Off-topic, but it's a benefits issue. I'm going away on a four week holiday shortly, staying with family in Thailand. Asked for my routine BP medication early and it was queried. Apparently the CCG has ruled that anyone going away for more than one month should make arrangements to get the next month's supplies wherever they are going to. Fortunatly I know that as I had a supply in March I can have another in April without query and I'll be back in time in May.
This year we're going to get two sets of national voting figures: the Euro election percentages and the national projected share from the local elections. It'll be interesting to see how they compare.
I've had another search on Ladbrokes' website and those seat bands for Lab & Con just aren't there, although most of their other political markets are duplicated - it's a total mess!portal is operated.
I did find them - British Politics, then click on 'Other Markets' and then 'See all'
Many thanks Richard - I did eventually find this market ,although I imagine most punters would have given up searching.
10/10 though to Shadsy for putting up these markets - great political coverage, especially compared with Hills' pathetic efforts. Wake up Sidney .... the GE is now only just over a year away!
Can any of our UKIPpers confirm whether this Saharan sand pollution is gay sand pollution, or just the regular kind?
Immigrant sand. We need it to fill our beaches as British sand is too lazy and feckless
We need to round up this bloody immigrant sand and send it all back.
It's all part of the LibLabCon ponzi scheme to REPLACE BRITISH SAND WITH FOREIGN SAND and my point is the more telling because it is in capitals.
It is because of CAMORON that this gay sand is here
etc
My grandfather and father both worked with British Sand for British Sand before it was privatised and allowed foreign, inferior sand to buy it out. Now we are merely shills for Malaysian sand, and now this new Saharan sand. We need to go back to the days of casual sand bigotry and 20% wage increases
Can any of our UKIPpers confirm whether this Saharan sand pollution is gay sand pollution, or just the regular kind?
Immigrant sand. We need it to fill our beaches as British sand is too lazy and feckless
We need to round up this bloody immigrant sand and send it all back.
It's all part of the LibLabCon ponzi scheme to REPLACE BRITISH SAND WITH FOREIGN SAND and my point is the more telling because it is in capitals.
It is because of CAMORON that this gay sand is here
etc
My grandfather and father both worked with British Sand for British Sand before it was privatised and allowed foreign, inferior sand to buy it out. Now we are merely shills for Malaysian sand, and now this new Saharan sand. We need to go back to the days of casual sand bigotry and 20% wage increases
You're overlooking the part played in this scandal by EU winds. If we had control of our own wind and properly managed our island shores, we would be able to keep this immigrant sand at bay. But successive governments have failed to set or meet proper targets on this front, and cannot do so until we leave the EUSSR and take back responsibility for the wind.
Can any of our UKIPpers confirm whether this Saharan sand pollution is gay sand pollution, or just the regular kind?
Immigrant sand. We need it to fill our beaches as British sand is too lazy and feckless
We need to round up this bloody immigrant sand and send it all back.
It's all part of the LibLabCon ponzi scheme to REPLACE BRITISH SAND WITH FOREIGN SAND and my point is the more telling because it is in capitals.
It is because of CAMORON that this gay sand is here
etc
My grandfather and father both worked with British Sand for British Sand before it was privatised and allowed foreign, inferior sand to buy it out. Now we are merely shills for Malaysian sand, and now this new Saharan sand. We need to go back to the days of casual sand bigotry and 20% wage increases
You're overlooking the part played in this scandal by EU winds. If we had control of our own wind and properly managed our island shores, we would be able to keep this immigrant sand at bay. But successive governments have failed to set or meet proper targets on this front, and cannot do so until we leave the EUSSR and take back responsibility for the wind.
We've lost control of our groynes! We would be mad, literally mad, to allow unfettered sand into the country.
I prefer kippers. But whether smoked cold or smoked hot as haddock we'll find Arbroath folk will vote NO.
I like both fishes. Still a lot to be said for a smokie and chips on the seafront at Arbroath of a summer evening, with the fish split, a dab of butter pushed into it, and then nuked in the microwave while the chips are being put in the poke.
Totally agree TSE - this band represents a Labour majority of between 50 - 100 seats, which although on the high side is broadly what the polls have been suggesting for some considerable time. Please God, these are wrong and Dr Stephen Fisher (Oxon) proves to be right - but in the meantime those odds of 10/1 look way too high to me, that said punters should DYOR!
Can any of our UKIPpers confirm whether this Saharan sand pollution is gay sand pollution, or just the regular kind?
