You said, "The main purpose of politics is to provide improved government, not to do anything in particular to one or more minor parties.".
Nick, that may be the principle, but rarely seen in practice. It has been my experience that most politicians (local and national) fight to gain power and will do almost anything to keep that power (and lifestyle that may ensue)..
You cannot claim that the Blair/Brown battle was all about improved government, it was about Brown wanting the top job and he would do almost anything to gain it and keep it. He became so paranoid that his first and last thought was not the electorate but how he could lay traps for the next government if he did not head it.
... as far as I can make out, nobody has attempted to address my post from the beginning of the thread. Anyone care to try?:
"... we would not be seeing PP prices like these in Tory-held seats:
Hastings and Rye (Con Maj = 1,993)
Lab 1/4 Con 2/1
Morecambe and Lunesdale (Con Maj = 866)
Lab 1/7 Con 4/1
Weaver Vale (Con Maj = 991)
Lab 1/6 Con 5/2
If the Tories have got the faintest hope in hell of a Con Maj in 2015 they would need to hold those three seats (and lots of others like them) with comfortably increased majorities. So the fact that Labour are currently priced at shoo-in prices like 1/7 just shows that nobody with serious money has the slightest faith in Con Maj."
Betting on the Conservatives in individual constituencies is a better approach than betting on a Conservative overall majority. The Conservatives in all three of these seats might be worth a flutter, because the sitting Conservative in each case is a first time incumbent and may expect a boost as a result.
I think that women seem to go off parliamentary life fairly quickly in all parties, who all seem to struggle to keep able women as MPs. The only ones with longevity seem to be those with the hide of a rhino such as Maggie or Harriet.
It suggests that our political system with its oppositional rather than collaborative nature, and Westminster bubble hothouse is institutionally sexist. Professions such as my own have reformed tremendously over the decades to eliminate institutional barriers to women, but our government does not seem willing to do so itself.
Politics - if it's done properly - ought to be confrontational. If some MPs can't stand that, they're in the wrong profession.
Well you are just going to put off women with that approach - look at the very different ways men and women communicate in the pub. I have no idea whether it's nature or nurture but there's a clear difference. I agree that sometimes confrontation is necessary Sean but disagree that it should be the standard approach - often finding consensus is more beneficial.
... as far as I can make out, nobody has attempted to address my post from the beginning of the thread. Anyone care to try?:
"... we would not be seeing PP prices like these in Tory-held seats:
Hastings and Rye (Con Maj = 1,993)
Lab 1/4 Con 2/1
Morecambe and Lunesdale (Con Maj = 866)
Lab 1/7 Con 4/1
Weaver Vale (Con Maj = 991)
Lab 1/6 Con 5/2
If the Tories have got the faintest hope in hell of a Con Maj in 2015 they would need to hold those three seats (and lots of others like them) with comfortably increased majorities. So the fact that Labour are currently priced at shoo-in prices like 1/7 just shows that nobody with serious money has the slightest faith in Con Maj."
Yes, I'll have a go .....
Why haven't YOU bet the house on those Labour odds ?
Err... 1/7 on an obscure English constituency contest when I can still get a whopping 7/2 on Yes. Awa an boil yer heid.
Perhaps Salmond's view is the correct one: Cameron is posturing as he did with the currency union - once the 2015 election is over, he'll do what's best for the party and go into a coalition with anyone, no matter what he says now. He's a politician, you know.
Odd interview by Harman about the NCCL. Anyone could join with no questions? Even the BNP? Even racist groups? Why not just say that they looked at the cheque rather than the opinions?
History is going to prove Salmond right about an awful lot of things.
History is going to prove that Cameron was just posturing about an awful lot of things.
History is going to prove that an awful lot of senior Labour politicians just looked at the cheques and didn't give a flying f*** who was writing them (eg. Better Together). Tammany Hall de nos jours.
Well if you're looking at history, Scottish history pre-Union is mostly about one bunch of Scots butchering another bunch so they can laird it over the rest. Every so often the english joined in and then thought better of it. It's always interesting the English could accept a king from Scotland but not vice versa.
I love how you summarise over 800 years of our country's pre-union statehood with "one bunch butchering another bunch". No mention of the gradual evolution of the dynamic and innovative institutions of law and state; of the ground-breaking introduction of universal education (a world first); of the great cultural achievements. You really don't have much time for our country, do you?
The Scottish histories I've read I found almost as depressing as Irish ones. The Scots and Irish were more than capable of making life miserable before a single englishman turned up. As for the great cultural achievements maybe you should look at France, Germany, Italy or Byzantium in the medieval or rennaissance periods to see just how far off that statement is.
... as far as I can make out, nobody has attempted to address my post from the beginning of the thread. Anyone care to try?:
"... we would not be seeing PP prices like these in Tory-held seats:
Hastings and Rye (Con Maj = 1,993)
Lab 1/4 Con 2/1
Morecambe and Lunesdale (Con Maj = 866)
Lab 1/7 Con 4/1
Weaver Vale (Con Maj = 991)
Lab 1/6 Con 5/2
If the Tories have got the faintest hope in hell of a Con Maj in 2015 they would need to hold those three seats (and lots of others like them) with comfortably increased majorities. So the fact that Labour are currently priced at shoo-in prices like 1/7 just shows that nobody with serious money has the slightest faith in Con Maj."
Betting on the Conservatives in individual constituencies is a better approach than betting on a Conservative overall majority. The Conservatives in all three of these seats might be worth a flutter, because the sitting Conservative in each case is a first time incumbent and may expect a boost as a result.
In that case, would you not be interested? If not, why not?
Well you are just going to put off women with that approach - look at the very different ways men and women communicate in the pub. I have no idea whether it's nature or nurture but there's a clear difference. I agree that sometimes confrontation is necessary Sean but disagree that it should be the standard approach - often finding consensus is more beneficial.
Politics is nowhere near as confrontational as it should be. Members of Parliament do a lousy job of holding both the executive to account and of scrutinising appropriations. One of the reasons is that most MPs are complacent, docile and consensual characters.
I think that women seem to go off parliamentary life fairly quickly in all parties, who all seem to struggle to keep able women as MPs. The only ones with longevity seem to be those with the hide of a rhino such as Maggie or Harriet.
It suggests that our political system with its oppositional rather than collaborative nature, and Westminster bubble hothouse is institutionally sexist. Professions such as my own have reformed tremendously over the decades to eliminate institutional barriers to women, but our government does not seem willing to do so itself.
Politics - if it's done properly - ought to be confrontational. If some MPs can't stand that, they're in the wrong profession.
Perhaps if you see the aim of being in politics is to ram your ideas down others' throats. Most, however, would say the point is to improve the country through an exchange and consensus of ideas.
It's about competing philosophies. I can't imagine anything worse than always seeking consensus.
I hope not, Bad Al will be tweeting like mad again, whilst promoting his books at the same time...
Tom Newton Dunn@tnewtondunn·23 mins "This is all about Ralph Miliband. Dacre is still livid," says senior Labour source on Harman. Possibly, but also says much about Team Ed.
Do they not realise why this has raised it's ugly head again?
PIE are being investigated under Operation Fernbridge, something instigated by Tom Watson. Of course the Mail are loving digging this up, even if it blows over Harman will have lost credibility on many issues, but it has come about because of a current investigation.
