We should know by now that Cameron is not a Eurosceptic.
He knows that Europe is the one issue which can fracture the Conservative coalition just as it (along with nuclear disarmament) did Labour from 1975 to 1981.
He has spent his entire leadership trying to play both ends against the middle on this one. He knows that nothing short of withdrawal will satisfy a significant minority but equally there are those both within the party and among its donor base who are pro-EU. His current policy is maintaining that posture by trying to keep everyone in the tent.
I don't think Mr Cameron is trying to keep everyone in the tent.
I think he's seen his role as the leader of faction within the Conservative Party, rather than as the leader of the entire Conservative Party.
The logic of Cameroon-modernisation appears to have been factional. To drive out the voters the Cameroons disliked, and welcome in the Guardianista voters they do like.
The numbers did not add up, so the Cameroons are now trying to convince the voters they rejected, that Mr Miliband is somehow a worse option than Mr Cameron.
The Cameroon's policies however are all pitched at the Guardian readers.
I think you are being slight paranoid. No politician wants to drive away votes, although they may be prepare to sacrifice them to gain more on the other side.
The modernisers calculation was that they could gain more by the Tories being seen as inclusive and more to the centre (although not necessarily targetting Guardian readers) than they would following a Hague style campaign that emphasises a number of traditional Tory heartland topics.
Additionally, they have been trying to address some key areas of weakness among urban dwellers and ethnic minorities.
I think they didn't expect the rapid growth of UKIP, which has upset their calculations, but whether they are going to be successful or not overall will be interesting to watch. The fact remeains, though, that Cameron increase the number of Tory seats by one of the largest numbers in any single general election. He may not have won and overall majority, but he did sufficient to ensure we have a Tory-led coalition rather than 5 more years of Brown or his acolytes in #10
Could one effect of the Ed M announcement of "no referendum unless powers go.." be on UKIP activists and UKIP donors? It reinforces the doubts in some of their minds that what they are doing with UKIP will actually bring about a referendum rather than pushing it into the remote future. Eurosceptic Conservatives will be less friendly towards UKIP and defections may even start to reverse. It is not just about the voters, it is also about the key supporters.
We should know by now that Cameron is not a Eurosceptic.
Very few people in UKIP or the Conservatives would disagree, whereas some in Lab and the LDs would. But that is not the issue now. The issue is how UKIP will be affected by the clarification by EdM. To date the debate after the Ed statement is about the voters, not about the workers and cash.
I believe UKIP has made an explicit pitch in the past for anti-EU voters to 'lend' UKIP their votes for the EU Parliament elections, and then return to their preferred party option for Westminster elections.
For donors I believe they offered to keep separate accounts, one purely for EU election spending, so that they could be sure their money would not be used in a general election campaign.
'Independence referendum: Support for Yes vote at highest level this year'
Stuart, you always find something positive to say about every new opinion poll on Scottish Independence, and yet YES is still trailing by 9%.
Despite the fact that I could be living in Scotland before the end of the year I fail to get interested by such a glacial* rate of progress.
* Note that glacier's have sped up considerably in recent years due to global warming, but they're still slow!
If support for a No vote was at its highest level this year then we would never hear the end of it here at PB. Yet the same story for Yes creates a wall of silence. The Brit nats just can't figure it out.
My advice? Send Osborne back to the frontline. He is a sterling chap and is bound to come out victorious over the rebellious jocks.
Why bother? It's not as if they even understand the significance of differential turnout so leave them to their ignorance and the spectacle of some senile old codger fetishising the involuntary outpourings from his own arse.
'Independence referendum: Support for Yes vote at highest level this year'
Stuart, you always find something positive to say about every new opinion poll on Scottish Independence, and yet YES is still trailing by 9%.
Despite the fact that I could be living in Scotland before the end of the year I fail to get interested by such a glacial* rate of progress.
* Note that glacier's have sped up considerably in recent years due to global warming, but they're still slow!
If support for a No vote was at its highest level this year then we would never hear the end of it here at PB. Yet the same story for Yes creates a wall of silence. The Brit nats just can't figure it out.
My advice? Send Osborne back to the frontline. He is a sterling chap and is bound to come out victorious over the rebellious jocks.
