It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
I seem to recall that in law you can't defame a party, only identifiable individuals.
I'm sure you can't defame a political party.
It might constitute an offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (cf the Miranda Grell case) but I'd have to look that up.
But presumably the defence could run the argument that they don't have a reputation to besmirch?
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
I seem to recall that in law you can't defame a party, only identifiable individuals.
I'm sure you can't defame a political party.
It might constitute an offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (cf the Miranda Grell case) but I'd have to look that up.
Some years ago there was vicious in-fighting in the local BNP, when their local councillor fell out with the leadership. We were trying to squash the BNP in a by-election, so I asked a well-known cartoonist to do a sketch of a man and a woman (not depicting anyone in particular) wrestling, with a caption "The BNP is more interested in fighting each other than working for you" or something like that. It was spiked by the central legal department, who said it risked an expensive libel action with the BNP. We were too busy fighting the by-election (where the BNP ended up with some trivial vote anyway) so I shrugged it off. But it always seemed weird advice to me.
Such a shame the BNP have become the pathetic joke they always aspired to be. When I say shame, I mean womderous happenstance.
Difficult to disagree with the nominations for Blame Monkeys.
But I think you also have to give some credit to Salmond for making the SNP more than just a protest party, but actually a credible, successful and popular party of government.
Please do not expect the numpties around here to understand your point. They know next to nothing about public life in Scotland, and they care even less. The entire concept of "a credible, successful and popular party of government" is foreign to them.
That other separatist party PQ thought themselves a credible successful and popular party of government until the voters told them otherwise yesterday .
I hardly think that PQ is a particularly useful indicator. As I understand it, one of the key issues is the use of French and without wanting to go into the details or the merits of it, it is hardly as if the SNP were trying to enforce the use of Gaelic or Doric or Lallans in Scotland as everyday [edit in, above all, the sense of business] speech. They wouldn't have nearly so many Englsh and other incomers as members if they did!
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
I seem to recall that in law you can't defame a party, only identifiable individuals.
I'm sure you can't defame a political party.
It might constitute an offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (cf the Miranda Grell case) but I'd have to look that up.
Some years ago there was vicious in-fighting in the local BNP, when their local councillor fell out with the leadership. We were trying to squash the BNP in a by-election, so I asked a well-known cartoonist to do a sketch of a man and a woman (not depicting anyone in particular) wrestling, with a caption "The BNP is more interested in fighting each other than working for you" or something like that. It was spiked by the central legal department, who said it risked an expensive libel action with the BNP. We were too busy fighting the by-election (where the BNP ended up with some trivial vote anyway) so I shrugged it off. But it always seemed weird advice to me.
Such a shame the BNP have become the pathetic joke they always aspired to be. When I say shame, I mean womderous happenstance.
Don't diss the BNP or Nick Griffin
BNP's Nick Griffin 'Saved Britain from Going to War in Syria'
Maria Miller may yet resign, and certainly her perfunctory apology was appalling, but I'd caution PBers that the Prime Minister is remarkably loyal to ministers in the doings.
PB will recall the daily vilification that Jeremy Hunt endured and we were advised that an exchange of letters was imminent if not sooner. And yet there he sits promoted within the government.
I notice the labour parrots chanting Miller on here all morning seem to have missed two very salient pieces of economic news.
1. Manufacturing expanded more than expected. 2. UK wages are rising at the fastest pace in 7 years (whilst inflation slows down).
Naturally, voters will make a decision based on David Cameron's handling of minor misdoing by a midling no-mark cabinet minister few can identify - and not based on the fact the last vestiges of Ed Miliband's economic critique of the government are being utterly atomised.
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
I seem to recall that in law you can't defame a party, only identifiable individuals.
I'm sure you can't defame a political party.
It might constitute an offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (cf the Miranda Grell case) but I'd have to look that up.
