloody weird. It was odd enough seeing Browder and Black together in Stargate.
That would make Mrs J's life. She loves Farscape, and has the world's biggest girl-crush on Claudia Black.
That would be awesome indeed. Only rumours of course, but in the pat year I've seen rumours of a Farscape movie leading to spin off using existing characters, and one the child of Aeryn and John (D'Argo Sun-Crichton, poor little guy), which is encouraging. Farscape occasionally went overly wacky, but it went places a lot of shows, sci-fi or otherwise, never dared.
This seems like a counter-attack played as an attack. Surely it would have been better to use it when the "toffs" line was being pushed harder by Labour, as it has been in the past and likely will be again.
Maybe it's intended as a deterrent more than anything
Basically, Cameron beats Miliband, Labour beats Conservative. The Conservatives are trying to get and keep Miliband (and his alleged flaws) in the public consciousness.
Yeah, and in 2010, Clegg beat the other two party leaders by miles (and indeed every other politician since Churchill). Yet he still led his party to a distant third.
The popularity of the leader really isn't everything. It only really makes a difference when there's a MASSIVE gap between the popularity of the two leaders, for example in the Scottish election in 2011, Alex Salmond was always streets ahead of Iain Gray which should've been a warning of what was to come even when Labour were ahead in the polls. Similarly, Angela Merkel was miles and miles ahead of the SPD leader in personal ratings, which allowed her party to overcome the fact the two parties' "brands" were roughly level-pegging, and that the SPD had been dominating local elections where the "Merkel factor" wasn't present.
In comparison to those two examples, Cameron's lead over Miliband in personal ratings is negligible (when he even has a lead at all), and nowhere enough to compensate for the gulf between the Labour and Tory brands.
On topic, it's only a mistake if it's the only card played, or if it's played wrongly.
Miliband does poll reasonably well on the 'understands ordinary people' question. I'd suggest that's more because that's how people believe a Labour leader ought to be than because of the reality. The Conservatives are right to attempt to make inroads there.
The Mail went about it the wrong way, implying that the father's views must be the son's. This attack should be more effective because it's based on truth.
Negative campaigning works when its substance is believed - as Lib Dems well know.
Its interesting that the left are so concerned about such an attack. After all what is intrinsically wrong with being the son of a Marxist and a millionaire who has stuck to his career? Sadly the protestations of the left betray their own concern, discomfort and displeasure about the truth (if its untrue denounce it) of Ed Miliband's background.
However, there is a considerable irony about millionaire politicians' of a certain colour criticising other millionaire politicians of a different colour for being millionaires and career politicians when their own leader is a millionaire career politician.
Of course what it does demonstrate is how conscious all within the Westminster Freakshow are of the contemptuous attitude large parts of the electorate have for them. It's a shame that instead of trying to counter that contempt and try and disperse it, they actually are foolish enough the play on it and further stir it up.
PS Of course I realise the issue with Miliband is hypocrisy but Shapps has failed to allude to that. Shapps really is the David Brent of the Tory Party.....
Basically, Cameron beats Miliband, Labour beats Conservative. The Conservatives are trying to get and keep Miliband (and his alleged flaws) in the public consciousness.
In comparison to those two examples, Cameron's lead over Miliband in personal ratings is negligible (when he even has a lead at all), and nowhere enough to compensate for the gulf between the Labour and Tory brands.
I'd agree - and for one thing, if the public is more confident about the economy and the nation in 2015, I'd suggest they'd be more likely to not mind who is leader as much, because the so called risk of electing them won't seem as bad if things seem pretty decent, which given governments like to blame past governments and world events outside their control for when things are not great, that is to say pointing out how limited their own ability to change things is, won't seem such a bad option.
Mr. T, please do feel free to ask how long I could go without having three books in Amazon's top 10
I presumed you'd already achieved that.
Re Salmond, he's cornered now. Sterlingisation is disastrous - an actively, provably foolish policy that endangers Scotland's economy. Can he possibly sell this?
If the Better Togetherers can't tear him to pieces, on this question, then they need to resign en masse in favour of people with actual brains.
The Larry Elliott article from Sunday's Observer I link to below nails it totally.
Salmond and Sturgeon are (knowingly) peddling fibs. They do not trust Scots to vote Yes if they are told the truth.
Yes. Salmond is actively lying, and apparently doesn't care about damaging Scotland just as long as he wins. He's gone from guileful to venal.
We'll see precisely who the scottish public trusts because unless you've been drinking very heavily again it's somewhat unlikely to be out of touch PB right wingers and the incompetent fops.
If the Scots vote Yes because they believe Unionist politicians are lying then we are all better off going our own ways.
What planet are you on? It's a Yes/No referendum. Both sides are self-evidently not going to agree. It's been blatantly obvious from day 1 it's going to boil down to trust.
You think it a mere coincidence that No to AV used Clegg as a toxic lethal weapon so effectively? Well he's on the No side now along with Cammie, Osborne and little Ed so I'm afraid their laughable levels of trust among the public would be their problem.
Mr. kle4, Farscape was completely bonkers on many an occasion, but it was also highly original and interesting. .
Oh, no doubt - one of my favourite shows, with some truly unique and memorable characters. I'd be happy for any kind of revival, just to see what they come up with.
Nice to see the Lego movie film at the weekend!! All about how micro managers are evil and creatives who don't like rules are the good guys! If it had a vote it would vote Tory!!
At least they didn't call him a millionaire son of a dodgy stockbroker.
How do you know it's not Labour or Trot humour?
Because only Cybernats are THAT desperately, weirdly and adolescently abusive.
You mean like the folk who cornered Farage into a pub in Edinburgh [as if that were a cruelty to him]?
Did you see the abuse David Bowie got online? There is something dark and nasty in the Scot Nat psyche, which emerges on the Net. It's undeniable.
Did you see the abuse that anything gets from any side online? I don't think its a specifically Nat phenomenom, although like the UKIP brigades (the crazy ones, not the normal ones) they are more co-ordinated and immediate.
Mr. T, please do feel free to ask how long I could go without having three books in Amazon's top 10
I presumed you'd already achieved that.
Re Salmond, he's cornered now. Sterlingisation is disastrous - an actively, provably foolish policy that endangers Scotland's economy. Can he possibly sell this?
If the Better Togetherers can't tear him to pieces, on this question, then they need to resign en masse in favour of people with actual brains.