Osborne is heir apparent to an Irish baronetcy, in the County of Waterford. You would have thought he might have learnt a bit from the family history, but, alas, it appears not.
We should know by now that Cameron is not a Eurosceptic.
He knows that Europe is the one issue which can fracture the Conservative coalition just as it (along with nuclear disarmament) did Labour from 1975 to 1981.
He has spent his entire leadership trying to play both ends against the middle on this one. He knows that nothing short of withdrawal will satisfy a significant minority but equally there are those both within the party and among its donor base who are pro-EU. His current policy is maintaining that posture by trying to keep everyone in the tent.
I don't think Mr Cameron is trying to keep everyone in the tent.
I think he's seen his role as the leader of faction within the Conservative Party, rather than as the leader of the entire Conservative Party.
The reluctance of the fop chicken Cameron to draw red lines or simply admit to the voters that he would obviously be pushing and campaigning hard to stay IN (in the event of any theoretical referendum) is pure internal tory party politicking. We all know he wants Eurosceptics and BOOers to just shut up and leave him alone and that absolutely would not change if he won in 2015. What has been changing is the proportion of BOOers in the tory party and where once it was a scant few it's now a significant and growing number. Enough to force things to a head this parliament? No. But it's vanishingly unlikely that all the posturing on the EU and a higher kipper VI will result in anything other than an even more Eurosceptic tory party in 2015. So if Cammie did win then just how likely is it that he would force things to a head which would then result in tory infighting that would make ALL that has gone before, even under John Major, look like very trivial stuff indeed?
Not likely at all. If he can avoid a IN/OUT referendum he will and instead push the 'mandate referendum' some tories were favouring. He'd do that while claiming he needs more time to get the imaginary 'concessions' and repatriation of powers there has been no sign whatsoever of him getting so far. His number one priority is not and never has been the EU. It's trying to govern and stay in government. Those who believe all the Cast Iron EU posturing are frankly morons who are incapable of learning from their many past errors.
OK, it's been several hours now and has become obvious that none of the Unionists are interested in discussing it
Because it's crushingly trivial.
Ho ho. We'll see how "trivial" you think it is when rYookay loses her nuclear "deterrent" (sic), loses her place on the UN Security Council and loses most of "her" (sic) oil and gas fields.
Off topic..... I've got a few mates in the Army. One's a Captain who is off to Afghanistan for 6 weeks at the weekend, doing some engineering stuff. He's royally peed off, as he's been told there'll be little fresh food, as due to the sheer number of MREs in Afghan, he'll have to live mostly off them! He said there's enough rations to last 3 years stockpiled, and the Army want 'em gone!
We should know by now that Cameron is not a Eurosceptic.
He knows that Europe is the one issue which can fracture the Conservative coalition just as it (along with nuclear disarmament) did Labour from 1975 to 1981.
He has spent his entire leadership trying to play both ends against the middle on this one. He knows that nothing short of withdrawal will satisfy a significant minority but equally there are those both within the party and among its donor base who are pro-EU. His current policy is maintaining that posture by trying to keep everyone in the tent.
I don't think Mr Cameron is trying to keep everyone in the tent.
Indeed. The only people Mr Cameron needs to "keep in his tent" are Johan Lamont, Anas Sarwar, Wee Dougie Alexander, Skeletor, George Galloway, Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, the Orange Order, Rooth "Where's Yer ID?" Davidson, Brian Monteith, and ... oh yeah... Wee Willie Rennie.
I don't think Mr Cameron is trying to keep everyone in the tent.
I think he's seen his role as the leader of faction within the Conservative Party, rather than as the leader of the entire Conservative Party.
The logic of Cameroon-modernisation appears to have been factional. To drive out the voters the Cameroons disliked, and welcome in the Guardianista voters they do like.
The numbers did not add up, so the Cameroons are now trying to convince the voters they rejected, that Mr Miliband is somehow a worse option than Mr Cameron.
The Cameroon's policies however are all pitched at the Guardian readers.
In 2005, it didn't seem that way. Cameron was elected not just because he was Howard's protégé but because the Conservatives had realised that the Hague/IDS/Howard approach wasn't working - indeed, the first casualty of Cameron's leadership was Charles Kennedy - remember the "lovebombing" of the LDs ?