Some years ago there was vicious in-fighting in the local BNP, when their local councillor fell out with the leadership. We were trying to squash the BNP in a by-election, so I asked a well-known cartoonist to do a sketch of a man and a woman (not depicting anyone in particular) wrestling, with a caption "The BNP is more interested in fighting each other than working for you" or something like that. It was spiked by the central legal department, who said it risked an expensive libel action with the BNP. We were too busy fighting the by-election (where the BNP ended up with some trivial vote anyway) so I shrugged it off. But it always seemed weird advice to me.
Such a shame the BNP have become the pathetic joke they always aspired to be. When I say shame, I mean womderous happenstance.
Don't diss the BNP or Nick Griffin
BNP's Nick Griffin 'Saved Britain from Going to War in Syria'
I notice the labour parrots chanting Miller on here all morning seem to have missed two very salient pieces of economic news.
1. Manufacturing expanded more than expected. 2. UK wages are rising at the fastest pace in 7 years (whilst inflation slows down).
Naturally, voters will make a decision based on David Cameron's handling of minor misdoing by a midling no-mark cabinet minister few can identify - and not based on the fact the last vestiges of Ed Miliband's economic critique of the government are being utterly atomised.
Another member of the "95% certain to stay Tory" group, then. Have we got all the Eton sixth form logged in here?
I notice the labour parrots chanting Miller on here all morning seem to have missed two very salient pieces of economic news.
1. Manufacturing expanded more than expected. 2. UK wages are rising at the fastest pace in 7 years (whilst inflation slows down).
Naturally, voters will make a decision based on David Cameron's handling of minor misdoing by a midling no-mark cabinet minister few can identify - and not based on the fact the last vestiges of Ed Miliband's economic critique of the government are being utterly atomised.
Another member of the "95% certain to stay Tory" group, then. Have we got all the Eton sixth form logged in here?
You know the Tories and the coalition has won the (economic) arguments when their opponents response to good economic news is a reference to Eton and class.
If you think that the future shape of the nation or the small matter of a complete shakeup of the constitutional settlement for both Scotland and the rest of the UK are small matters worthy of small notice, then you'll forgive me if I ignore everything you have to say about anything.
The fact that public life in Scotland will have a direct impact on the way people will vote in the referendum is so glaringly obvious that it is hardly worth mentioning. Given this fact you would think that the NO campaign would pay some heed to it wouldn't you?
The only thing one really needs to know about "public life in Scotland" is that five out of six votes there are cast for socialist parties. The desire to tax other people will inevitably result in an angry No vote, because how are 5 million others going to keep you in the same style that 75 million used to?
I actually think key - perhaps most - supporters of the No campaign want to lose, however. Osborne, for example, would clearly benefit personally because it would damage Cameron.
As SeanT quite rightly put it, the biggest losers will be Labour. I don't buy the idea that it will permanently remove 40 Labour seats from Westminster, though. Labour does well on a smaller vote share because its voters simply don't turn out in safe seats. Post a Yes I think that would change.
The departure of Scotland (inshallah) would thus be somewhere between trivial and mildly beneficial to the rest of the UK. So I incline to trivial. Very bad for Scotland, but you wear your choices.
I'm sure the Galapagos anemone punches the air whenever it gets laid and sincerely considers it the major national news story of the day. This does not make it so, however, nor even the most important thing happening in the waters around the Galapagos.
Maria Miller may yet resign, and certainly her perfunctory apology was appalling, but I'd caution PBers that the Prime Minister is remarkably loyal to ministers in the doings.
PB will recall the daily vilification that Jeremy Hunt endured and we were advised that an exchange of letters was imminent if not sooner. And yet there he sits promoted within the government.
Jeremy Hunt is male, went to a Public School and to Oxford.
I notice the labour parrots chanting Miller on here all morning seem to have missed two very salient pieces of economic news.
1. Manufacturing expanded more than expected. 2. UK wages are rising at the fastest pace in 7 years (whilst inflation slows down).
Naturally, voters will make a decision based on David Cameron's handling of minor misdoing by a midling no-mark cabinet minister few can identify - and not based on the fact the last vestiges of Ed Miliband's economic critique of the government are being utterly atomised.