... as far as I can make out, nobody has attempted to address my post from the beginning of the thread. Anyone care to try?:
"... we would not be seeing PP prices like these in Tory-held seats:
Hastings and Rye (Con Maj = 1,993)
Lab 1/4 Con 2/1
Morecambe and Lunesdale (Con Maj = 866)
Lab 1/7 Con 4/1
Weaver Vale (Con Maj = 991)
Lab 1/6 Con 5/2
If the Tories have got the faintest hope in hell of a Con Maj in 2015 they would need to hold those three seats (and lots of others like them) with comfortably increased majorities. So the fact that Labour are currently priced at shoo-in prices like 1/7 just shows that nobody with serious money has the slightest faith in Con Maj."
Betting on the Conservatives in individual constituencies is a better approach than betting on a Conservative overall majority. The Conservatives in all three of these seats might be worth a flutter, because the sitting Conservative in each case is a first time incumbent and may expect a boost as a result.
In that case, would you not be interested? If not, why not?
I think I've expressed my views already in my first post.
I think that women seem to go off parliamentary life fairly quickly in all parties, who all seem to struggle to keep able women as MPs. The only ones with longevity seem to be those with the hide of a rhino such as Maggie or Harriet.
It suggests that our political system with its oppositional rather than collaborative nature, and Westminster bubble hothouse is institutionally sexist. Professions such as my own have reformed tremendously over the decades to eliminate institutional barriers to women, but our government does not seem willing to do so itself.
Politics - if it's done properly - ought to be confrontational. If some MPs can't stand that, they're in the wrong profession.
Perhaps if you see the aim of being in politics is to ram your ideas down others' throats. Most, however, would say the point is to improve the country through an exchange and consensus of ideas.
It's about competing philosophies. I can't imagine anything worse than always seeking consensus.
If you see the purpose of politics as being one philosophy crushing all others, why bother with democracy at all? An oligarchy/dictatorship would be far more efficient
The reason out system has evolved to what it is today is the recognition that no one philosophy has all the answers to the country's problems, and to enforce the need for bargaining, compromise and reconsideration.
I think that women seem to go off parliamentary life fairly quickly in all parties, who all seem to struggle to keep able women as MPs. The only ones with longevity seem to be those with the hide of a rhino such as Maggie or Harriet.
It suggests that our political system with its oppositional rather than collaborative nature, and Westminster bubble hothouse is institutionally sexist. Professions such as my own have reformed tremendously over the decades to eliminate institutional barriers to women, but our government does not seem willing to do so itself.
Politics - if it's done properly - ought to be confrontational. If some MPs can't stand that, they're in the wrong profession.
Well you are just going to put off women with that approach - look at the very different ways men and women communicate in the pub. I have no idea whether it's nature or nurture but there's a clear difference. I agree that sometimes confrontation is necessary Sean but disagree that it should be the standard approach - often finding consensus is more beneficial.
There are issues (particularly in local government) where ideology is irrelevant, but big issues ought to generate ideological heat between the parties.
I think that women seem to go off parliamentary life fairly quickly in all parties, who all seem to struggle to keep able women as MPs. The only ones with longevity seem to be those with the hide of a rhino such as Maggie or Harriet.
It suggests that our political system with its oppositional rather than collaborative nature, and Westminster bubble hothouse is institutionally sexist. Professions such as my own have reformed tremendously over the decades to eliminate institutional barriers to women, but our government does not seem willing to do so itself.
Politics - if it's done properly - ought to be confrontational. If some MPs can't stand that, they're in the wrong profession.
Perhaps if you see the aim of being in politics is to ram your ideas down others' throats. Most, however, would say the point is to improve the country through an exchange and consensus of ideas.
It's about competing philosophies. I can't imagine anything worse than always seeking consensus.
If you see the purpose of politics as being one philosophy crushing all others, why bother with democracy at all? An oligarchy/dictatorship would be far more efficient
The reason out system has evolved to what it is today is the recognition that no one person, philosophy or social class has all the answers to the country's problems, and to enforce the need for bargaining, compromise and reconsideration.
Salmond fans remind me of the Gordon Brown true believers in 2008 - the media told us for years how wonderful he was even as the facts went against them time and time again.
Indeed.
The SNP Taleban remind me of those Conservatives on general election night 1997 who continued to insist canvass returns didn't bare out the exit polls or early returns. Angela Rumbold's supporters especially spring to mind .... and then at the count she had the countenance of a candidate who'd been munching on lemons all day !!
In fairness we did have Hesseltine doing his tongue in cheek forecast of an increased majority for John Major for which Tarzan deserved an Oscar.
We'll see the same on 19th September from Nicola Sturgeon et al urging us to wait until returns from the Western Isles and more forecasts from Eck's runes before we finally knock the last nail in the SNP independence coffin.
There is something very unpleasant about how the Harman story is being framed by the Daily Mail , a filthy rag at best, Much as I can't stand the woman, I think she is being unfairly attacked, which is why I was so surprised at how terribly she interviewed on Newsnight.
A filthy rag that at it's best exposed the Stephen Lawrence killers.
Nonsense, the alleged killers were already identified. The Mail just put their names on its front page, calculating (correctly) that they would not be sued. It was a commercial decision designed to sell more newspapers.
Sometimes people you dislike do good things and when they do you should acknowledge it.... If the Guardian had exposed Stephen Lawrence's killers no doubt you would gave thought it a principled act that bravely risked financial ruin
Perhaps Salmond's view is the correct one: Cameron is posturing as he did with the currency union - once the 2015 election is over, he'll do what's best for the party and go into a coalition with anyone, no matter what he says now. He's a politician, you know.
Odd interview by Harman about the NCCL. Anyone could join with no questions? Even the BNP? Even racist groups? Why not just say that they looked at the cheque rather than the opinions?
History is going to prove Salmond right about an awful lot of things.
History is going to prove that Cameron was just posturing about an awful lot of things.
History is going to prove that an awful lot of senior Labour politicians just looked at the cheques and didn't give a flying f*** who was writing them (eg. Better Together). Tammany Hall de nos jours.
Well if you're looking at history, Scottish history pre-Union is mostly about one bunch of Scots butchering another bunch so they can laird it over the rest. Every so often the english joined in and then thought better of it. It's always interesting the English could accept a king from Scotland but not vice versa.
There's a difference between past history and the future - which as I have said exemplifies the two sides in the indy debate in a fascinating way.
If you are going to talk about past history, then the situation only arose twice that I can recall post-1066 and in both cases it was a question of a king from Scotland to England - Jamie the Saxt in 1603 and Charles Edward in 1745 (and whether he was by then Scots is an interesting question). The second was a definite no thanks and the first was to save the English + Welsh from themselves (I assume - baronial civil war and invasion). There was of course Henry VIII's attempt to marry off Prince Edward to the infant Queen Marie Stuart, but as his idea of diplomacy consisted of declaring war and destroying most of south-eastern Scotland, with many of the abbeys, it did not go down very well with the locals. (King John Baliol does not count as he was a Scot, albeit a puppet of Edward Longshanks who then tried to claim suzerainty over him.)
Politics - if it's done properly - ought to be confrontational. If some MPs can't stand that, they're in the wrong profession.