Cameron also knew that a Conservative Party, desperate for power after a decade in Opposition, would more or less agree with anything and everything if the end result was power (just as Labour agreed to sell its soul to Blair in 1994). Thus, Cameron took the inclusive Blair approach seeking to garner LD and moderate Labour voters safe in the knowledge his other flank was secure.
2010 was not the result he wanted or needed but the net effect was the same - Government. However, the reality of power and sharing power has not been what the Conservatives in Opposition may have expected.
I have just been watching the three episodes of the drama documentary 37 Days. It tells the diplomatic story leading up to the declaration of war in 1914. It is a fascinating account of the role played by key individuals such as Edward Grey, Kaiser Wilhelm, von Moltke, and the German and French ambassadors to London. What was particularly interesting were the debates in the British Cabinet - presumably based on cabinet minutes. If the programme is to be believed the quality of the debates was of the highest. This is not surprising given the membership - on checking the records we find Asquith, Haldane, Morley, Lloyd George, McKenna, Grey, Harcourt, Churchill, Masterman, Burns, Runciman, and Hobhouse. Was this the most talented Cabinet ever?
'Independence referendum: Support for Yes vote at highest level this year'
Stuart, you always find something positive to say about every new opinion poll on Scottish Independence, and yet YES is still trailing by 9%.
Despite the fact that I could be living in Scotland before the end of the year I fail to get interested by such a glacial* rate of progress.
* Note that glacier's have sped up considerably in recent years due to global warming, but they're still slow!
If support for a No vote was at its highest level this year then we would never hear the end of it here at PB. Yet the same story for Yes creates a wall of silence. The Brit nats just can't figure it out.
My advice? Send Osborne back to the frontline. He is a sterling chap and is bound to come out victorious over the rebellious jocks.
Why bother? It's not as if they even understand the significance of differential turnout so leave them to their ignorance and the spectacle of some senile old codger fetishising the involuntary outpourings from his own arse.
I fear I must rebuke you about calling out @Stuart_Dickson as an incontinent "senile old codger"
I'm sure the Swedish welfare state is more than capable of providing for all his sanitary requirements, even after the September 18th NO victory.
On the more substantive point of differential turnout it will not have escaped your acute porcine anal-ysis that female voters are substantially more inclined to NO and it is they who tend to vote in greater numbers.
Ministers in Westminster are debating devolving hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of aviation taxes to Edinburgh in next week's Budget in an attempt to wrongfoot Alex Salmond and undermine his case for Scottish independence.
Off topic..... I've got a few mates in the Army. One's a Captain who is off to Afghanistan for 6 weeks at the weekend, doing some engineering stuff. He's royally peed off, as he's been told there'll be little fresh food, as due to the sheer number of MREs in Afghan, he'll have to live mostly off them! He said there's enough rations to last 3 years stockpiled, and the Army want 'em gone!
I wish your Captain friend well.
However I'm minded to recall that compo sausages were surprisingly rather good. Perchance this may have been because much else was unsurprisingly rather bad.
Tis noted in some quarters of Auchentennach that certain local baked products remind county gastronoms of military days. I couldn't possibly comment.
Referendum Voting Intention – ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’
Yes – 32%
No – 52%
Undecided – 16%
“No” has lead of 20 points
Now, imagine you knew the Conservative Party was expected to win a majority at the next UK General Election in 2015 and form the next UK government, would this affect how you would vote, or not, in the Scottish independence referendum this year?
[these %s show how people would then vote in the referendum]
NET: Yes – 35%
NET: No – 49%
NET: Undecided – 16%
“No” lead down to 14 points
Now, imagine you knew the Conservative Party was expected to win a majority at the next UK General Election in 2015 and be in power in the UK for the next 15 years. Would this affect how you would vote, or not, in the Scottish independence referendum this year?
NET: Yes – 38%
NET: No – 47%
NET: Undecided – 16%
“No” lead down to 9 points – less than half of what it was in the original question
Off topic..... I've got a few mates in the Army. One's a Captain who is off to Afghanistan for 6 weeks at the weekend, doing some engineering stuff. He's royally peed off, as he's been told there'll be little fresh food, as due to the sheer number of MREs in Afghan, he'll have to live mostly off them! He said there's enough rations to last 3 years stockpiled, and the Army want 'em gone!