Another member of the "95% certain to stay Tory" group, then. Have we got all the Eton sixth form logged in here?
You know the Tories and the coalition has won the (economic) arguments when their opponents response to good economic news is a reference to Eton and class.
More money for chavs with disabled elbows. That's important.
Maria Miller may yet resign, and certainly her perfunctory apology was appalling, but I'd caution PBers that the Prime Minister is remarkably loyal to ministers in the doings.
PB will recall the daily vilification that Jeremy Hunt endured and we were advised that an exchange of letters was imminent if not sooner. And yet there he sits promoted within the government.
Jeremy Hunt is male, went to a Public School and to Oxford.
''You know the Tories and the coalition has won the (economic) arguments when their opponents response to good economic news is a reference to Eton and class. ''
Especially when they are made to someone who attended a welsh comprehensive!! LOL
''You know the Tories and the coalition has won the (economic) arguments when their opponents response to good economic news is a reference to Eton and class. ''
Especially when they are made to someone who attended a welsh comprehensive!! LOL
If you think that the future shape of the nation or the small matter of a complete shakeup of the constitutional settlement for both Scotland and the rest of the UK are small matters worthy of small notice, then you'll forgive me if I ignore everything you have to say about anything.
The fact that public life in Scotland will have a direct impact on the way people will vote in the referendum is so glaringly obvious that it is hardly worth mentioning. Given this fact you would think that the NO campaign would pay some heed to it wouldn't you?
The only thing one really needs to know about "public life in Scotland" is that five out of six votes there are cast for socialist parties. The desire to tax other people will inevitably result in an angry No vote, because how are 5 million others going to keep you in the same style that 75 million used to?
I actually think key - perhaps most - supporters of the No campaign want to lose, however. Osborne, for example, would clearly benefit personally because it would damage Cameron.
As SeanT quite rightly put it, the biggest losers will be Labour. I don't buy the idea that it will permanently remove 40 Labour seats from Westminster, though. Labour does well on a smaller vote share because its voters simply don't turn out in safe seats. Post a Yes I think that would change.
The departure of Scotland (inshallah) would thus be somewhere between trivial and mildly beneficial to the rest of the UK. So I incline to trivial. Very bad for Scotland, but you wear your choices.
I'm sure the Galapagos anemone punches the air whenever it gets laid and sincerely considers it the major national news story of the day. This does not make it so, however, nor even the most important thing happening in the waters around the Galapagos.
Utram bibis? Aquam an undam?
Your use of the Galapagos anemone rather betrays a lack of understanding of the sex life of the Coelenterata which by implication confirms your lack of interest in what is happening in Scotland. I wouldn't call the SNP a socialist party - social democratic yes, but hardly socialist: and still less the Labour party (certainly since Mr Blair took over), at least some of the time (it is apt to get a bit confusing when Ms Lamont says scuh different things on different days).
Still searching for the "Maria Miller scandal" is a disaster for Ed Miliband in the article.
In other words, the press will decide who goes, and when. Not the voters. Journalists, like politicians only scummier and without accountability to the electorate.
''You know the Tories and the coalition has won the (economic) arguments when their opponents response to good economic news is a reference to Eton and class. ''
Especially when they are made to someone who attended a welsh comprehensive!! LOL
You're Welsh? with a name like Taffys?
I knew a man once called Pig Turkey Fen Broads. He was from Liverpool
If the supermarket number is correct (and the source doesn't say it is Tesco, merely that it is a supermarket who was lobbying the government to allow its market share to rise), then there are one-third extra people in the UK, and around 66% more people of working age
However, it is not a number which chimes with any other data. VAT receipts have not risen accordingly. Total employment numbers have not increased accordingly. School rolls have increased only in-line with what we would have expected given headline TFRs and the 2001 census.
All good points, and arguably if Tesco's estimate were based on inaccurate assumptions about its own market share, it would explain how they got to 77 million.