Thatr's interesting but IMO not quite right in the sense we see it in Britain. I agree that sharp confrontation of policies is a good thing, and some amiable Continental political scenes fail in that - for example, the German shift on nuclear power just happened because Merkel changed her mind, with no particular debate. But we don't really have that either. What we mainly have is serial character assassination, and it's become such a routine technique that we idly debate whether it'll work rather than recoiling from the technique (cf. the discussion of the Shapps/Miliband poster).
As a backbencher I wasn't much exposed to it, and because I have a hinterland outside politics I'm not much bothered anyway: if I lose, no big deal, I'll go and do something else. But you're always one careless remark away from a public lynching.
Actual confrontation of policies becomes secondary and anything that takes more than a paragraph gets sidelined. Take Universal Credit. Like it or hate it, it's a big change. Yet 90% of the media coverage has been on "Is IDS incompetent?" and "Will the computer system be a disaster?" It's complicated, and in British politics we don't discuss anything complicated. Much simpler to have a go at someone.
Not a problem if they are six very, very bright people who come up with a great manifesto.
You want they should have a token idiot? If we are making digs about lack of diversity, then you might want to look closer to home at the middle-aged, white, male-dominated LibDem Parliamentary Party....
It's been a while since i read about the PIE stuff but wasn't the NCCL's support and advocacy a stepping stone to some of them becoming government advisers into child sexuality and lowering age of consent to 10 or something?
I think that women seem to go off parliamentary life fairly quickly in all parties, who all seem to struggle to keep able women as MPs. The only ones with longevity seem to be those with the hide of a rhino such as Maggie or Harriet.
It suggests that our political system with its oppositional rather than collaborative nature, and Westminster bubble hothouse is institutionally sexist. Professions such as my own have reformed tremendously over the decades to eliminate institutional barriers to women, but our government does not seem willing to do so itself.
Politics - if it's done properly - ought to be confrontational. If some MPs can't stand that, they're in the wrong profession.
Perhaps if you see the aim of being in politics is to ram your ideas down others' throats. Most, however, would say the point is to improve the country through an exchange and consensus of ideas.
It's about competing philosophies. I can't imagine anything worse than always seeking consensus.
If you see the purpose of politics as being one philosophy crushing all others, why bother with democracy at all? An oligarchy/dictatorship would be far more efficient
The reason out system has evolved to what it is today is the recognition that no one philosophy has all the answers to the country's problems, and to enforce the need for bargaining, compromise and reconsideration.
It wouldn't be more efficient. Whatever their formal ideology may be, dictatorships and oligarchies come to prioritise rent-seeking and the protection of vested interests.
I hope not, Bad Al will be tweeting like mad again, whilst promoting his books at the same time...
Tom Newton Dunn@tnewtondunn·23 mins "This is all about Ralph Miliband. Dacre is still livid," says senior Labour source on Harman. Possibly, but also says much about Team Ed.
Do they not realise why this has raised it's ugly head again?
PIE are being investigated under Operation Fernbridge, something instigated by Tom Watson. Of course the Mail are loving digging this up, even if it blows over Harman will have lost credibility on many issues, but it has come about because of a current investigation.
that makes sense of the timing. some of the PIE people were involved in that IIRC.
It's not only UKIP that says that Cammo's referendum on the EU in 20 somthing is a load of bo**ocks:
Chris Bryant @ChrisBryantMP It's intriguing how No 10 pre-briefing of Merkel visit has changed. I suspect he won't get UK-specific renegotiation. Nowhere to hide.
I wouldn't believe anything anyone says before the election about who they'd work with afterwards. The day after the election is a completely different world. If the coalition has just been reelected on more or less the same numbers, it won't be hard for Cameron to argue that he didn't want to do this but the voters insisted.
If this does make its way into the manifesto, rather than being simply mood music they are creating now, then I think they might stick to it.
The major difference with 2010 is that Cameron is the incumbent PM. If he still has a lead in votes in 2015, he will be gambling that Labour and Lib Dems would not want to risk going against the wishes of the voters by immediately voting him down. In terms of legitimacy it would essentially be a re-run of the arguments over AV.
In 2010 Brown was the incumbent PM, and so Cameron felt obliged to make a Coalition deal to force him out of No. 10.
Salmond fans remind me of the Gordon Brown true believers in 2008 - the media told us for years how wonderful he was even as the facts went against them time and time again.
Indeed.
The SNP Taleban remind me of those Conservatives on general election night 1997 who continued to insist canvass returns didn't bare out the exit polls or early returns. Angela Rumbold's supporters especially spring to mind .... and then at the count she had the countenance of a candidate who'd been munching on lemons all day !!
In fairness we did have Hesseltine doing his tongue in cheek forecast of an increased majority for John Major for which Tarzan deserved an Oscar.
We'll see the same on 19th September from Nicola Sturgeon et al urging us to wait until returns from the Western Isles and more forecasts from Eck's runes before we finally knock the last nail in the SNP independence coffin.
Still trying to paint the independence movement as an SNP-only enterprise?
In that case, the anti-Scotland movement is a Tory-only enterprise.
Salmond fans remind me of the Gordon Brown true believers in 2008 - the media told us for years how wonderful he was even as the facts went against them time and time again.
Indeed.
The SNP Taleban remind me of those Conservatives on general election night 1997 who continued to insist canvass returns didn't bare out the exit polls or early returns. Angela Rumbold's supporters especially spring to mind .... and then at the count she had the countenance of a candidate who'd been munching on lemons all day !!
In fairness we did have Hesseltine doing his tongue in cheek forecast of an increased majority for John Major for which Tarzan deserved an Oscar.
We'll see the same on 19th September from Nicola Sturgeon et al urging us to wait until returns from the Western Isles and more forecasts from Eck's runes before we finally knock the last nail in the SNP independence coffin.
Still trying to paint the independence movement as an SNP-only enterprise?
In that case, the anti-Scotland movement is a Tory-only enterprise.
I never indicated that YES was only a SNP front but they're hardly shrinking violets are they?
It's also worthy of note that you effectively label the NO campaign as "anti-Scotland" which would of course mean, according to all polls, that the majority of Scots are hostile to themselves.
Cameron's playing the long game on this. He needs to inspire confidence in a majority ex ante to encourage people not to accept worse and thus bring it about. But that does not mean that this will actually find its way into the manifesto, because, post hoc, it may well be the better option.
On topic, it's all about detoxifying the Lib Dems in the eyes of Labour voters. The Tories desperately need a fair chunk of that 8% that's moved from LD to Lab to go back again.
Yes, there's a risk of tactical voting but that assumes that the prime motivation is 'keeping the Tories out', and for those to whom that does apply, they'll already be voting accordingly. There really aren't all that many voters who are so engaged and motivated. Besides, as things stand, the big Yellow-Red swing has done the job of sorting the tactical voting all by itself.
On the subject of tactical voting, it's very akin to the discussion on negative campaigning yesterday (in fact, it is negative campaigning): it only works when voters believe that there's a threat to be stopped and that they have a vehicle with which to do it.
To that end, it would be a mistake to believe on the basis of 1993-2005 that there's a permanent anti-Tory majority in the sense of a cohesive movement. There is of course a non- (and hence, implicitly, anti-)Tory majority but then there's also an anti-Labour one, an anti-Lib Dem one, and so on. The notion of a confluence of interests between the Lib Dems and Labour came about because of an unusual period when New Labour was centrist and the Tories were tired and divided. In reality, swing voters will tend to gravitate against the less popular of the two main parties. It was Labour's ascendency that produced the illusion of the anti-Tory coalition; once the Conservatives gained an advantage, it largely melted away (or at least, became a one-way street, from Lab to LD - which itself proved a gross tactical blunder).