BT could not knock their way out of a wet paper bag
Mr. T, please do feel free to ask how long I could go without having three books in Amazon's top 10
I presumed you'd already achieved that.
Re Salmond, he's cornered now. Sterlingisation is disastrous - an actively, provably foolish policy that endangers Scotland's economy. Can he possibly sell this?
If the Better Togetherers can't tear him to pieces, on this question, then they need to resign en masse in favour of people with actual brains.
The Larry Elliott article from Sunday's Observer I link to below nails it totally.
Salmond and Sturgeon are (knowingly) peddling fibs. They do not trust Scots to vote Yes if they are told the truth.
Yes. Salmond is actively lying, and apparently doesn't care about damaging Scotland just as long as he wins. He's gone from guileful to venal.
We'll see precisely who the scottish public trusts because unless you've been drinking very heavily again it's somewhat unlikely to be out of touch PB right wingers and the incompetent fops.
If the Scots vote Yes because they believe Unionist politicians are lying then we are all better off going our own ways.
What planet are you on? It's a Yes/No referendum. Both sides are self-evidently not going to agree. It's been blatantly obvious from day 1 it's going to boil down to trust.
You think it a mere coincidence that No to AV used Clegg as a toxic lethal weapon so effectively? Well he's on the No side now along with Cammie, Osborne and little Ed so I'm afraid their laughable levels of trust among the public would be their problem.
Fair enough. As I say, if levels of trust are so low that Scots are prepared to believe the SNP leadership's line over the Unionist one then we are clearly better off apart. But there may be a level of disappointment in Scotland with Salmond and Sturgeon when voters realise they have been taken for fools. Convinced nationalists will be delighted, of course; but as Salmond and Sturgeon know there aren't enough of them to win a referendum.
You are very insistent that the rich should pay a lot more tax and I would like a cogent reason as to why.
I have been working with a scientist to build up an international business, during which he has had to make immense personal and financial sacrifices that have affected markedly his family. He has ploughed back all profits to grow the business and employ people and he has paid himself the minimum and not had a holiday for ten years and works about 12 hours per day, seven days a week. . So now as the business is becoming successful, why should he pay more tax and especially more tax on employing people which tax Labour loves so much?
He may as well move the business out of the UK to a less highly taxed regime - so why should he keep it here?
In the same manner why should James Dyson keep his business in the UK, as he sacrificed a lot in the early days of developing his inventions?
Overtaxing the wealth creators will drive them away overseas and so offer fewer employment opportunities in the UK.
I favour Land Taxes and Property Taxes as well as high Inheritance Tax.
People who are rich because of the value of their homes have done nothing to "earn" that wealth. They are benefiting from a severe shortage of suitable housing pushing price very high.
People who inherit money have not "earned" that money, their family/relative has.
I do support the 50p tax. Those who have the most wealth should contribute the most. As Obama and the Democrats have said in the US, business benefit from infrastructure, educated workforce, conditions created in the country for their business to survive. And in Britain businesses benefit from their employees having 'free' healthcare and things like tax credits etc etc.
Who are you to decide who is or is not deserving of their lot? Do you have a God complex or something?
UKIP could do one of Farage saying "I'm a millionare son of a stockbroker, who left a successful career in the city to fight for something I believe in"
Mr. T, depends whether sterlingisation is a settled plan B. I wonder if/when it'll start having an impact on Scotland's financial sector. Can't imagine it'll be thrilled to have no lender of last resort.
Hmm. It's also false, now I think about it.
If Scotland has to apply to join euroland then they'll have to have the euro as their currency. So, perhaps the use of sterling would just be for a short period prior to which Scotland will hand its monetary policy from London to Brussels.
Funny sort of independence.
MD, you seem easily confused. I have previously informed you that their are indeed 4 or 5 options, and rather than being secret they were published. Any fool can look them up. You need to get away from hero worship of fools. SeanT is full of wind and piss but is not in the real world and I would not trust him to run a bath.
It was always that , just Westminster and media are too stupid to read or listen to what was said.
Indeed. You have it to the posh idiots and bubble thinkers on PB. Next thing they'll be trying to claim millionaire son of a marxist was theirs in their drunken stupidity.
Alex Salmond himself didn't know this last Monday.
Funny, PB's favourite Somerset-based Cybernat seemed to know it 10 days ago.
'(*Nicola Sturgeon all but screamed the Scottish Government’s “Plan B” on currency into Andrew Neil’s ear on the Daily Politics yesterday. Once again, Neil and the rest of the nation’s media either just weren’t listening, or didn’t understand basic Politician. Anyone still telling you we don’t know what “Plan B” is is a slack-jawed halfwit.)'
Explain the lengthy references to the George Tax last week in the context of this week's Plan B. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice. However if the Westminster parties has chosen to go Tonto, he'll regretfully but sensibly outline a back up position. Whether you think that will have less currency with the electorate than Westminster stonewalling, well, you'll just have to use your intimate sense of what's happening in Scotland to work that out.
(ii) It must be a belief and not, as in McClintock, an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
So you have special privileges for your belief system as long as it is one that is not informed by evidence? For Christ's sake, what's happened to this country?
It was always that , just Westminster and media are too stupid to read or listen to what was said.
Indeed. You have it to the posh idiots and bubble thinkers on PB. Next thing they'll be trying to claim millionaire son of a marxist was theirs in their drunken stupidity.
Alex Salmond himself didn't know this last Monday.
Funny, PB's favourite Somerset-based Cybernat seemed to know it 10 days ago.
'(*Nicola Sturgeon all but screamed the Scottish Government’s “Plan B” on currency into Andrew Neil’s ear on the Daily Politics yesterday. Once again, Neil and the rest of the nation’s media either just weren’t listening, or didn’t understand basic Politician. Anyone still telling you we don’t know what “Plan B” is is a slack-jawed halfwit.)'
Explain the lengthy references to the George Tax last week in the context of this week's Plan B. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice. However if the Westminster parties has chosen to go Tonto, he'll regretfully but sensibly outline a back up position. Whether you think that will have less currency with the electorate than Westminster stonewalling, well, you'll just have to use your intimate sense of what's happening in Scotland to work that out.
UKIP could do one of Farage saying "I'm a millionare son of a stockbroker, who left a successful career in the city to fight for something I believe in"
I wouldn't advise it. Most people do not know his background and assume his background matches his somewhat put upon lower middle class character he gives off. Many people assume he was some sort of sales rep or provincial bank manager or maybe a local sole trader accountant
It was always that , just Westminster and media are too stupid to read or listen to what was said.