Bring them back and give them to the foodbanks. Or give one to each family in the UK, to show them the sort of food we give our troops to eat. Even better, make the HoC restaurants serve them!
'If support for a No vote was at its highest level this year then we would never hear the end of it here at PB. Yet the same story for Yes creates a wall of silence.'
Unless Salmond comes up with some serious answers to the currency,EU & jobs issues it's over for 'Yes',& you of course realize that,what else is there to say?
'If support for a No vote was at its highest level this year then we would never hear the end of it here at PB. Yet the same story for Yes creates a wall of silence.'
Unless Salmond comes up with some serious answers to the currency,EU & jobs issues it's over for 'Yes',& you of course realize that,what else is there to say?
Oh dear. Lesson number one in politics is: never swallow your own propaganda. Lesson number two is: learn about GOTV and then put into practice what you've learnt.
Number one is dead easy (although you failed it magnificently).
Number two is dead hard. And it takes decades to master. And the Unionists only have six months left. And they haven't knocked nearly enough doors.
'If support for a No vote was at its highest level this year then we would never hear the end of it here at PB. Yet the same story for Yes creates a wall of silence.'
Unless Salmond comes up with some serious answers to the currency,EU & jobs issues it's over for 'Yes',& you of course realize that,what else is there to say?
Oh dear. Lesson number one in politics is: never swallow your own propaganda. Lesson number two is: learn about GOTV and then put into practice what you've learnt.
Number one is dead easy (although you failed it magnificently).
Number two is dead hard. And it takes decades to master. And the Unionists only have six months left. And they haven't knocked nearly enough doors.
Who to believe - 'Wings over Watford', or 'Wings over Stockholm'?
Off topic..... I've got a few mates in the Army. One's a Captain who is off to Afghanistan for 6 weeks at the weekend, doing some engineering stuff. He's royally peed off, as he's been told there'll be little fresh food, as due to the sheer number of MREs in Afghan, he'll have to live mostly off them! He said there's enough rations to last 3 years stockpiled, and the Army want 'em gone!
We used to buy boxes of army rations as they got near their expiry date at give away prices. Somewhat bizarrely in those days (the 70s) none of the tins had labels on them which made tea more exciting!
I have just been watching the three episodes of the drama documentary 37 Days. It tells the diplomatic story leading up to the declaration of war in 1914. It is a fascinating account of the role played by key individuals such as Edward Grey, Kaiser Wilhelm, von Moltke, and the German and French ambassadors to London. What was particularly interesting were the debates in the British Cabinet - presumably based on cabinet minutes. If the programme is to be believed the quality of the debates was of the highest. This is not surprising given the membership - on checking the records we find Asquith, Haldane, Morley, Lloyd George, McKenna, Grey, Harcourt, Churchill, Masterman, Burns, Runciman, and Hobhouse. Was this the most talented Cabinet ever?
It sounds terrific. But the outcome wasn't very good, was it? Arguably not their fault (hard to second-guess a century later), but perhaps the ratio of great speakers:good long-term thinkers was too high.
I thought England were finally going to win a game but apparently not.
Is a player related to a green semi-precious stone slated to play ?
I fear so. He may well concede the winning runs.
Hater.
Yep. Very few people I don't know really wind me up. Gordon Brown of course. And Jade Dernbach. Should never play for England again. Ever. It is that simple.
I have just been watching the three episodes of the drama documentary 37 Days. It tells the diplomatic story leading up to the declaration of war in 1914. It is a fascinating account of the role played by key individuals such as Edward Grey, Kaiser Wilhelm, von Moltke, and the German and French ambassadors to London. What was particularly interesting were the debates in the British Cabinet - presumably based on cabinet minutes. If the programme is to be believed the quality of the debates was of the highest. This is not surprising given the membership - on checking the records we find Asquith, Haldane, Morley, Lloyd George, McKenna, Grey, Harcourt, Churchill, Masterman, Burns, Runciman, and Hobhouse. Was this the most talented Cabinet ever?
It sounds terrific. But the outcome wasn't very good, was it? Arguably not their fault (hard to second-guess a century later), but perhaps the ratio of great speakers:good long-term thinkers was too high.