If the Conservatives can reassert a reasonable lead against Labour, the anti-Tory tactical voting will take care of itself.
The other thing that people havn't mentioned is that the story talks about no 'coalition', rather than 'no coalition with the LD's'. A minor point might to try and protect the right flank from UKIP. If people thought that the Tory's were amenable to a coalition, then they can vote UKIP knowing that if UKIP get (say) 10-20 seats, and the Tories are 15 seats short, then they can have a right-wing coalition and there is no downside to having voted UKIP instead of Tory. If they are saying no coalition - then it might cause some tory-leaning voters to think twice before voting UKIP, and they need to protect all of those that they can.
(Just to add - I don't expect UKIP to get as many seats as that, but I can see that the voters might well think that)
I think that women seem to go off parliamentary life fairly quickly in all parties, who all seem to struggle to keep able women as MPs. The only ones with longevity seem to be those with the hide of a rhino such as Maggie or Harriet.
It suggests that our political system with its oppositional rather than collaborative nature, and Westminster bubble hothouse is institutionally sexist. Professions such as my own have reformed tremendously over the decades to eliminate institutional barriers to women, but our government does not seem willing to do so itself.
Politics - if it's done properly - ought to be confrontational. If some MPs can't stand that, they're in the wrong profession.
Perhaps if you see the aim of being in politics is to ram your ideas down others' throats. Most, however, would say the point is to improve the country through an exchange and consensus of ideas.
It's about competing philosophies. I can't imagine anything worse than always seeking consensus.
If you see the purpose of politics as being one philosophy crushing all others, why bother with democracy at all? An oligarchy/dictatorship would be far more efficient
The reason out system has evolved to what it is today is the recognition that no one philosophy has all the answers to the country's problems, and to enforce the need for bargaining, compromise and reconsideration.
It wouldn't be more efficient. Whatever their formal ideology may be, dictatorships and oligarchies come to prioritise rent-seeking and the protection of vested interests.
The oligarchy that runs this country certainly does.
IF Cameron says he won`t form a coalition government after the next election and will govern as a minority administration,what prevents him getting rid of the Lib Dems and governing as minority Tory government now?
I suppose the small matter of being a man of his word and not breaking a Coalition Agreement that he entered into in good faith.
It is entirely justified to be cynical about politicians, but there is a limit to everything.
Perhaps Salmond's view is the correct one: Cameron is posturing as he did with the currency union - once the 2015 election is over, he'll do what's best for the party and go into a coalition with anyone, no matter what he says now. He's a politician, you know.
Odd interview by Harman about the NCCL. Anyone could join with no questions? Even the BNP? Even racist groups? Why not just say that they looked at the cheque rather than the opinions?
History is going to prove Salmond right about an awful lot of things.
History is going to prove that Cameron was just posturing about an awful lot of things.
History is going to prove that an awful lot of senior Labour politicians just looked at the cheques and didn't give a flying f*** who was writing them (eg. Better Together). Tammany Hall de nos jours.
Well if you're looking at history, Scottish history pre-Union is mostly about one bunch of Scots butchering another bunch so they can laird it over the rest. Every so often the english joined in and then thought better of it. It's always interesting the English could accept a king from Scotland but not vice versa.
I love how you summarise over 800 years of our country's pre-union statehood with "one bunch butchering another bunch". No mention of the gradual evolution of the dynamic and innovative institutions of law and state; of the ground-breaking introduction of universal education (a world first); of the great cultural achievements. You really don't have much time for our country, do you?
The Scottish histories I've read I found almost as depressing as Irish ones. The Scots and Irish were more than capable of making life miserable before a single englishman turned up. As for the great cultural achievements maybe you should look at France, Germany, Italy or Byzantium in the medieval or rennaissance periods to see just how far off that statement is.
Perhaps Salmond's view is the correct one: Cameron is posturing as he did with the currency union - once the 2015 election is over, he'll do what's best for the party and go into a coalition with anyone, no matter what he says now. He's a politician, you know.
Odd interview by Harman about the NCCL. Anyone could join with no questions? Even the BNP? Even racist groups? Why not just say that they looked at the cheque rather than the opinions?
History is going to prove Salmond right about an awful lot of things.
History is going to prove that Cameron was just posturing about an awful lot of things.
History is going to prove that an awful lot of senior Labour politicians just looked at the cheques and didn't give a flying f*** who was writing them (eg. Better Together). Tammany Hall de nos jours.
Well if you're looking at history, Scottish history pre-Union is mostly about one bunch of Scots butchering another bunch so they can laird it over the rest. Every so often the english joined in and then thought better of it. It's always interesting the English could accept a king from Scotland but not vice versa.
I love how you summarise over 800 years of our country's pre-union statehood with "one bunch butchering another bunch". No mention of the gradual evolution of the dynamic and innovative institutions of law and sthave much time for our country, do you?
The Scottish histories I've read I found almost as depressing as Irish ones. The Scots and Irish were more than capable of making life miserable before a single englishman turned up. As for the great cultural achievements maybe you should look at France, Germany, Italy or Byzantium in the medieval or rennaissance periods to see just how far off that statement is.
It's not only UKIP that says that Cammo's referendum on the EU in 20 somthing is a load of bo**ocks:
Chris Bryant @ChrisBryantMP It's intriguing how No 10 pre-briefing of Merkel visit has changed. I suspect he won't get UK-specific renegotiation. Nowhere to hide.
I guess that would explain why he's suddenly felt the need to throw his back-benchers some red meat with this "no coalitions" thing...
Like Jack W and others, I'm sceptical of this story. It is not exactly unknown for the Telegraph, like the Guardian and Mail, to make things up or exaggerate an anonymous 'briefing' (i.e. uninformed speculation during a boozy lunch) into something much bigger than it really is.
Still, I think there is truth in the proposition that putting together any coalition post-2015 is going to be a tough task, whatever the arithmetic. As I've said repeatedly, there is a substantial risk that it will not be possible to form a stable government after the election. Slowly, the financial markets do seem to be waking up to part of this political risk. Mostly, though, this has so far been in the context of reacting to Miliband's anti-business, anti-prosperity policy platform:
The risk that things could be even worse, with a government completely in thrall to vested interests and dependent of pork-barrelling to get anything agreed, and likely to collapse in chaos at any moment, is not yet in the price. I expect we have a few more months before the markets wake up to it.
Salmond fans remind me of the Gordon Brown true believers in 2008 - the media told us for years how wonderful he was even as the facts went against them time and time again.
you stick to fawning over the butchers apron, doffing your bowler
Only relevant when you know what they are paying tax on. If you take Norway then they pay higher tax but have far higher salaries so are much better off and have higher standard of living than UK. So pointless only showing half the story, but very Tory approach.