Indeed. You have it to the posh idiots and bubble thinkers on PB. Next thing they'll be trying to claim millionaire son of a marxist was theirs in their drunken stupidity.
Alex Salmond himself didn't know this last Monday.
Funny, PB's favourite Somerset-based Cybernat seemed to know it 10 days ago.
'(*Nicola Sturgeon all but screamed the Scottish Government’s “Plan B” on currency into Andrew Neil’s ear on the Daily Politics yesterday. Once again, Neil and the rest of the nation’s media either just weren’t listening, or didn’t understand basic Politician. Anyone still telling you we don’t know what “Plan B” is is a slack-jawed halfwit.)'
He was being kind to the frothers on here, half wit is a compliment to them. It is hard to believe how stupid they really are , you keep thinking it must be just faking but they prove it time and time again.
On topic, it's only a mistake if it's the only card played, or if it's played wrongly.
Miliband does poll reasonably well on the 'understands ordinary people' question. I'd suggest that's more because that's how people believe a Labour leader ought to be than because of the reality. The Conservatives are right to attempt to make inroads there.
The Mail went about it the wrong way, implying that the father's views must be the son's. This attack should be more effective because it's based on truth.
Negative campaigning works when its substance is believed - as Lib Dems well know.
Relaxed about this - the Mail fiasco has discredited the "son of a Marxist" stuff (I'm the son of two formerly active Tories, so what?), and the "Millionaire" just sounds odd from that source, like Labour having a go at Cameron for rolling his own fags.
UKIP could do one of Farage saying "I'm a millionare son of a stockbroker, who left a successful career in the city to fight for something I believe in"
I wouldn't advise it. Most people do not know his background and assume his background matches his somewhat put upon lower middle class character he gives off. Many people assume he was some sort of sales rep or provincial bank manager or maybe a local sole trader accountant
Just kidding, but if they were to do it, I think the fact that he left a career where he earned big dough is worth mentioning, as he has made a sacrifice
Who are you to decide who is or is not deserving of their lot? Do you have a God complex or something?
The self appointed morality of the left is its most unappealing feature. Who are these people to tell law abiding tax paying patriotic citizens what they should or shouldn't do with their own legally acquired property?
I'm all in favour of personal attacks against Ed Miliband, because I think that, nice chap though he may be, he'd be an absolutely disastrous PM, even worse than Brown, who at least didn't set out to be anti-business. Miliband's bizarre mixture of cheap opportunism, irresponsibility, naivety, ruthlessness, and flip-flopping is a recipe for disaster. In the worst scenario, it's even possible that he actually believes all the garbage he comes up with, although I concede that it is hard to believe that any grown-up could sincerely advocate banning the marketing of houses abroad.
However, this particular personal attack is rather feeble. It should be binned.
"Is this man capable enough to run a country?" might be a better line.
(ii) It must be a belief and not, as in McClintock, an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
So you have special privileges for your belief system as long as it is one that is not informed by evidence? For Christ's sake, what's happened to this country?
This country has always given special privileges to certain belief systems. For much of our history we also specifically penalised other ones.
Mr. T, please do feel free to ask how long I could go without having three books in Amazon's top 10
I presumed you'd already achieved that.
Re Salmond, he's cornered now. Sterlingisation is disastrous - an actively, provably foolish policy that endangers Scotland's economy. Can he possibly sell this?
If the Better Togetherers can't tear him to pieces, on this question, then they need to resign en masse in favour of people with actual brains.
I'm not sure tearing him apart will do better together any good. He will sell independence on dual pitch of:
1) an emotional level aimed at the national identity / chip on shoulder / Braveheart target 2) on a we will be better off because those thieving Londoners aren't dipping sticky fingers into our oil well / till
If they tear him to bits, revert to 1). in spades.
He will avoid facts as they are empirical, may well not be on his side, and I don't think he needs them, as he plays the emotional card.
All we need to know is he lies an awful lot less than Cameron and his millionaire stooges. Worst case is we get the BEST of a bad bunch , best case we are rich, no brainer.
But there may be a level of disappointment in Scotland with Salmond and Sturgeon when voters realise they have been taken for fools.
How did that attack and spin work out for SLAB in 2011 after the scottish voters already saw five years of an SNP government? For that matter why on earth would I be worried about this sites foremost PB Romney ever getting public opinion right?
At least they didn't call him a millionaire son of a dodgy stockbroker.
How do you know it's not Labour or Trot humour?
Because only Cybernats are THAT desperately, weirdly and adolescently abusive.
You mean like the folk who cornered Farage into a pub in Edinburgh [as if that were a cruelty to him]?
Did you see the abuse David Bowie got online? There is something dark and nasty in the Scot Nat psyche, which emerges on the Net. It's undeniable.
No, haven't read that - but perhaps they were music critics, er, okay, perhaps not, but I don't have any time for internet nutters and abuse from either side (and I do try to be polite). But it's also germane that there is plenty of abuse aimed sometimes very personally at figures on the indy side. I've seen at least one report of an Unionist arrested for abuse and even death threats but can't recall any of comparable seriousness for someone on the other side. And one high profile Unionist luvvie claimed that she had been the victim of internet abuse but it was seriously compromised by the inability of anyone to find the rumoured abuse, as far as I know.
And back to Farage. The point I should have made more clearly was that the crowd was not Nats at all - but the Nats got blamed and even personally attributed to Mr Salmond ad nauseam in newspapers that should have known better. It used to be 'you can't criticise us Tories because we're English and it's racist' [as if there weren't plenty of Tories left in Scotland']. Now it's becoming 'anyone who criticises us north of the border has to be a Nat'. There are plenty of anti-Tory people who are neither SNP nor part of the pro-independence way of thinking.
Mr. T, please do feel free to ask how long I could go without having three books in Amazon's top 10
I presumed you'd already achieved that.
Re Salmond, he's cornered now. Sterlingisation is disastrous - an actively, provably foolish policy that endangers Scotland's economy. Can he possibly sell this?
If the Better Togetherers can't tear him to pieces, on this question, then they need to resign en masse in favour of people with actual brains.
The Larry Elliott article from Sunday's Observer I link to below nails it totally.
Salmond and Sturgeon are (knowingly) peddling fibs. They do not trust Scots to vote Yes if they are told the truth.