Eg in 2000 they had a market share of 30% and sold 100,000 loaves of bread a day to 59 million people In 2007 they had a market share of 33% and therefore should have sold 110,000 loaves; however, they sold 143,000.
Therefore, either:
1/ their market share has grown to 43%, or 2/ there are 77 million people living here, or 3/ more bread is being eaten per capita, or 4/ some or all of the above apply.
77 million may well be the wrong number, but it doesn't make the official number right.
I said at the time that Miller should have quit. Her apology was a disgrace, the deliberate campaign to inhibit the investigation unacceptable, the threat in the context of Leveson was appallingly stupid as well as immoral and the clearance of charges she had been originally found guilty of by a committee of MPs leaves a bad taste.
But she is still there and I really don't see her going now. Cameron showed an enormous reluctance to be bullied by the press and even stood by Mitchell for the best part of a month despite the lies of the Police Federation members. Is this really going to go on and on? What else is there to say?
Personally, I don't think she was worth it. But there we are.
If the supermarket number is correct (and the source doesn't say it is Tesco, merely that it is a supermarket who was lobbying the government to allow its market share to rise), then there are one-third extra people in the UK, and around 66% more people of working age
However, it is not a number which chimes with any other data. VAT receipts have not risen accordingly. Total employment numbers have not increased accordingly. School rolls have increased only in-line with what we would have expected given headline TFRs and the 2001 census.
All good points, and arguably if Tesco's estimate were based on inaccurate assumptions about its own market share, it would explain how they got to 77 million.
Eg in 2000 they had a market share of 30% and sold 100,000 loaves of bread a day to 59 million people In 2007 they had a market share of 33% and therefore should have sold 110,000 loaves; however, they sold 143,000.
Therefore, either:
1/ their market share has grown to 43%, or 2/ there are 77 million people living here, or 3/ more bread is being eaten per capita, or 4/ some or all of the above apply.
77 million may well be the wrong number, but it doesn't make the official number right.
Is it not rather more likely that we waste even more food than was previously thought? No doubt what was bought could have fed 77m but that does not mean it did.
I wouldn't call the SNP a socialist party - social democratic yes, but hardly socialist: and still less the Labour party (certainly since Mr Blair took over), at least some of the time (it is apt to get a bit confusing when Ms Lamont says scuh different things on different days).
They're all broadly left of centre, anti-business, anti-enterprise, anti-farmer, anti-family, ecoloony, big state tax-and-spend redistributors. Some are more reluctant than others to admit to being socialists, but the cap certainly fits.
Enjoyed Sean T's article on indyref in the Telelgraph. Spot on about Devo Max. Both Labour and the Tories have gambled on denying people the chance of Devo Max (albeit for different reasons) and the lack of a third option on the paper will push many towards Yes.
Err... we Yessers told you all that at the time, but we were told that David Cameron was a genius and that denying Scots the Devo Max option was a masterstroke and a knockout blow from which FM Salmond would never recover.
How many more Cameron "masterstrokes" can the No campaign take before it implodes?
They also shrieked 'triumphantly' over Osbrowne's incompetent currency posturing for about two weeks. That went well, didn't it?
LOL
Remember the PB Golden Rule. The PB tories are always wrong. The PB tories never learn.
Enjoyed Sean T's article on indyref in the Telelgraph. Spot on about Devo Max. Both Labour and the Tories have gambled on denying people the chance of Devo Max (albeit for different reasons) and the lack of a third option on the paper will push many towards Yes.
Err... we Yessers told you all that at the time, but we were told that David Cameron was a genius and that denying Scots the Devo Max option was a masterstroke and a knockout blow from which FM Salmond would never recover.
How many more Cameron "masterstrokes" can the No campaign take before it implodes?
They also shrieked 'triumphantly' over Osbrowne's incompetent currency posturing for about two weeks. That went well, didn't it?
LOL
Remember the PB Golden Rule. The PB tories are always wrong. The PB tories never learn.