Immigrant sand. We need it to fill our beaches as British sand is too lazy and feckless
We need to round up this bloody immigrant sand and send it all back.
It's all part of the LibLabCon ponzi scheme to REPLACE BRITISH SAND WITH FOREIGN SAND and my point is the more telling because it is in capitals.
It is because of CAMORON that this gay sand is here
etc
My grandfather and father both worked with British Sand for British Sand before it was privatised and allowed foreign, inferior sand to buy it out. Now we are merely shills for Malaysian sand, and now this new Saharan sand. We need to go back to the days of casual sand bigotry and 20% wage increases
Oh I see, so now that we have sand coming from Africa you're all up in arms about it, but when we were drowning in the winter storms - which started in America - did I hear a squeak from you on the subject of their source?
Did anyone hear whether the shark made it across the Atlantic, or did it have second thoughts and turn back?
In the glory of George's sunshine (he is even throwing in a beach this week) it is difficult to remember how dank, dark and dangerous the world looked only a short time ago.
I think by December all but the most wilfully blind (Labour front benchers) could see the gleams of light fairly clearly and it is understandable that there are some reservations about the price put on the RM shares as a result. But is this fair? The preparation for the float went on over months and in many of those months there were risk factors including the threats of strikes by the staff of RM and angst from those on the wrong side of the channel.
Hindsight is wonderful and applying it judiciously I think it cannot be disputed that the government could have got a better price than they did. Foresight is more problematic and I do not see compelling evidence that it so self evident at the time that the price could be stretched.
As usual this is a convenient stick to beat the government with that Ed has taken up with some enthusiasm. As usual he risks coming across as economically and commercially illiterate in doing so.
Totally agree TSE - this band represents a Labour majority of between 50 - 100 seats, which although on the high side is broadly what the polls have been suggesting for some considerable time. Please God, these are wrong and Dr Stephen Fisher (Oxon) proves to be right - but in the meantime those odds of 10/1 look way too high to me, that said punters should DYOR!
You also get value for the likely Tory seat bracket in such circs of 201-250 But yes, DYOR!
SNP 11/8 (from 7/4) LD 11/8 (from 5/4) Lab 7/2 (from 3/1) Con 20/1 UKIP 100/1
(Ladbrokes)
While you're here, I had forgotten about Angus. A possible tight one if the vote goes NO? Doesn't have the movement and Salmond unwind of B and B but the Tories remain close here.
It is decidedly average food in a cramped environment and too many fat men in pinstripe suits squashed into too small an area. And it's overpriced for what it is.
He's sounding more and more like an out-moded saloon room bore.
Can any of our UKIPpers confirm whether this Saharan sand pollution is gay sand pollution, or just the regular kind?
Immigrant sand. We need it to fill our beaches as British sand is too lazy and feckless
We need to round up this bloody immigrant sand and send it all back.
It's all part of the LibLabCon ponzi scheme to REPLACE BRITISH SAND WITH FOREIGN SAND and my point is the more telling because it is in capitals.
It is because of CAMORON that this gay sand is here
etc
My grandfather and father both worked with British Sand for British Sand before it was privatised and allowed foreign, inferior sand to buy it out. Now we are merely shills for Malaysian sand, and now this new Saharan sand. We need to go back to the days of casual sand bigotry and 20% wage increases
Oh I see, so now that we have sand coming from Africa you're all up in arms about it, but when we were drowning in the winter storms - which started in America - did I hear a squeak from you on the subject of their source?
Did anyone hear whether the shark made it across the Atlantic, or did it have second thoughts and turn back?
The storms were Gods wrath at the Bedroom Tax and homosexyual horses roaming free in the New Forest. Everyone knows that.
As usual this is a convenient stick to beat the government with that Ed has taken up with some enthusiasm. As usual he risks coming across as economically and commercially illiterate in doing so.
Do you think the NAO's criticisms of the process were also economically and commercially illiterate?
For years the Coalition parties complained about Labour selling gold at too low a price. They seem to be getting some of that back now.
As usual this is a convenient stick to beat the government with that Ed has taken up with some enthusiasm. As usual he risks coming across as economically and commercially illiterate in doing so.
Do you think the NAO's criticisms of the process were also economically and commercially illiterate?
For years the Coalition parties complained about Labour selling gold at too low a price. They seem to be getting some of that back now.