Yes. Salmond is actively lying, and apparently doesn't care about damaging Scotland just as long as he wins. He's gone from guileful to venal.
We'll see precisely who the scottish public trusts because unless you've been drinking very heavily again it's somewhat unlikely to be out of touch PB right wingers and the incompetent fops.
More dumpling's opinions from down south, never been north of Watford but know everything.
On topic, it's only a mistake if it's the only card played, or if it's played wrongly.
Miliband does poll reasonably well on the 'understands ordinary people' question. I'd suggest that's more because that's how people believe a Labour leader ought to be than because of the reality. The Conservatives are right to attempt to make inroads there.
The Mail went about it the wrong way, implying that the father's views must be the son's. This attack should be more effective because it's based on truth.
Negative campaigning works when its substance is believed - as Lib Dems well know.
Relaxed about this - the Mail fiasco has discredited the "son of a Marxist" stuff (I'm the son of two formerly active Tories, so what?), and the "Millionaire" just sounds odd from that source, like Labour having a go at Cameron for rolling his own fags.
And spending their entire careers in political jobs is something that most people believe about all the parties anyway, the image of them being Univesity, Party Job, safe seat, minister pretty much accepted for the leaderships at any rate, with some basis in fact. We all pretty much assume MPs who rise to the top were previously SPads, if people are aware of the term, like good managers and politcal fixers becoming bishops rather than those of genuine piety (I stress, that's merely a perception, I know not enough to question to piety of senior religious figures)
(ii) It must be a belief and not, as in McClintock, an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
So you have special privileges for your belief system as long as it is one that is not informed by evidence? For Christ's sake, what's happened to this country?
This country has always given special privileges to certain belief systems. For much of our history we also specifically penalised other ones.
Yes, but the tide was going in one direction. Suddenly we're going in the opposite one. This may or may not be connected to the rise of a new population of highly devout believers in a particularly oversensitive religion.
a) Stupid advert going for the father (and we have been over that/him extensively). That said, it will hit some touch points (tautology?) and then when they withdraw it, those points (marxist...millionaire...out of touch..) will remain. b) Yes, @SO and others, it is patently obvious that ASalmond doesn't trust the Scots people to do what is "right". He has lost a lot of respect, not that that will worry him as he has a more noble game plan than just what might make a viable independent country.
It was always that , just Westminster and media are too stupid to read or listen to what was said.
Indeed. You have it to the posh idiots and bubble thinkers on PB. Next thing they'll be trying to claim millionaire son of a marxist was theirs in their drunken stupidity.
Alex Salmond himself didn't know this last Monday.
Funny, PB's favourite Somerset-based Cybernat seemed to know it 10 days ago.
'(*Nicola Sturgeon all but screamed the Scottish Government’s “Plan B” on currency into Andrew Neil’s ear on the Daily Politics yesterday. Once again, Neil and the rest of the nation’s media either just weren’t listening, or didn’t understand basic Politician. Anyone still telling you we don’t know what “Plan B” is is a slack-jawed halfwit.)'
Explain the lengthy references to the George Tax last week in the context of this week's Plan B. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice. However if the Westminster parties has chosen to go Tonto, he'll regretfully but sensibly outline a back up position. Whether you think that will have less currency with the electorate than Westminster stonewalling, well, you'll just have to use your intimate sense of what's happening in Scotland to work that out.
What are the SNP's red lines on a currency union?
A. I'm not the SNP
B. You do know what negotiation means?
Careful or he'll start shrieking about 'prejudice' and the nasty Catalan Independence movement.
On topic, it's only a mistake if it's the only card played, or if it's played wrongly.
Miliband does poll reasonably well on the 'understands ordinary people' question. I'd suggest that's more because that's how people believe a Labour leader ought to be than because of the reality. The Conservatives are right to attempt to make inroads there.
The Mail went about it the wrong way, implying that the father's views must be the son's. This attack should be more effective because it's based on truth.
Negative campaigning works when its substance is believed - as Lib Dems well know.
Relaxed about this - the Mail fiasco has discredited the "son of a Marxist" stuff (I'm the son of two formerly active Tories, so what?), and the "Millionaire" just sounds odd from that source, like Labour having a go at Cameron for rolling his own fags.
I suspect the recollection of Joe and Jo Average of the Mail story re Milliband Snr in 15 months time will be, 'Oh, Yeah. I remember something about a marxist'. And that is it at the most. The story will neither be credited or discredited, just a whimsical recollection for a few % of us.
But there may be a level of disappointment in Scotland with Salmond and Sturgeon when voters realise they have been taken for fools.
At How did attack and spin work out for SLAB in 2011 after the scottish voters already saw five years of an SNP government? For that matter why on earth would I be worried about this sites foremost PB Romney ever getting public opinion right?
*chortle*
It worked badly. But I'm afraid that does not mean the Unionist side should just let Salmond and Sturgeon get away with telling fibs. If Yes wins as a result, so be it; it will be the right result. A Yes without these issues being discussed would be bad for all parts of the UK.
The comments suggest that Scotland would adopt so-called "sterlingisation" if the Westminster parties made good their promise not to agree a currency union after independence.
Scotland would therefore share the pound in a similar way to how Panama unilaterally uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the euro.
The arc of prosperity! Montenegro to Panama to Scotland!
The Unionists go on the offensive with yet another personal attack against Alex Salmond – but there are dangers with this approach.
There are, but it can work in conjunction with other attacks. MickPork was just pointing out how Clegg's toxicity was used to good effect by the No to AV campaign, and how with him and the Tory figures who are toxic in Scotland, the trust level in them personally would, by implication, be a hindrance for the BT side. Personal attacks are and will happen on both sides of this debate - lines may well be crossed at points which need to be called out, but neither side can whinge about about using the tactic at least, as it is a tool that is available to both which they will use if they have to.
It was always that , just Westminster and media are too stupid to read or listen to what was said.
Indeed. You have it to the posh idiots and bubble thinkers on PB. Next thing they'll be trying to claim millionaire son of a marxist was theirs in their drunken stupidity.
Alex Salmond himself didn't know this last Monday.
Funny, PB's favourite Somerset-based Cybernat seemed to know it 10 days ago.
'(*Nicola Sturgeon all but screamed the Scottish Government’s “Plan B” on currency into Andrew Neil’s ear on the Daily Politics yesterday. Once again, Neil and the rest of the nation’s media either just weren’t listening, or didn’t understand basic Politician. Anyone still telling you we don’t know what “Plan B” is is a slack-jawed halfwit.)'