Salmond fans remind me of the Gordon Brown true believers in 2008 - the media told us for years how wonderful he was even as the facts went against them time and time again.
you stick to fawning over the butchers apron, doffing your bowler
the Missus bought me a butcher's apron for Xmas for round the kitchen. It's a patriotic saltire blue and white. :-)
Salmond fans remind me of the Gordon Brown true believers in 2008 - the media told us for years how wonderful he was even as the facts went against them time and time again.
you stick to fawning over the butchers apron, doffing your bowler
I see the SNP aren't running a "one nation" campaign then... stay classy malc.
Meanwhile .... while catching up of some bits and bobs of PB from yesterday that I missed .... Yes I know it's sad .... I came over this gem on the SNP currency fiasco from @SeanT that certainly is worth a repeat outing
"As of this moment, the SNP's official position on the currency seems to be:
1. Use the euro, the pound is a "millstone" around Scotland's neck as Alex Salmond has stated 2. Nah. Don't use the euro. Whoever said that? Terrible idea. Look at the eurogeddon disaster 3. Use the pound! It's ours. The English will agree to a sterling zone - our very own Fiscal Commission says they will 4. George Osborne says the English won't agree to a currency union? 5. Doesn't matter. We WILL use the pound in a sterling zone, because the amazing Fiscal Commission of independent experts appointed by us says this is best 6. Ed Balls also says the English won't agree? 7. Doesn't matter. The English will agree in the end because they're toffs, bullies and liars and will therefore want to help us even if makes no sense for them 8. Ed Miliband also says the English won't agree? 9. OK so the English won't agree. But we never wanted or needed their agreement anyway. Hahahah! All along our REAL plan has been to use... the pound! 10. That is to say we'll use it "informally", without permission. Or a central bank. Or a lender of last resort. Look how well Montenegro is doing 11 OK so the Fiscal Commission says this won't work either. But what the feck do they know, who appointed them, bunch of idiots 12. What, we appointed them??? 13. Return to a barter economy. 1 neep = 1 tatty."
@tnewtondunn: Re Telegraph splash: No10 sources say the 2015 Tory manifesto will be about policies, will have no mention of different election outcomes.
Salmond fans remind me of the Gordon Brown true believers in 2008 - the media told us for years how wonderful he was even as the facts went against them time and time again.
you stick to fawning over the butchers apron, doffing your bowler
the Missus bought me a butcher's apron for Xmas for round the kitchen. It's a patriotic saltire blue and white. :-)
Only relevant when you know what they are paying tax on. If you take Norway then they pay higher tax but have far higher salaries so are much better off and have higher standard of living than UK. So pointless only showing half the story, but very Tory approach.
Obviously you did not understand it. It shows the take-home %ages when paying the top tax rate and so can apply to any salary - (even your multi-million one - including bonuses)
Meanwhile .... while catching up of some bits and bobs of PB from yesterday that I missed .... Yes I know it's sad .... I came over this gem on the SNP currency fiasco from @SeanT that certainly is worth a repeat outing
"As of this moment, the SNP's official position on the currency seems to be:
1. Use the euro, the pound is a "millstone" around Scotland's neck as Alex Salmond has stated 2. Nah. Don't use the euro. Whoever said that? Terrible idea. Look at the eurogeddon disaster 3. Use the pound! It's ours. The English will agree to a sterling zone - our very own Fiscal Commission says they will 4. George Osborne says the English won't agree to a currency union? 5. Doesn't matter. We WILL use the pound in a sterling zone, because the amazing Fiscal Commission of independent experts appointed by us says this is best 6. Ed Balls also says the English won't agree? 7. Doesn't matter. The English will agree in the end because they're toffs, bullies and liars and will therefore want to help us even if makes no sense for them 8. Ed Miliband also says the English won't agree? 9. OK so the English won't agree. But we never wanted or needed their agreement anyway. Hahahah! All along our REAL plan has been to use... the pound! 10. That is to say we'll use it "informally", without permission. Or a central bank. Or a lender of last resort. Look how well Montenegro is doing 11 OK so the Fiscal Commission says this won't work either. But what the feck do they know, who appointed them, bunch of idiots 12. What, we appointed them??? 13. Return to a barter economy. 1 neep = 1 tatty."
Chortle ....
Interesting to see SeanT equating George Osborne, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband with "the English". I thought that you lot contended that they were "British" politicians?
It is worthwhile to remember that the National Council for Civil Liberties has somewhat more of a chequered history than its current supporters would like to admit. For many years, it was little more than a front for outright Sovietism. In 1943, when the Secretary of State, Herbert Morrison, decided to release Oswald Mosley from internment, the NCCL passed a severely condemnatory resolution as follows:
Whatever pretext may be advanced this step must create the most profound disquiet in the minds of all those who are fighting or working against Fascism, who know that Fascism's survival, either in this country or abroad, threatens all our civil liberties.
It is an organisation which in the past was affiliated to PIE, and supported internment. So much for liberty...
Meanwhile .... while catching up of some bits and bobs of PB from yesterday that I missed .... Yes I know it's sad .... I came over this gem on the SNP currency fiasco from @SeanT that certainly is worth a repeat outing
"As of this moment, the SNP's official position on the currency seems to be:
1. Use the euro, the pound is a "millstone" around Scotland's neck as Alex Salmond has stated 2. Nah. Don't use the euro. Whoever said that? Terrible idea. Look at the eurogeddon disaster 3. Use the pound! It's ours. The English will agree to a sterling zone - our very own Fiscal Commission says they will 4. George Osborne says the English won't agree to a currency union? 5. Doesn't matter. We WILL use the pound in a sterling zone, because the amazing Fiscal Commission of independent experts appointed by us says this is best 6. Ed Balls also says the English won't agree? 7. Doesn't matter. The English will agree in the end because they're toffs, bullies and liars and will therefore want to help us even if makes no sense for them 8. Ed Miliband also says the English won't agree? 9. OK so the English won't agree. But we never wanted or needed their agreement anyway. Hahahah! All along our REAL plan has been to use... the pound! 10. That is to say we'll use it "informally", without permission. Or a central bank. Or a lender of last resort. Look how well Montenegro is doing 11 OK so the Fiscal Commission says this won't work either. But what the feck do they know, who appointed them, bunch of idiots 12. What, we appointed them??? 13. Return to a barter economy. 1 neep = 1 tatty."
Chortle ....
Interesting to see SeanT equating George Osborne, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband with "the English". I thought that you lot contended that they were "British" politicians?
Just a freudian slip from a frothing BritNat making full use of that vaunted superior IQ he often brags about.
BBC Chief political correspondent now reporting Harriet Harman position as "crisis", waiting to see if Ed will support her.
Forgive me, but are you enjoying this??
What goes around comes around.
What do you mean by that exactly?
If I might hazard a guess: it means that after years of the saintly Harman criticizing others for being insufficiently PC, often dressed as a giraffe, some people are feeling no small amount of schadenfreude to see her squirming and whining pitifully now.
BBC Chief political correspondent now reporting Harriet Harman position as "crisis", waiting to see if Ed will support her.
Forgive me, but are you enjoying this??
What goes around comes around.
What do you mean by that exactly?
If I might hazard a guess: it means that after years of the saintly Harman criticizing others for being insufficiently PC, often dressed as a giraffe, some people are feeling no small amount of schadenfreude to see her squirming and whining pitifully now.
It's made my day, that's for sure.