They were damned if they did (price it low, ensure large demand, stock moves up after listing) and damned if they didn't (price it high, insufficient demand, damp squib, govt couldn't organise a ****-up, etc).
The actual range of pricing which would have avoided both these charges was wafer thin.
Not a bad job IMO, could have been a lot worse, could probably have raised the range a bit but this is also hindsight.
Morning all and news that the number of people registered to vote in Scotland is at an all time high of 4.1 million is bad news for Better Together. While clearly the number has been boosted by the 70% of 16-18 year olds who have registered, it also suggests the YESNP tactic of tracking down people who have not registered and persuading them to do so, is paying off.
My gut reaction is the higher the turnout the worse it is for Better Together.
I'm sorry to hear you're experiencing a bad case of the trots .... you've not been purchasing poorer quality fayre of the pie variety have you ??
I fear you have, as increased turnout will undoubtedly lead to a greater NO vote. Indeed as turnout spikes above 75% as I expect we shall see differential NO turnout see the end of the Eck Empire and his likely latest miserable plan for a currency union with Sao Tome and Principe.
McARSE latest turnout projection is 79%
I tend to agree with that. Yes clearly has substantial organisational advantages in terms of GOTV. The higher the vote is, the more that advantage will be diminished.
One would have thought it was a logical consequence of the differential turnout issue we hear a lot about.
That did occur to me too, but there's another factor, which is that some people might otherwise be prompted to go out and vote yes instead of sulking at home at the unacceptable nature of the No choice. That is particularly so for the more socialistically minded voter who may be scunnered at the No choice being so linked to the unionist parties' policies - and that Labour voting block is a critical component of the DKs.
Likewise those people who wanted Devomax but had it chucked in the bin by Mr Cameron.
Both groups can either stay at home in a sulk or go out and vote, and there's a fair proportion who would vote yes rather than accept the implications, of a No vote, that have been imposed by the unionists.
I think all three factors will apply - just not sure what the outcome would be.
I dont disagree (though I do wonder at the fees some advisors manage to secure for advising on these matters when they dont seem too hot on these issues either). But it's politics and if the NAO gives you an open goal then the opposition are pretty much obliged to shoot at it. And it's not as if the Coalition parties havent done the same in the past.
I think all three factors will apply - just not sure what the outcome would be.
Most 'yes' activists seem to think that they have a differential turnout advantage. If they are right then the higher turnout goes the worse for them surely.
I dont disagree (though I do wonder at the fees some advisors manage to secure for advising on these matters when they dont seem too hot on these issues either). But it's politics and if the NAO gives you an open goal then the opposition are pretty much obliged to shoot at it. And it's not as if the Coalition parties havent done the same in the past.
Agree and there is sensitivity with the gold sale around selling govt assets at any price. That said, I wonder why Cam, sotto voce, didn't state the perils of such a share sale and charge EdM with not understanding those nuances.
Then again I am answering my own question as PMQs isn't exactly Nuance Central....
That said, I wonder why Cam, sotto voce, didn't state the perils of such a share sale and charge EdM with not understanding those nuances.
I think it's because he knows that, whether it's deserved or not, the Coalition is on a sticky wicket on this issue. PMQs doesnt allow a careful discussion of all the issues but the idea that it was unnecessarily flogged off on the cheap has taken hold anyway and no forum will convince your average voter otherwise.
As usual this is a convenient stick to beat the government with that Ed has taken up with some enthusiasm. As usual he risks coming across as economically and commercially illiterate in doing so.
Do you think the NAO's criticisms of the process were also economically and commercially illiterate?
For years the Coalition parties complained about Labour selling gold at too low a price. They seem to be getting some of that back now.
Of course to people who know how the markets work they are very different cases - gold is a readily tradeable commodity, with a clear market price and is largely a fungible asset. All Brown had to do was manage a disposal in a discrete way over time to maximise proceeds. Which he failed to do.
Cable had to price an IPO in a choppy market, with some very specific business risks and a largely unattractive long-term profile. In hindsight he underpriced it (thanks very much, Vince, for my £560 capital gain) but it wasn't an easy task.
That said, I wonder why Cam, sotto voce, didn't state the perils of such a share sale and charge EdM with not understanding those nuances.
I think it's because he knows that, whether it's deserved or not, the Coalition is on a sticky wicket on this issue. PMQs doesnt allow a careful discussion of all the issues but the idea that it was unnecessarily flogged off on the cheap has taken hold anyway and no forum will convince your average voter otherwise.