Not always, yes will win for example. Although I am only a Tory in the sense of STOP ED!
UKIP is taking SIX times as many votes from the Tories as it is from Labour
In no way are the purples as big a threat to LAB as CON
Which just might be why so many Tory MPs are sh*tting themselves in fear since the kippers are still nowhere the 3.1% they got in 2010 and show no sign whatsoever of crashing back down to those kind of levels any time soon.
Is it not rather more likely that we waste even more food than was previously thought? No doubt what was bought could have fed 77m but that does not mean it did.
I'm including that possibility in 3/ - that we buy more per capita of the same things.
The supermarket figure was based on staples, however. In my experience staples - sugar, butter, milk, that sort of stuff - is almost never discounted or sold on a BOGOF basis. Neither is it really feasible to use more of it simply because it is cheaper. How much flour can you get through, for example?
I went for a job interview at Lidl once. It was in purchasing. Odd head office, in a converted house in Wimbledon. They were at pains to explain that their price strategy was to seek retail price advantage in processed foods, but always at "A-eins Qualitaet".
Their processed stuff is indeed cheaper but their staples were basically the same price as at Tesco. This tends to persuade me that there is something in the Tesco claim, although I doubt there are 20 million more people. Two to four I could believe, and it would then chime with the other data rather better.
I said at the time that Miller should have quit. Her apology was a disgrace, the deliberate campaign to inhibit the investigation unacceptable, the threat in the context of Leveson was appallingly stupid as well as immoral and the clearance of charges she had been originally found guilty of by a committee of MPs leaves a bad taste.
But she is still there and I really don't see her going now. Cameron showed an enormous reluctance to be bullied by the press and even stood by Mitchell for the best part of a month despite the lies of the Police Federation members. Is this really going to go on and on? What else is there to say?
Personally, I don't think she was worth it. But there we are.
The only news other than the normal football guff I heard today on Talksport at lunch was about Maria Miller. This story is out the village and into the white vans. I'd imagine there are alot of C,D,Es who listen to Talksport tbh - working class Tories ripe for UKIP switching. And it was on their news - 100,000 people signing a petition.
On the Mail too. This has undone all the budget bounce, a disaster for Dave.
Is it not rather more likely that we waste even more food than was previously thought? No doubt what was bought could have fed 77m but that does not mean it did.
I'm including that possibility in 3/ - that we buy more per capita of the same things.
The supermarket figure was based on staples, however. In my experience staples - sugar, butter, milk, that sort of stuff - is almost never discounted or sold on a BOGOF basis. Neither is it really feasible to use more of it simply because it is cheaper. How much flour can you get through, for example?
I went for a job interview at Lidl once. It was in purchasing. Odd head office, in a converted house in Wimbledon. They were at pains to explain that their price strategy was to seek retail price advantage in processed foods, but always at "A-eins Qualitaet".
Their processed stuff is indeed cheaper but their staples were basically the same price as at Tesco. This tends to persuade me that there is something in the Tesco claim, although I doubt there are 20 million more people. Two to four I could believe, and it would then chime with the other data rather better.
Don't they also extrapolate from their loyalty card figures?
I said at the time that Miller should have quit. Her apology was a disgrace, the deliberate campaign to inhibit the investigation unacceptable, the threat in the context of Leveson was appallingly stupid as well as immoral and the clearance of charges she had been originally found guilty of by a committee of MPs leaves a bad taste.
But she is still there and I really don't see her going now. Cameron showed an enormous reluctance to be bullied by the press and even stood by Mitchell for the best part of a month despite the lies of the Police Federation members. Is this really going to go on and on? What else is there to say?
Personally, I don't think she was worth it. But there we are.
The only news other than the normal football guff I heard today on Talksport at lunch was about Maria Miller. This story is out the village and into the white vans. I'd imagine there are alot of C,D,Es who listen to Talksport tbh - working class Tories ripe for UKIP switching. And it was on their news - 100,000 people signing a petition.