I have read several books in recent times which have suggested Grey was a serious candidate for worst Foreign Secretary ever. And for the UK that is quite a claim. Not keeping the Cabinet informed. Manouvering without authority. Giving false impressions to the Germans. Confusing the French (ok, not all bad). Falling into the evils of tokenism and not realising the military implications of what he was messing about with. A genuine candidate.
Off topic..... I've got a few mates in the Army. One's a Captain who is off to Afghanistan for 6 weeks at the weekend, doing some engineering stuff. He's royally peed off, as he's been told there'll be little fresh food, as due to the sheer number of MREs in Afghan, he'll have to live mostly off them! He said there's enough rations to last 3 years stockpiled, and the Army want 'em gone!
Bring them back and give them to the foodbanks. Or give one to each family in the UK, to show them the sort of food we give our troops to eat. Even better, make the HoC restaurants serve them!
I've eaten plenty of MREs.... British, German, Dutch, American, Slovenian, Italian, Australian. The worst thing in the world was British Sticky Toffee Pudding. It's like breeze block coated in molten sugar! I once did a 4 day rescue exercise that was designed to see how we coped with no sleep, and little food. I had bad luck and drew a ration pack that had Irish stew boil in the bag. It usually tastes like cat food, but tasted like gourmet after 2 days!
If there was to be a 1000 year reich of Cameron and the Tories ruling with an iron fist from the evil castle of Westminster how would you vote in an Indy Ref ?
I saw this - below, and just had to let everyone see too.
iacapa • 8 minutes ago The Muslims are not happy! They're not happy in Gaza. They're not happy in Egypt.They're not happy in Libya. They're not happy in Morocco. They're not happy in Iran.They're not happy in Iraq.They're not happy in Yemen.They're not happy in Afghanistan.They're not happy in Pakistan. They're not happy in Syria.They're not happy in Lebanon. So, where are they happy? They're happy in Australia.They're happy in England.They're happy in France.They're happy in Italy.They're happy in Germany.They're happy in Sweden.They're happy in Norway. They're happy in the USA.They're happy in every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam. Not their leadership. Not themselves. THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEM TO BE LIKE THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM, WHERE THEY WERE SO UNHAPPY.
I saw this - below, and just had to let everyone see too.
iacapa • 8 minutes ago The Muslims are not happy! They're not happy in Gaza. They're not happy in Egypt.They're not happy in Libya. They're not happy in Morocco. They're not happy in Iran.They're not happy in Iraq.They're not happy in Yemen.They're not happy in Afghanistan.They're not happy in Pakistan. They're not happy in Syria.They're not happy in Lebanon. So, where are they happy? They're happy in Australia.They're happy in England.They're happy in France.They're happy in Italy.They're happy in Germany.They're happy in Sweden.They're happy in Norway. They're happy in the USA.They're happy in every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam. Not their leadership. Not themselves. THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEM TO BE LIKE THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM, WHERE THEY WERE SO UNHAPPY.
Why? So we could roll our eyes at what utter bollocks it is?
A quarter of workers will pay three-quarters of all income tax this year, as the government rules out easing the burden on high earners.
Official figures show that in 2013-14 the 25 per cent highest earners will pay 75 per cent of the total £167billion of income tax, and the bottom half will pay less than 10 per cent.
The flagship Lib Dem tax policy has been to increase the amount workers can earn before paying income tax at all, and will reach £10,000 in April this year.
But to help pay for it, Mr Osborne has frozen or lowered the point at which workers start paying the 40p rate.
It means 4.4million people now pay the 40p rate, up from just 3.02million when the coalition was formed in 2010 and only 1.35million in 1988.
According to HM Revenue and Customs, the top 10 per cent - who earn around £25-an-hour - will pay 58.7 per cent of all income tax this year. The top 1 per cent will pay 28.3 per cent, or £47billion.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the wealthy were paying more in tax now than under the last Labour government.
Comments
The modernisers calculation was that they could gain more by the Tories being seen as inclusive and more to the centre (although not necessarily targetting Guardian readers) than they would following a Hague style campaign that emphasises a number of traditional Tory heartland topics.