Could not have happened to a nicer person, hoist by her own petard
Meanwhile .... while catching up of some bits and bobs of PB from yesterday that I missed .... Yes I know it's sad .... I came over this gem on the SNP currency fiasco from @SeanT that certainly is worth a repeat outing
"As of this moment, the SNP's official position on the currency seems to be:
1. Use the euro, the pound is a "millstone" around Scotland's neck as Alex Salmond has stated 2. Nah. Don't use the euro. Whoever said that? Terrible idea. Look at the eurogeddon disaster 3. Use the pound! It's ours. The English will agree to a sterling zone - our very own Fiscal Commission says they will 4. George Osborne says the English won't agree to a currency union? 5. Doesn't matter. We WILL use the pound in a sterling zone, because the amazing Fiscal Commission of independent experts appointed by us says this is best 6. Ed Balls also says the English won't agree? 7. Doesn't matter. The English will agree in the end because they're toffs, bullies and liars and will therefore want to help us even if makes no sense for them 8. Ed Miliband also says the English won't agree? 9. OK so the English won't agree. But we never wanted or needed their agreement anyway. Hahahah! All along our REAL plan has been to use... the pound! 10. That is to say we'll use it "informally", without permission. Or a central bank. Or a lender of last resort. Look how well Montenegro is doing 11 OK so the Fiscal Commission says this won't work either. But what the feck do they know, who appointed them, bunch of idiots 12. What, we appointed them??? 13. Return to a barter economy. 1 neep = 1 tatty."
Chortle ....
Interesting to see SeanT equating George Osborne, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband with "the English". I thought that you lot contended that they were "British" politicians?
Just a freudian slip from a frothing BritNat making full use of that vaunted superior IQ he often brags about.
I'm afraid the extensive alcohol and illegal drug consumption and STDs may have taken their toll on his vaunted superior IQ.
Meanwhile .... while catching up of some bits and bobs of PB from yesterday that I missed .... Yes I know it's sad .... I came over this gem on the SNP currency fiasco from @SeanT that certainly is worth a repeat outing
"As of this moment, the SNP's official position on the currency seems to be:
1. Use the euro, the pound is a "millstone" around Scotland's neck as Alex Salmond has stated 2. Nah. Don't use the euro. Whoever said that? Terrible idea. Look at the eurogeddon disaster 3. Use the pound! It's ours. The English will agree to a sterling zone - our very own Fiscal Commission says they will 4. George Osborne says the English won't agree to a currency union? 5. Doesn't matter. We WILL use the pound in a sterling zone, because the amazing Fiscal Commission of independent experts appointed by us says this is best 6. Ed Balls also says the English won't agree? 7. Doesn't matter. The English will agree in the end because they're toffs, bullies and liars and will therefore want to help us even if makes no sense for them 8. Ed Miliband also says the English won't agree? 9. OK so the English won't agree. But we never wanted or needed their agreement anyway. Hahahah! All along our REAL plan has been to use... the pound! 10. That is to say we'll use it "informally", without permission. Or a central bank. Or a lender of last resort. Look how well Montenegro is doing 11 OK so the Fiscal Commission says this won't work either. But what the feck do they know, who appointed them, bunch of idiots 12. What, we appointed them??? 13. Return to a barter economy. 1 neep = 1 tatty."
Chortle ....
Interesting to see SeanT equating George Osborne, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband with "the English". I thought that you lot contended that they were "British" politicians?
They are English politicians and British too .... just like Salmond is a Scottish politician and British too !!
"Innocent Face"
Go on admit it. The currency issue hasn't been an unalloyed success for YES has it ?
Go on .... go on .... you can if you try hard enough ....
Only relevant when you know what they are paying tax on. If you take Norway then they pay higher tax but have far higher salaries so are much better off and have higher standard of living than UK. So pointless only showing half the story, but very Tory approach.
The study is based on a standard $400,000 per annum* salary, to enable comparisons.
When coupled with low corporate tax rates, the UK is a very attractive proposal for those generating taxable income. Excellent news for inward investment.
(*Not that an independent Scotland would have many with an income of $400,000 (well, apart from the handful on the political crony circuit...)
Meanwhile .... while catching up of some bits and bobs of PB from yesterday that I missed .... Yes I know it's sad .... I came over this gem on the SNP currency fiasco from @SeanT that certainly is worth a repeat outing
"As of this moment, the SNP's official position on the currency seems to be:
1. Use the euro, the pound is a "millstone" around Scotland's neck as Alex Salmond has stated 2. Nah. Don't use the euro. Whoever said that? Terrible idea. Look at the eurogeddon disaster 3. Use the pound! It's ours. The English will agree to a sterling zone - our very own Fiscal Commission says they will 4. George Osborne says the English won't agree to a currency union? 5. Doesn't matter. We WILL use the pound in a sterling zone, because the amazing Fiscal Commission of independent experts appointed by us says this is best 6. Ed Balls also says the English won't agree? 7. Doesn't matter. The English will agree in the end because they're toffs, bullies and liars and will therefore want to help us even if makes no sense for them 8. Ed Miliband also says the English won't agree? 9. OK so the English won't agree. But we never wanted or needed their agreement anyway. Hahahah! All along our REAL plan has been to use... the pound! 10. That is to say we'll use it "informally", without permission. Or a central bank. Or a lender of last resort. Look how well Montenegro is doing 11 OK so the Fiscal Commission says this won't work either. But what the feck do they know, who appointed them, bunch of idiots 12. What, we appointed them??? 13. Return to a barter economy. 1 neep = 1 tatty."
Chortle ....
Interesting to see SeanT equating George Osborne, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband with "the English". I thought that you lot contended that they were "British" politicians?
They are English politicians and British too .... just like Salmond is a Scottish politician and British too !!
"Innocent Face"
Go on admit it. The currency issue hasn't been an unalloyed success for YES has it ?
Go on .... go on .... you can if you try hard enough ....
The currency issue has been an unalloyed success for the Better Together team. So, lots more George Osborne on Scottish TV screens please. And on the radio. And the papers. Lots, lots, lots more George Osborne please. He is a terrific chap. We love him.
There was a period when paedophile groups pretending to be gay rights groups were protected by the "right on" of the time. This lead to lots of bad stuff. I'm glad that period is getting a bit of an airing in public.
Despite all the woes of eg. Greece and Argentina before that and the others, no one ever suggested they be abolished as countries.
Well, except of course that there used to be independent kingdoms of Saxony, Bavaria, Westphalia, Baden, etc, that were part of different larger groupings in succession - the Holy Roman Empire, the Confederation of the Rhine, etc - before coming to rest as parts of modern Germany.
Prussia, interestingly, drove the unification, yet between 1945 and 1990 was itself excluded from it. Geographically, old Prussia was more or less East Germany (more or less).
Likewise Poland, which was a country for a long time until dismembered between Prussia, Russia, and Austria, very nearly became a country again under Napoleon, as the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, but didn't get reconstituted properly until much later.
There are thus plenty of instances of countries being "abolished" in the sense that they merged with, demerged from and remerged with other countries, and not always the same ones in successive cases, either. But mostly they were viable independently to begin with; Germany the political construct didn't come about because they were skint.
What is rare is for a region that is an economic basket case to separate itself from the money and then somehow prosper in consequence. Basket cases, rationally enough, are more likely to want to merge with a wealthy neighbour, eg Scotland in 1707; East Germany in 1990.