Explain the lengthy references to the George Tax last week in the context of this week's Plan B. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice. However if the Westminster parties has chosen to go Tonto, he'll regretfully but sensibly outline a back up position. Whether you think that will have less currency with the electorate than Westminster stonewalling, well, you'll just have to use your intimate sense of what's happening in Scotland to work that out.
What are the SNP's red lines on a currency union?
A. I'm not the SNP
B. You do know what negotiation means?
Yes, to negotiate you have to be prepared to walk away. So let's forget the SNP: what are your red lines?
But there may be a level of disappointment in Scotland with Salmond and Sturgeon when voters realise they have been taken for fools.
At How did attack and spin work out for SLAB in 2011 after the scottish voters already saw five years of an SNP government? For that matter why on earth would I be worried about this sites foremost PB Romney ever getting public opinion right?
*chortle*
But I'm afraid that does not mean the Unionist Yes side should just let Salmond Cameron and Clegg Sturgeon get away with telling fibs.
Fixed that for you. One day it might sink in for the westminster bubble thinkers that just because it comes out of the mouth of Cameron or Clegg doesn't make it true.
The comments suggest that Scotland would adopt so-called "sterlingisation" if the Westminster parties made good their promise not to agree a currency union after independence.
Scotland would therefore share the pound in a similar way to how Panama unilaterally uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the euro.
The arc of prosperity! Montenegro to Panama to Scotland!
The majestic arc of history from the Gulf of Darien to the Gulf of Darien.
It was always that , just Westminster and media are too stupid to read or listen to what was said.
Indeed. You have it to the posh idiots and bubble thinkers on PB. Next thing they'll be trying to claim millionaire son of a marxist was theirs in their drunken stupidity.
Alex Salmond himself didn't know this last Monday.
Funny, PB's favourite Somerset-based Cybernat seemed to know it 10 days ago.
'(*Nicola Sturgeon all but screamed the Scottish Government’s “Plan B” on currency into Andrew Neil’s ear on the Daily Politics yesterday. Once again, Neil and the rest of the nation’s media either just weren’t listening, or didn’t understand basic Politician. Anyone still telling you we don’t know what “Plan B” is is a slack-jawed halfwit.)'
Explain the lengthy references to the George Tax last week in the context of this week's Plan B. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice. However if the Westminster parties has chosen to go Tonto, he'll regretfully but sensibly outline a back up position. Whether you think that will have less currency with the electorate than Westminster stonewalling, well, you'll just have to use your intimate sense of what's happening in Scotland to work that out.
What are the SNP's red lines on a currency union?
A. I'm not the SNP
B. You do know what negotiation means?
Careful or he'll start shrieking about 'prejudice' and the nasty Catalan Independence movement.
More foot stamping than a Flamenco convention going on here this afternoon.
It was always that , just Westminster and media are too stupid to read or listen to what was said.
Indeed. You have it to the posh idiots and bubble thinkers on PB. Next thing they'll be trying to claim millionaire son of a marxist was theirs in their drunken stupidity.
Alex Salmond himself didn't know this last Monday.
Funny, PB's favourite Somerset-based Cybernat seemed to know it 10 days ago.
'(*Nicola Sturgeon all but screamed the Scottish Government’s “Plan B” on currency into Andrew Neil’s ear on the Daily Politics yesterday. Once again, Neil and the rest of the nation’s media either just weren’t listening, or didn’t understand basic Politician. Anyone still telling you we don’t know what “Plan B” is is a slack-jawed halfwit.)'
Explain the lengthy references to the George Tax last week in the context of this week's Plan B. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice. However if the Westminster parties has chosen to go Tonto, he'll regretfully but sensibly outline a back up position. Whether you think that will have less currency with the electorate than Westminster stonewalling, well, you'll just have to use your intimate sense of what's happening in Scotland to work that out.
What are the SNP's red lines on a currency union?
SO , I expected better of you , that is a pathetic question. Do you think Alex phones random people up and says let em tell you my red lines on currency union old boy, sure one of those PB chappies will ask you.
David Bowie's 1982 hit "Let's Dance" is undoubtedly one of the greatest tracks in the history of pop music, and the video - shot in Australia - is amazing as well.
Bowie is also sublime, IMHO, in the 1976 Nicolas Roeg film The Man Who Fell To Earth:
Relaxed about this - the Mail fiasco has discredited the "son of a Marxist" stuff
Maybe. But then again, that's what everyone thought about Labour's 'toffs' attacks on Cameron at the time of Crewe and Nantwich. In fact your attempts to sow divisiveness and to sully Cameron on the basis of his personal background proved very successful, eventually.
But there may be a level of disappointment in Scotland with Salmond and Sturgeon when voters realise they have been taken for fools.
At How did attack and spin work out for SLAB in 2011 after the scottish voters already saw five years of an SNP government? For that matter why on earth would I be worried about this sites foremost PB Romney ever getting public opinion right?
*chortle*
But I'm afraid that does not mean the Unionist Yes side should just let Salmond Cameron and Clegg Sturgeon get away with telling fibs.
Fixed that for you. One day it might sink in for the westminster bubble thinkers that just because it comes out of the mouth of Cameron or Clegg doesn't make it true.
I believe that, I really do, but I hope you adopt at least a similar level of scrutiny toward those you believe in as well. It is possible for Cameron and Clegg to be correct, unlikely as some might feel that to be, but would their enemies ever admit that if it turned out to be the case? Of course they wouldn't.
It was always that , just Westminster and media are too stupid to read or listen to what was said.
Indeed. You have it to the posh idiots and bubble thinkers on PB. Next thing they'll be trying to claim millionaire son of a marxist was theirs in their drunken stupidity.
Alex Salmond himself didn't know this last Monday.
Funny, PB's favourite Somerset-based Cybernat seemed to know it 10 days ago.
'(*Nicola Sturgeon all but screamed the Scottish Government’s “Plan B” on currency into Andrew Neil’s ear on the Daily Politics yesterday. Once again, Neil and the rest of the nation’s media either just weren’t listening, or didn’t understand basic Politician. Anyone still telling you we don’t know what “Plan B” is is a slack-jawed halfwit.)'