Additionally, they have been trying to address some key areas of weakness among urban dwellers and ethnic minorities.
I think they didn't expect the rapid growth of UKIP, which has upset their calculations, but whether they are going to be successful or not overall will be interesting to watch. The fact remeains, though, that Cameron increase the number of Tory seats by one of the largest numbers in any single general election. He may not have won and overall majority, but he did sufficient to ensure we have a Tory-led coalition rather than 5 more years of Brown or his acolytes in #10
For donors I believe they offered to keep separate accounts, one purely for EU election spending, so that they could be sure their money would not be used in a general election campaign.
Not likely at all. If he can avoid a IN/OUT referendum he will and instead push the 'mandate referendum' some tories were favouring. He'd do that while claiming he needs more time to get the imaginary 'concessions' and repatriation of powers there has been no sign whatsoever of him getting so far. His number one priority is not and never has been the EU. It's trying to govern and stay in government. Those who believe all the Cast Iron EU posturing are frankly morons who are incapable of learning from their many past errors.
I've got a few mates in the Army. One's a Captain who is off to Afghanistan for 6 weeks at the weekend, doing some engineering stuff. He's royally peed off, as he's been told there'll be little fresh food, as due to the sheer number of MREs in Afghan, he'll have to live mostly off them! He said there's enough rations to last 3 years stockpiled, and the Army want 'em gone!
Good luck Dave!
I think he's seen his role as the leader of faction within the Conservative Party, rather than as the leader of the entire Conservative Party.
The logic of Cameroon-modernisation appears to have been factional. To drive out the voters the Cameroons disliked, and welcome in the Guardianista voters they do like.
The numbers did not add up, so the Cameroons are now trying to convince the voters they rejected, that Mr Miliband is somehow a worse option than Mr Cameron.
The Cameroon's policies however are all pitched at the Guardian readers.
In 2005, it didn't seem that way. Cameron was elected not just because he was Howard's protégé but because the Conservatives had realised that the Hague/IDS/Howard approach wasn't working - indeed, the first casualty of Cameron's leadership was Charles Kennedy - remember the "lovebombing" of the LDs ?
Cameron also knew that a Conservative Party, desperate for power after a decade in Opposition, would more or less agree with anything and everything if the end result was power (just as Labour agreed to sell its soul to Blair in 1994). Thus, Cameron took the inclusive Blair approach seeking to garner LD and moderate Labour voters safe in the knowledge his other flank was secure.
2010 was not the result he wanted or needed but the net effect was the same - Government. However, the reality of power and sharing power has not been what the Conservatives in Opposition may have expected.
I'm sure the Swedish welfare state is more than capable of providing for all his sanitary requirements, even after the September 18th NO victory.
On the more substantive point of differential turnout it will not have escaped your acute porcine anal-ysis that female voters are substantially more inclined to NO and it is they who tend to vote in greater numbers.
Differential turnout of my McARSE ....
Look .... tartan squirrel
Ministers in Westminster are debating devolving hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of aviation taxes to Edinburgh in next week's Budget in an attempt to wrongfoot Alex Salmond and undermine his case for Scottish independence.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/79cce732-aa01-11e3-8497-00144feab7de.html
However I'm minded to recall that compo sausages were surprisingly rather good. Perchance this may have been because much else was unsurprisingly rather bad.
Tis noted in some quarters of Auchentennach that certain local baked products remind county gastronoms of military days. I couldn't possibly comment.
Referendum Voting Intention – ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’
Yes – 32%
No – 52%
Undecided – 16%
“No” has lead of 20 points
Now, imagine you knew the Conservative Party was expected to win a majority at the next UK General Election in 2015 and form the next UK government, would this affect how you would vote, or not, in the Scottish independence referendum this year?
[these %s show how people would then vote in the referendum]
NET: Yes – 35%
NET: No – 49%
NET: Undecided – 16%
“No” lead down to 14 points
Now, imagine you knew the Conservative Party was expected to win a majority at the next UK General Election in 2015 and be in power in the UK for the next 15 years. Would this affect how you would vote, or not, in the Scottish independence referendum this year?