Yep and it's also nullified the gold sale by GB so in the end well done EdM.
No he didn't - the timing of the offer was under his control also!
Not once he had started the process - the damage of cancelling it would have been huge. If you think this was more about giving management to opportunity to restructure, free from political control, then they needed to get the company listed
I think all three factors will apply - just not sure what the outcome would be.
Most 'yes' activists seem to think that they have a differential turnout advantage. If they are right then the higher turnout goes the worse for them surely.
Neil, I think the higher turnout will be due to people who given up voting due to being shafted by Westminster. Their impetus will be too give the unionists a bashing so high turnout is likely to be good for YES.
Comments
BREAKING! Here's an exclusive first look at Labour's manifesto cover for the must-win 2015 General Election. #pmqs pic.twitter.com/hTAEUI0DwU
Twitter.com/GISwift/status/451338842599981057/photo/1
;-)
Cost of medication £1 per month
Cameron rarely gets insulted because of stupidity. Most often its
1. Toff/out of touch.
2. Slippery/untrustworthy
Con 38% (28%)
LD 28% (14%)
Lab 23% (16%)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8081729.stm
10/10 though to Shadsy for putting up these markets - great political coverage, especially compared with Hills' pathetic efforts. Wake up Sidney .... the GE is now only just over a year away!
We need to go back to the days of casual sand bigotry and 20% wage increases
Paul Greengrass would improve prospects slightly.
We would be mad, literally mad, to allow unfettered sand into the country.
As for the referendum, we'll see!
Totally agree TSE - this band represents a Labour majority of between 50 - 100 seats, which although on the high side is broadly what the polls have been suggesting for some considerable time.
Please God, these are wrong and Dr Stephen Fisher (Oxon) proves to be right - but in the meantime those odds of 10/1 look way too high to me, that said punters should DYOR!
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g186338-d1018459-Reviews-Simpson_s_Tavern-London_England.html
SNP 11/8 (from 7/4)
LD 11/8 (from 5/4)
Lab 7/2 (from 3/1)
Con 20/1
UKIP 100/1
(Ladbrokes)
Did anyone hear whether the shark made it across the Atlantic, or did it have second thoughts and turn back?
I think by December all but the most wilfully blind (Labour front benchers) could see the gleams of light fairly clearly and it is understandable that there are some reservations about the price put on the RM shares as a result. But is this fair? The preparation for the float went on over months and in many of those months there were risk factors including the threats of strikes by the staff of RM and angst from those on the wrong side of the channel.
Hindsight is wonderful and applying it judiciously I think it cannot be disputed that the government could have got a better price than they did. Foresight is more problematic and I do not see compelling evidence that it so self evident at the time that the price could be stretched.
As usual this is a convenient stick to beat the government with that Ed has taken up with some enthusiasm. As usual he risks coming across as economically and commercially illiterate in doing so.
But yes, DYOR!
William Hill cut price on YES 41% or over.
Yes vote percentage
41%+ 4/6 (from 5/6)
Under 41% 11/10 (from 10/11)
It is decidedly average food in a cramped environment and too many fat men in pinstripe suits squashed into too small an area. And it's overpriced for what it is.
He's sounding more and more like an out-moded saloon room bore.
For years the Coalition parties complained about Labour selling gold at too low a price. They seem to be getting some of that back now.
The actual range of pricing which would have avoided both these charges was wafer thin.
Not a bad job IMO, could have been a lot worse, could probably have raised the range a bit but this is also hindsight.
Likewise those people who wanted Devomax but had it chucked in the bin by Mr Cameron.
Both groups can either stay at home in a sulk or go out and vote, and there's a fair proportion who would vote yes rather than accept the implications, of a No vote, that have been imposed by the unionists.
I think all three factors will apply - just not sure what the outcome would be.
I dont disagree (though I do wonder at the fees some advisors manage to secure for advising on these matters when they dont seem too hot on these issues either). But it's politics and if the NAO gives you an open goal then the opposition are pretty much obliged to shoot at it. And it's not as if the Coalition parties havent done the same in the past.
Then again I am answering my own question as PMQs isn't exactly Nuance Central....
Cable had to price an IPO in a choppy market, with some very specific business risks and a largely unattractive long-term profile. In hindsight he underpriced it (thanks very much, Vince, for my £560 capital gain) but it wasn't an easy task.
No he didn't - the timing of the offer was under his control also!