To see Scotland wanting to secede in 2014 (inshallah) is a bit like finding there is a faction in north-east Germany today that wants to secede from the BRD and recreate the ancestral utopia of the DDR.
If UKIP want a really popular policy that nobody else is likely to mimic, they could do worse than offer the English a referendum on Scottish independence.
Here comes the predictable from useful idiot Owen Jones
At change.org there is a petition urging the Daily Mail and Mail Online to stop sexualising children. It has been launched by the Independent journalist Owen Jones and so far it has received just over 2,000 signatures.
Despite all the woes of eg. Greece and Argentina before that and the others, no one ever suggested they be abolished as countries.
What is rare is for a region that is an economic basket case to separate itself from the money and then somehow prosper in consequence. Basket cases, rationally enough, are more likely to want to merge with a wealthy neighbour, eg Scotland in 1707; East Germany in 1990.
To see Scotland wanting to secede in 2014 (inshallah) is a bit like finding there is a faction in north-east Germany today that wants to secede from the BRD and recreate the ancestral utopia of the DDR.
If UKIP want a really popular policy that nobody else is likely to mimic, they could do worse than offer the English a referendum on Scottish independence.
So, now Scotland is a "basketcase"? You haven't read the BT script, have you?
On the PIE/NCCL story, I'd say that this phase of the story now depends on whether Patricia Hewitt comments and if so what she says.
For those complaining about the BBC's coverage of this story, they were never going to report a potentially highly libellous statement by itself, but can do so the moment they get a rebuttal. This is normal practice and very sensible.
Self appointed morality for all - and by the cartload.
Making some kind of apology would have required the NCCL three to stop preaching from their self-erected pulpits, something they would never have countenanced. Their reaction is exactly what the Mail was counting on.
Meanwhile .... while catching up of some bits and bobs of PB from yesterday that I missed .... Yes I know it's sad .... I came over this gem on the SNP currency fiasco from @SeanT that certainly is worth a repeat outing
"As of this moment, the SNP's official position on the currency seems to be:
1. Use the euro, the pound is a "millstone" around Scotland's neck as Alex Salmond has stated 2. Nah. Don't use the euro. Whoever said that? Terrible idea. Look at the eurogeddon disaster 3. Use the pound! It's ours. The English will agree to a sterling zone - our very own Fiscal Commission says they will 4. George Osborne says the English won't agree to a currency union? 5. Doesn't matter. We WILL use the pound in a sterling zone, because the amazing Fiscal Commission of independent experts appointed by us says this is best 6. Ed Balls also says the English won't agree? 7. Doesn't matter. The English will agree in the end because they're toffs, bullies and liars and will therefore want to help us even if makes no sense for them 8. Ed Miliband also says the English won't agree? 9. OK so the English won't agree. But we never wanted or needed their agreement anyway. Hahahah! All along our REAL plan has been to use... the pound! 10. That is to say we'll use it "informally", without permission. Or a central bank. Or a lender of last resort. Look how well Montenegro is doing 11 OK so the Fiscal Commission says this won't work either. But what the feck do they know, who appointed them, bunch of idiots 12. What, we appointed them??? 13. Return to a barter economy. 1 neep = 1 tatty."
Chortle ....
Interesting to see SeanT equating George Osborne, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband with "the English". I thought that you lot contended that they were "British" politicians?
They are English politicians and British too .... just like Salmond is a Scottish politician and British too !!
"Innocent Face"
Go on admit it. The currency issue hasn't been an unalloyed success for YES has it ?
Go on .... go on .... you can if you try hard enough ....
The currency issue has been an unalloyed success for the Better Together team. So, lots more George Osborne on Scottish TV screens please. And on the radio. And the papers. Lots, lots, lots more George Osborne please. He is a terrific chap. We love him.
Irony .... I just love it ....
Blackadder: - "Baldrick, have you no idea what "irony" is?"
Baldrick: - "Yes, it's like "goldy" and "bronzy" only it's made out of iron"
It is worthwhile to remember that the National Council for Civil Liberties has somewhat more of a chequered history than its current supporters would like to admit. For many years, it was little more than a front for outright Sovietism. In 1943, when the Secretary of State, Herbert Morrison, decided to release Oswald Mosley from internment, the NCCL passed a severely condemnatory resolution as follows:
Whatever pretext may be advanced this step must create the most profound disquiet in the minds of all those who are fighting or working against Fascism, who know that Fascism's survival, either in this country or abroad, threatens all our civil liberties.
It is an organisation which in the past was affiliated to PIE, and supported internment. So much for liberty...
I think Orwell condemned them for being a Communist-front organisation, at the time.
For anyone struggling to sign in, if you click on a posters name you are taken to as renew where there is an option to sign in at thetopright hand corner... Then you can sign in ok
Good lord - are you from Mars - 'hypocritia' is Harman's middle name - remember she sent her son to a selective grammar school in Orpington when living in Peckham claiming she wanted all comps to be like grammar schools! This has been a long time coming.
Comments
You said, "The main purpose of politics is to provide improved government, not to do anything in particular to one or more minor parties.".
Nick, that may be the principle, but rarely seen in practice. It has been my experience that most politicians (local and national) fight to gain power and will do almost anything to keep that power (and lifestyle that may ensue)..
You cannot claim that the Blair/Brown battle was all about improved government, it was about Brown wanting the top job and he would do almost anything to gain it and keep it. He became so paranoid that his first and last thought was not the electorate but how he could lay traps for the next government if he did not head it.
Which country has the highest tax rate?
Well worth a read - the calcs done by PWC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26327114
PIE are being investigated under Operation Fernbridge, something instigated by Tom Watson. Of course the Mail are loving digging this up, even if it blows over Harman will have lost credibility on many issues, but it has come about because of a current investigation.
http://t.co/0hI55F7Nn4
Sir Winston must be turning in his grave.
The reason out system has evolved to what it is today is the recognition that no one philosophy has all the answers to the country's problems, and to enforce the need for bargaining, compromise and reconsideration.
The SNP Taleban remind me of those Conservatives on general election night 1997 who continued to insist canvass returns didn't bare out the exit polls or early returns. Angela Rumbold's supporters especially spring to mind .... and then at the count she had the countenance of a candidate who'd been munching on lemons all day !!
In fairness we did have Hesseltine doing his tongue in cheek forecast of an increased majority for John Major for which Tarzan deserved an Oscar.
We'll see the same on 19th September from Nicola Sturgeon et al urging us to wait until returns from the Western Isles and more forecasts from Eck's runes before we finally knock the last nail in the SNP independence coffin.
If you are going to talk about past history, then the situation only arose twice that I can recall post-1066 and in both cases it was a question of a king from Scotland to England - Jamie the Saxt in 1603 and Charles Edward in 1745 (and whether he was by then Scots is an interesting question). The second was a definite no thanks and the first was to save the English + Welsh from themselves (I assume - baronial civil war and invasion). There was of course Henry VIII's attempt to marry off Prince Edward to the infant Queen Marie Stuart, but as his idea of diplomacy consisted of declaring war and destroying most of south-eastern Scotland, with many of the abbeys, it did not go down very well with the locals. (King John Baliol does not count as he was a Scot, albeit a puppet of Edward Longshanks who then tried to claim suzerainty over him.)
As a backbencher I wasn't much exposed to it, and because I have a hinterland outside politics I'm not much bothered anyway: if I lose, no big deal, I'll go and do something else. But you're always one careless remark away from a public lynching.