Explain the lengthy references to the George Tax last week in the context of this week's Plan B. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice. However if the Westminster parties has chosen to go Tonto, he'll regretfully but sensibly outline a back up position. Whether you think that will have less currency with the electorate than Westminster stonewalling, well, you'll just have to use your intimate sense of what's happening in Scotland to work that out.
What are the SNP's red lines on a currency union?
A. I'm not the SNP
B. You do know what negotiation means?
Yes, to negotiate you have to be prepared to walk away. So let's forget the SNP: what are your red lines?
I don't think I like your peremptory tone, particularly as I thought you were one of the more reasonable PBers.
The comments suggest that Scotland would adopt so-called "sterlingisation" if the Westminster parties made good their promise not to agree a currency union after independence.
Scotland would therefore share the pound in a similar way to how Panama unilaterally uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the euro.
The arc of prosperity! Montenegro to Panama to Scotland!
Suppose you have not noticed that UK is near bottom of the league table , apart from size of debt.
It was always that , just Westminster and media are too stupid to read or listen to what was said.
Indeed. You have it to the posh idiots and bubble thinkers on PB. Next thing they'll be trying to claim millionaire son of a marxist was theirs in their drunken stupidity.
Alex Salmond himself didn't know this last Monday.
Funny, PB's favourite Somerset-based Cybernat seemed to know it 10 days ago.
'(*Nicola Sturgeon all but screamed the Scottish Government’s “Plan B” on currency into Andrew Neil’s ear on the Daily Politics yesterday. Once again, Neil and the rest of the nation’s media either just weren’t listening, or didn’t understand basic Politician. Anyone still telling you we don’t know what “Plan B” is is a slack-jawed halfwit.)'
Explain the lengthy references to the George Tax last week in the context of this week's Plan B. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice. However if the Westminster parties has chosen to go Tonto, he'll regretfully but sensibly outline a back up position. Whether you think that will have less currency with the electorate than Westminster stonewalling, well, you'll just have to use your intimate sense of what's happening in Scotland to work that out.
What are the SNP's red lines on a currency union?
A. I'm not the SNP
B. You do know what negotiation means?
Yes, to negotiate you have to be prepared to walk away. So let's forget the SNP: what are your red lines?
The comments suggest that Scotland would adopt so-called "sterlingisation" if the Westminster parties made good their promise not to agree a currency union after independence.
Scotland would therefore share the pound in a similar way to how Panama unilaterally uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the euro.
The arc of prosperity! Montenegro to Panama to Scotland!
Suppose you have not noticed that UK is near bottom of the league table , apart from size of debt.
But there may be a level of disappointment in Scotland with Salmond and Sturgeon when voters realise they have been taken for fools.
At How did attack and spin work out for SLAB in 2011 after the scottish voters already saw five years of an SNP government? For that matter why on earth would I be worried about this sites foremost PB Romney ever getting public opinion right?
*chortle*
But I'm afraid that does not mean the Unionist Yes side should just let Salmond Cameron and Clegg Sturgeon get away with telling fibs.
Fixed that for you. One day it might sink in for the westminster bubble thinkers that just because it comes out of the mouth of Cameron or Clegg doesn't make it true.
I agree. You have to examine what people say and you have to assess its credibility. That's why it was so important to raise the issues of currency union and EU membership. If the Scots choose to believe the SNP's claims, so be it. At least they'll be voting Yes with their eyes wide open.
The comments suggest that Scotland would adopt so-called "sterlingisation" if the Westminster parties made good their promise not to agree a currency union after independence.
Scotland would therefore share the pound in a similar way to how Panama unilaterally uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the euro.
The arc of prosperity! Montenegro to Panama to Scotland!
And Zimbabwe, which uses all sorts of foreign currencies, including the Pound Sterling (rather ironically, given Mugabe's comedic rantings against all things British).
It was always that , just Westminster and media are too stupid to read or listen to what was said.
Indeed. You have it to the posh idiots and bubble thinkers on PB. Next thing they'll be trying to claim millionaire son of a marxist was theirs in their drunken stupidity.
Alex Salmond himself didn't know this last Monday.
Funny, PB's favourite Somerset-based Cybernat seemed to know it 10 days ago.
'(*Nicola Sturgeon all but screamed the Scottish Government’s “Plan B” on currency into Andrew Neil’s ear on the Daily Politics yesterday. Once again, Neil and the rest of the nation’s media either just weren’t listening, or didn’t understand basic Politician. Anyone still telling you we don’t know what “Plan B” is is a slack-jawed halfwit.)'
Explain the lengthy references to the George Tax last week in the context of this week's Plan B. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice. However if the Westminster parties has chosen to go Tonto, he'll regretfully but sensibly outline a back up position. Whether you think that will have less currency with the electorate than Westminster stonewalling, well, you'll just have to use your intimate sense of what's happening in Scotland to work that out.
What are the SNP's red lines on a currency union?
A. I'm not the SNP
B. You do know what negotiation means?
Careful or he'll start shrieking about 'prejudice' and the nasty Catalan Independence movement.
More foot stamping than a Flamenco convention going on here this afternoon.
I enjoy the way you avoid engaging with the issues.
The Unionists go on the offensive with yet another personal attack against Alex Salmond – but there are dangers with this approach.
There are, but it can work in conjunction with other attacks.
Let me clarify something for those who might not be aware of it. (not saying you are kle4 but it needs pointing out) Salmond and the SNP have been attacked for decades by political opponents in scottish labour who are so vicious and ruthless they spend the rest of their time tearing lumps out of each other. Attacks that make this current glass house hilarity from the tories seem like pitifully small beer. We're talking about some of the deepest of labour heartlands in scotland, not some well to do marginals full of swing voters. That kind is where you see lib dems throwing bar charts about or labour and the tories desperately trying to triangulate on each other. Negative campaigning is not something we are unused to seeing nor did it work particularly well in 2011 for those with a short memory.
The comments suggest that Scotland would adopt so-called "sterlingisation" if the Westminster parties made good their promise not to agree a currency union after independence.
Scotland would therefore share the pound in a similar way to how Panama unilaterally uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the euro.
The arc of prosperity! Montenegro to Panama to Scotland!
And Zimbabwe, which uses all sorts of foreign currencies, including the Pound Sterling (rather ironically, given Mugabe's comedic rantings against all things British).
It was always that , just Westminster and media are too stupid to read or listen to what was said.