NET: Yes – 38%
NET: No – 47%
NET: Undecided – 16%
“No” lead down to 9 points – less than half of what it was in the original question
- See more at: http://survation.com/2014/02/new-polling-on-scottish-independence-what-if-conservative-fortunes-improved/#sthash.2tyGQyBq.dpuf
Given the recent convergence of the Westminster polls this could get really interesting.
From what I've read and heard, our MRE's are not very good, although the below shows they're better than I eat when out on the hills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfVXa0wbfKE
http://evaq8.co.uk/24-Hour-Ration-Pack-3-Ready-To-Eat-Meals-Plus-Snacks-Menu-19.html
I love the: "Yorkie: not for civvies!"
'If support for a No vote was at its highest level this year then we would never hear the end of it here at PB. Yet the same story for Yes creates a wall of silence.'
Unless Salmond comes up with some serious answers to the currency,EU & jobs issues it's over for 'Yes',& you of course realize that,what else is there to say?
Number one is dead easy (although you failed it magnificently).
Number two is dead hard. And it takes decades to master. And the Unionists only have six months left. And they haven't knocked nearly enough doors.
'Oh dear. Lesson number one in politics is: never swallow your own propaganda.
Which is exactly what you are doing,believing Salmond's it will be alright on the night nonsense.
' Lesson number two is: learn about GOTV and then put into practice what you've learnt.'
A GOTV that would ensure an entry in the Guinness Book of records.
I can understand your disappointment,a once in a lifetime opportunity lost due to a bunch of incoherent policies.
The Yes team need a 5 point swing and have 6 months to do it.
Now, go and Google the name "Iain Gray" and look at the Scottish polls 6 months prior to May 2011.
Whether it's Gray or Salmond running Scotland it's only for four years.
Keep clutching at those straws before the toast arrives.
Despite his lovely hair.
"Clegg sees most improvement in leader ratings"
31! That is quite something and pro... oh wait, it's -31.
LOL
Calamity Clegg is also busy proving just how far from an unprincipled yellow tory he is.
I once did a 4 day rescue exercise that was designed to see how we coped with no sleep, and little food. I had bad luck and drew a ration pack that had Irish stew boil in the bag. It usually tastes like cat food, but tasted like gourmet after 2 days!
Ooh the gap is closing !!!!
iacapa • 8 minutes ago
The Muslims are not happy! They're not happy in Gaza. They're not happy
in Egypt.They're not happy in Libya. They're not happy in Morocco.
They're not happy in Iran.They're not happy in Iraq.They're not happy in
Yemen.They're not happy in Afghanistan.They're not happy in Pakistan.
They're not happy in Syria.They're not happy in Lebanon.
So, where are they happy? They're happy in Australia.They're happy in
England.They're happy in France.They're happy in Italy.They're happy in
Germany.They're happy in Sweden.They're happy in Norway.
They're happy in the USA.They're happy in every country that is not
Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam. Not their leadership.
Not themselves. THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN AND THEY WANT
TO CHANGE THEM TO BE LIKE THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM, WHERE THEY WERE
SO UNHAPPY.
we know better than that.
In Donetsk, pro-Russian thugs attacked pro-Ukrainian demonstrators. 1 killed, 10 hospitalized. Pic via @euromaidan pic.twitter.com/NGBPo8Ojcs
Official figures show that in 2013-14 the 25 per cent highest earners will pay 75 per cent of the total £167billion of income tax, and the bottom half will pay less than 10 per cent.
The flagship Lib Dem tax policy has been to increase the amount workers can earn before paying income tax at all, and will reach £10,000 in April this year.
But to help pay for it, Mr Osborne has frozen or lowered the point at which workers start paying the 40p rate.
It means 4.4million people now pay the 40p rate, up from just 3.02million when the coalition was formed in 2010 and only 1.35million in 1988.
According to HM Revenue and Customs, the top 10 per cent - who earn around £25-an-hour - will pay 58.7 per cent of all income tax this year. The top 1 per cent will pay 28.3 per cent, or £47billion.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the wealthy were paying more in tax now than under the last Labour government.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580074/Top-25-earners-pay-75-ALL-income-tax-half-country-contributes-10.html#ixzz2vsKgpHLW
Did I just agree with George Osborne? Apparently. Perhaps we're practicing for a Merkel-style Grand Coalition. :-)