Actual confrontation of policies becomes secondary and anything that takes more than a paragraph gets sidelined. Take Universal Credit. Like it or hate it, it's a big change. Yet 90% of the media coverage has been on "Is IDS incompetent?" and "Will the computer system be a disaster?" It's complicated, and in British politics we don't discuss anything complicated. Much simpler to have a go at someone.
You want they should have a token idiot? If we are making digs about lack of diversity, then you might want to look closer to home at the middle-aged, white, male-dominated LibDem Parliamentary Party....
I wonder what has made them come to that descision?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26317571
It's not only UKIP that says that Cammo's referendum on the EU in 20 somthing is a load of bo**ocks:
Chris Bryant
@ChrisBryantMP
It's intriguing how No 10 pre-briefing of Merkel visit has changed. I suspect he won't get UK-specific renegotiation. Nowhere to hide.
The major difference with 2010 is that Cameron is the incumbent PM. If he still has a lead in votes in 2015, he will be gambling that Labour and Lib Dems would not want to risk going against the wishes of the voters by immediately voting him down. In terms of legitimacy it would essentially be a re-run of the arguments over AV.
In 2010 Brown was the incumbent PM, and so Cameron felt obliged to make a Coalition deal to force him out of No. 10.
In that case, the anti-Scotland movement is a Tory-only enterprise.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26332252
Sadly, he's been promoted, meaning we won't hear any more comedy radio messages to Massa.
It's also worthy of note that you effectively label the NO campaign as "anti-Scotland" which would of course mean, according to all polls, that the majority of Scots are hostile to themselves.
Do you have a plan B for your last post ??
(Just to add - I don't expect UKIP to get as many seats as that, but I can see that the voters might well think that)
It is entirely justified to be cynical about politicians, but there is a limit to everything.
how's the BTC thing working out for you?
bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26333661
edit: *innocent face*
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/gox-screen.jpg
???????
Like Jack W and others, I'm sceptical of this story. It is not exactly unknown for the Telegraph, like the Guardian and Mail, to make things up or exaggerate an anonymous 'briefing' (i.e. uninformed speculation during a boozy lunch) into something much bigger than it really is.
Still, I think there is truth in the proposition that putting together any coalition post-2015 is going to be a tough task, whatever the arithmetic. As I've said repeatedly, there is a substantial risk that it will not be possible to form a stable government after the election. Slowly, the financial markets do seem to be waking up to part of this political risk. Mostly, though, this has so far been in the context of reacting to Miliband's anti-business, anti-prosperity policy platform:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/telegraph-view/10629844/Political-risk-and-other-negative-factors-in-the-CBIs-stocktake.html
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/go/news/article/1230690/political-risk-investment-mood-killer/
http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/2013/11/14/comment/chris-dillow/the-return-of-political-risk-cCmodguBLoQYILJDShKUGI/article.html
The risk that things could be even worse, with a government completely in thrall to vested interests and dependent of pork-barrelling to get anything agreed, and likely to collapse in chaos at any moment, is not yet in the price. I expect we have a few more months before the markets wake up to it.
And especially never say never in a manifesto. You'd think that's one lesson the Conservatives could learn from the Lib Dems.
"As of this moment, the SNP's official position on the currency seems to be:
1. Use the euro, the pound is a "millstone" around Scotland's neck as Alex Salmond has stated
2. Nah. Don't use the euro. Whoever said that? Terrible idea. Look at the eurogeddon disaster
3. Use the pound! It's ours. The English will agree to a sterling zone - our very own Fiscal Commission says they will
4. George Osborne says the English won't agree to a currency union?
5. Doesn't matter. We WILL use the pound in a sterling zone, because the amazing Fiscal Commission of independent experts appointed by us says this is best
6. Ed Balls also says the English won't agree?
7. Doesn't matter. The English will agree in the end because they're toffs, bullies and liars and will therefore want to help us even if makes no sense for them
8. Ed Miliband also says the English won't agree?
9. OK so the English won't agree. But we never wanted or needed their agreement anyway. Hahahah! All along our REAL plan has been to use... the pound!
10. That is to say we'll use it "informally", without permission. Or a central bank. Or a lender of last resort. Look how well Montenegro is doing
11 OK so the Fiscal Commission says this won't work either. But what the feck do they know, who appointed them, bunch of idiots
12. What, we appointed them???
13. Return to a barter economy. 1 neep = 1 tatty."
Chortle ....
Fortunately, my personal bitcoins are safe. And the BTCUSD exchange rate is c. $500.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
http://www.wealthynation.org/the-pound-without-permission-part-five/
Not difficult is it?
It's made my day, that's for sure.
Why?
@Nigel
What exactly has she "dished out"?
Your posts can be quite chilling at times.
"Innocent Face"
Go on admit it. The currency issue hasn't been an unalloyed success for YES has it ?
Go on .... go on .... you can if you try hard enough ....
When coupled with low corporate tax rates, the UK is a very attractive proposal for those generating taxable income. Excellent news for inward investment.
(*Not that an independent Scotland would have many with an income of $400,000 (well, apart from the handful on the political crony circuit...)
Prussia, interestingly, drove the unification, yet between 1945 and 1990 was itself excluded from it. Geographically, old Prussia was more or less East Germany (more or less).
Likewise Poland, which was a country for a long time until dismembered between Prussia, Russia, and Austria, very nearly became a country again under Napoleon, as the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, but didn't get reconstituted properly until much later.
There are thus plenty of instances of countries being "abolished" in the sense that they merged with, demerged from and remerged with other countries, and not always the same ones in successive cases, either. But mostly they were viable independently to begin with; Germany the political construct didn't come about because they were skint.
What is rare is for a region that is an economic basket case to separate itself from the money and then somehow prosper in consequence. Basket cases, rationally enough, are more likely to want to merge with a wealthy neighbour, eg Scotland in 1707; East Germany in 1990.
To see Scotland wanting to secede in 2014 (inshallah) is a bit like finding there is a faction in north-east Germany today that wants to secede from the BRD and recreate the ancestral utopia of the DDR.
If UKIP want a really popular policy that nobody else is likely to mimic, they could do worse than offer the English a referendum on Scottish independence.
Currently I have some money with bitcoin-central.net
At change.org there is a petition urging the Daily Mail and Mail Online to stop sexualising children. It has been launched by the Independent journalist Owen Jones and so far it has received just over 2,000 signatures.
Much more sensible and level headed take on things...
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2014/02/25/harman-the-nccl-what-has-the-bbc-really-learnt
For those complaining about the BBC's coverage of this story, they were never going to report a potentially highly libellous statement by itself, but can do so the moment they get a rebuttal. This is normal practice and very sensible.
So in summary you believe BTC are vastly overvalued at these levels?
Self appointed morality for all - and by the cartload.
Making some kind of apology would have required the NCCL three to stop preaching from their self-erected pulpits, something they would never have countenanced. Their reaction is exactly what the Mail was counting on.
Blackadder: - "Baldrick, have you no idea what "irony" is?"
Baldrick: - "Yes, it's like "goldy" and "bronzy" only it's made out of iron"
I think Orwell condemned them for being a Communist-front organisation, at the time.
Boris on tv tonight
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-02-24/boris-dont-include-farage-in-political-tv-debates/