Indeed. You have it to the posh idiots and bubble thinkers on PB. Next thing they'll be trying to claim millionaire son of a marxist was theirs in their drunken stupidity.
Alex Salmond himself didn't know this last Monday.
Funny, PB's favourite Somerset-based Cybernat seemed to know it 10 days ago.
'(*Nicola Sturgeon all but screamed the Scottish Government’s “Plan B” on currency into Andrew Neil’s ear on the Daily Politics yesterday. Once again, Neil and the rest of the nation’s media either just weren’t listening, or didn’t understand basic Politician. Anyone still telling you we don’t know what “Plan B” is is a slack-jawed halfwit.)'
Explain the lengthy references to the George Tax last week in the context of this week's Plan B. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice. However if the Westminster parties has chosen to go Tonto, he'll regretfully but sensibly outline a back up position. Whether you think that will have less currency with the electorate than Westminster stonewalling, well, you'll just have to use your intimate sense of what's happening in Scotland to work that out.
What are the SNP's red lines on a currency union?
A. I'm not the SNP
B. You do know what negotiation means?
Yes, to negotiate you have to be prepared to walk away. So let's forget the SNP: what are your red lines?
Mine is a YES vote.
And you are a nationalist who would take independence in any form over the status quo. But, as Salmond and Sturgeon know, you are not a typical voter in the referendum - hence their fibs.
I enjoy the way you avoid engaging with the issues.
Enjoy away, I evidently have different ideas on engagement and issues. I'd suggest that stridently demanding answers on an issue you don't have a consistent view on isn't engagement.
At least they didn't call him a millionaire son of a dodgy stockbroker.
Piss poor Photoshop effort. I hope it was a freebie.
I don't think it was supposed to look convincing...
These boys are too thick to see it
It made me laugh. "Dishface" is a fantastic insult.
I don't get it.
I believe it's a poke at Cameron's disconcertingly round, smooth and shiny face.
Huh, not heard that one before (dishface that is, his smoothness and shinyness is well known). Better than Flashman at any rate, as that actually sounds kind of cool and not an insult.*
*sidenote: I could not recall the exact nickname insult he had acquired, thinking perhaps it was captain or mr flash, and a quick google search shows Tony Blair apparently picked up the Mr Flash moniker, so I can see why I'd mix them up,
I enjoy the way you avoid engaging with the issues.
Enjoy away, I evidently have different ideas on engagement and issues. I'd suggest that stridently demanding answers on an issue you don't have a consistent view on yourself isn't engagement.
My view is entirely consistent. I believe there'll be a currency union on terms dictated by the rUK.
GO and DC have made speeches and taken on the issue - even if the Nats didn't like the message - not even the residents of Somerset could deny that.
Ed is nowhere on this - and he is the chap with the most to lose.
Frankly, from a selfish Labour perspective, I'm starting to think it's wise for Labour figures to steer clear of the campaign. Even if this uber-negative campaigning succeeds in getting the pro-union side the result they want in the referendum, there's a huge risk of it nonetheless toxifying anyone who was seen to "bully" Scotland. From Labour's perspective, they may as well let the Tories take care of it and let them take the reputational damage.
'Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice'
Why bother as we are constantly being told that a currency union is a minor issue and is not going to change any votes?
But as it is much the same as Messrs Cameron's and Osborne's narrative perhaps you could be forgiven for not taking much notice. In fact one wonders how Labour hard core voters in Scotland will view Mr Miliband lining up next to the Tories after Mr Balls. The Tory attacks on him could well have a somewhat different effect to that intended ...
I enjoy the way you avoid engaging with the issues.
Enjoy away, I evidently have different ideas on engagement and issues. I'd suggest that stridently demanding answers on an issue you don't have a consistent view on yourself isn't engagement.
My view is entirely consistent. I believe there'll be a currency union on terms dictated by the rUK.
Feckn hell, and you're accusing the SNP of dishonesty.
Even the likes of Farage will be relishing having a battle with the toxic Clegg over that.
He sure will, although being seen to be standing up to the virulently anti-EU and right wing Farage may play well enough to what remains of the LD base to shore up the vote and save soem MEPs, which is the key thing for him at this point, damage control.
And it has to be said, however much fun one can derive from mocking Clegg, and he has provided plenty of ammunition, the levels of his toxicity is ridiculous, as peoples' ideas should never be discarded out of hand just because of who they are - if they themselves are the most duplicitous or despicable person or party on the planet, the weaknesses of ideas such a person would hold would become apparent quickly enough, and to be perfectly honest, and I know this will mark me a pariah, I happen to still think Clegg is right on occasion, and his comments in that article are an example of that for me.
At least they didn't call him a millionaire son of a dodgy stockbroker.
Piss poor Photoshop effort. I hope it was a freebie.
I don't think it was supposed to look convincing...
These boys are too thick to see it
It made me laugh. "Dishface" is a fantastic insult.
I don't get it.
I believe it's a poke at Cameron's disconcertingly round, smooth and shiny face.
So it would be perfectly acceptable to label Salmond, 'Toadface'?
It's a silly joke on Twitter. That's it. It no worse than digs at Salmond's wife on here.
Just a thought, not from a party partisan point of view, but a general one. Mrs Salmond is not - as far as I know - 'deployed' in politics in the way Mrs Cameron and Clegg most certainly are to bolster their husbands' political careers (as far as I can tell - not sure about Mrs Miliband). So is she relevant to public politics at all, any more than Messrs' C and C's young children would be?
Comments
Agreed, avery's analysis suggests the chancellor has no room to do anything for ordinary people this time around. Nevertheless, it does seem logical as a strategy.
People who are rich because of the value of their homes have done nothing to "earn" that wealth. They are benefiting from a severe shortage of suitable housing pushing price very high.
People who inherit money have not "earned" that money, their family/relative has.
I do support the 50p tax. Those who have the most wealth should contribute the most. As Obama and the Democrats have said in the US, business benefit from infrastructure, educated workforce, conditions created in the country for their business to survive. And in Britain businesses benefit from their employees having 'free' healthcare and things like tax credits etc etc.
It really is hard to see how that will work, as Ed M could outright admit that his upbringing means he has not personally experienced the difficulties or normal people, and he and Labour will still claim they are best placed to know what those difficulties are, and the voters will broadly agree as we see time and again in polling. We know this because it happened over three years ago. I like to keep this quote handy whenever Labour like to suggest that being out of touch (euphemistically used from anything from not having direct experience of everyday life for normal people, to being a way to call someone a posh git without syaing so) automatically means you cannot understand peoples' issues.
"I come from a relatively privileged background. I am not going to pretend that I grew up in poverty," [Ed M] said.
He added he was "not part of the squeezed middle" but he said he could "listen to and understand" voters' aspirations and "make a difference to the lives".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11842711
*tears of laughter etc.*
Maybe it's intended as a deterrent more than anything
The popularity of the leader really isn't everything. It only really makes a difference when there's a MASSIVE gap between the popularity of the two leaders, for example in the Scottish election in 2011, Alex Salmond was always streets ahead of Iain Gray which should've been a warning of what was to come even when Labour were ahead in the polls. Similarly, Angela Merkel was miles and miles ahead of the SPD leader in personal ratings, which allowed her party to overcome the fact the two parties' "brands" were roughly level-pegging, and that the SPD had been dominating local elections where the "Merkel factor" wasn't present.
In comparison to those two examples, Cameron's lead over Miliband in personal ratings is negligible (when he even has a lead at all), and nowhere enough to compensate for the gulf between the Labour and Tory brands.
Miliband does poll reasonably well on the 'understands ordinary people' question. I'd suggest that's more because that's how people believe a Labour leader ought to be than because of the reality. The Conservatives are right to attempt to make inroads there.
The Mail went about it the wrong way, implying that the father's views must be the son's. This attack should be more effective because it's based on truth.
Negative campaigning works when its substance is believed - as Lib Dems well know.
However, there is a considerable irony about millionaire politicians' of a certain colour criticising other millionaire politicians of a different colour for being millionaires and career politicians when their own leader is a millionaire career politician.
Of course what it does demonstrate is how conscious all within the Westminster Freakshow are of the contemptuous attitude large parts of the electorate have for them. It's a shame that instead of trying to counter that contempt and try and disperse it, they actually are foolish enough the play on it and further stir it up.
PS Of course I realise the issue with Miliband is hypocrisy but Shapps has failed to allude to that. Shapps really is the David Brent of the Tory Party.....
I'd agree - and for one thing, if the public is more confident about the economy and the nation in 2015, I'd suggest they'd be more likely to not mind who is leader as much, because the so called risk of electing them won't seem as bad if things seem pretty decent, which given governments like to blame past governments and world events outside their control for when things are not great, that is to say pointing out how limited their own ability to change things is, won't seem such a bad option.
You think it a mere coincidence that No to AV used Clegg as a toxic lethal weapon so effectively? Well he's on the No side now along with Cammie, Osborne and little Ed so I'm afraid their laughable levels of trust among the public would be their problem.
Mr. kle4, Farscape was completely bonkers on many an occasion, but it was also highly original and interesting. I've also heard the D'Argo rumour.
You need to get away from hero worship of fools. SeanT is full of wind and piss but is not in the real world and I would not trust him to run a bath.
B. You do know what negotiation means?
The self appointed morality of the left is its most unappealing feature. Who are these people to tell law abiding tax paying patriotic citizens what they should or shouldn't do with their own legally acquired property?
*chortle*
And back to Farage. The point I should have made more clearly was that the crowd was not Nats at all - but the Nats got blamed and even personally attributed to Mr Salmond ad nauseam in newspapers that should have known better. It used to be 'you can't criticise us Tories because we're English and it's racist' [as if there weren't plenty of Tories left in Scotland']. Now it's becoming 'anyone who criticises us north of the border has to be a Nat'. There are plenty of anti-Tory people who are neither SNP nor part of the pro-independence way of thinking.
b) Yes, @SO and others, it is patently obvious that ASalmond doesn't trust the Scots people to do what is "right". He has lost a lot of respect, not that that will worry him as he has a more noble game plan than just what might make a viable independent country.
Scotland would therefore share the pound in a similar way to how Panama unilaterally uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the euro.
The arc of prosperity! Montenegro to Panama to Scotland!
Bowie is also sublime, IMHO, in the 1976 Nicolas Roeg film The Man Who Fell To Earth:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/man_who_fell_to_earth/
On those bases alone, Salmond ought to rethink his position.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary_of_Scottish_slang_and_jargon#F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(nominal,_Atlas_method)_per_capita
Not spectacular, but certainly a long way from "near bottom of the league table".
GO and DC have made speeches and taken on the issue - even if the Nats didn't like the message - not even the residents of Somerset could deny that.
Ed is nowhere on this - and he is the chap with the most to lose.
I'd suggest that stridently demanding answers on an issue you don't have a consistent view on isn't engagement.
Even the likes of Farage will be relishing having a battle with the toxic Clegg over that.
Yes, and he's been called far worse.
*sidenote: I could not recall the exact nickname insult he had acquired, thinking perhaps it was captain or mr flash, and a quick google search shows Tony Blair apparently picked up the Mr Flash moniker, so I can see why I'd mix them up,
'Salmond is going to constantly refer to a currency union as the most desirable outcome right until September 18th, an outcome that he'll say that Osballs is still bluffing about, the outcome he offered to discuss reasonably and without prejudice'
Why bother as we are constantly being told that a currency union is a minor issue and is not going to change any votes?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10551676/Ed-Miliband-warns-Scots-no-currency-union-if-I-am-Prime-Minister.html
But as it is much the same as Messrs Cameron's and Osborne's narrative perhaps you could be forgiven for not taking much notice. In fact one wonders how Labour hard core voters in Scotland will view Mr Miliband lining up next to the Tories after Mr Balls. The Tory attacks on him could well have a somewhat different effect to that intended ...
Ed should back away from what is the gravest threat to his party's well being since its inception?
LOL...
Even the likes of Farage will be relishing having a battle with the toxic Clegg over that.
He sure will, although being seen to be standing up to the virulently anti-EU and right wing Farage may play well enough to what remains of the LD base to shore up the vote and save soem MEPs, which is the key thing for him at this point, damage control.
And it has to be said, however much fun one can derive from mocking Clegg, and he has provided plenty of ammunition, the levels of his toxicity is ridiculous, as peoples' ideas should never be discarded out of hand just because of who they are - if they themselves are the most duplicitous or despicable person or party on the planet, the weaknesses of ideas such a person would hold would become apparent quickly enough, and to be perfectly honest, and I know this will mark me a pariah, I happen to still think Clegg is right on occasion, and his comments in that article are an example of that for me.