On the Mail too. This has undone all the budget bounce, a disaster for Dave.
The VI figures do not yet support that assumption. The public think all politicians are troughers, they aren't going to start changing votes over one more piggy.
I said at the time that Miller should have quit. Her apology was a disgrace, the deliberate campaign to inhibit the investigation unacceptable, the threat in the context of Leveson was appallingly stupid as well as immoral and the clearance of charges she had been originally found guilty of by a committee of MPs leaves a bad taste.
But she is still there and I really don't see her going now. Cameron showed an enormous reluctance to be bullied by the press and even stood by Mitchell for the best part of a month despite the lies of the Police Federation members. Is this really going to go on and on? What else is there to say?
Personally, I don't think she was worth it. But there we are.
The only news other than the normal football guff I heard today on Talksport at lunch was about Maria Miller. This story is out the village and into the white vans. I'd imagine there are alot of C,D,Es who listen to Talksport tbh - working class Tories ripe for UKIP switching. And it was on their news - 100,000 people signing a petition.
On the Mail too. This has undone all the budget bounce, a disaster for Dave.
The VI figures do not yet support that assumption. The public think all politicians are troughers, they aren't going to start changing votes over one more piggy.
After the budget I was highly hopeful of having a level VI poll to win the bet with Paddy. Now I've got the rest of the quarter and it just doesn't seem like its going to happen. There was a definite bounce after the budget, it just seems to have gone away.
Is it not rather more likely that we waste even more food than was previously thought? No doubt what was bought could have fed 77m but that does not mean it did.
I'm including that possibility in 3/ - that we buy more per capita of the same things.
The supermarket figure was based on staples, however. In my experience staples - sugar, butter, milk, that sort of stuff - is almost never discounted or sold on a BOGOF basis. Neither is it really feasible to use more of it simply because it is cheaper. How much flour can you get through, for example?
I went for a job interview at Lidl once. It was in purchasing. Odd head office, in a converted house in Wimbledon. They were at pains to explain that their price strategy was to seek retail price advantage in processed foods, but always at "A-eins Qualitaet".
Their processed stuff is indeed cheaper but their staples were basically the same price as at Tesco. This tends to persuade me that there is something in the Tesco claim, although I doubt there are 20 million more people. Two to four I could believe, and it would then chime with the other data rather better.
I am slightly embarrassed to admit that our house throws out quite a lot of staples as they go past their sale by date. The modern way is that everything you might need should be available and buying is not focussed on what you immediately need. The price of that convenience is waste. I don't believe for a moment we are alone in this.
The census registers those who are here with some degree of pemanence but is not as good at picking up those who drift, whether they are local or not. It stands to reason that the increase in immigrant labour from the EU with minimal monitoring or control is going to increase the "drift" element and the gross total of those present at any one time will be higher than the census indicates but I think 77m or even 70m is very unlikely for the reasons RCS has pointed out.
"I do wonder if her name was Mark Miller something different might happen. Colleagues think he would have been gone a week ago," the MP told the Huffington Post.
"One member of the 1922 Committee Executive said: “She should do the honourable thing and resign. She has been foolish and selfish. She is damaging the party and putting the Prime Minister in a very difficult position.”
I said at the time that Miller should have quit. Her apology was a disgrace, the deliberate campaign to inhibit the investigation unacceptable, the threat in the context of Leveson was appallingly stupid as well as immoral and the clearance of charges she had been originally found guilty of by a committee of MPs leaves a bad taste.
But she is still there and I really don't see her going now. Cameron showed an enormous reluctance to be bullied by the press and even stood by Mitchell for the best part of a month despite the lies of the Police Federation members. Is this really going to go on and on? What else is there to say?
Personally, I don't think she was worth it. But there we are.
The only news other than the normal football guff I heard today on Talksport at lunch was about Maria Miller. This story is out the village and into the white vans. I'd imagine there are alot of C,D,Es who listen to Talksport tbh - working class Tories ripe for UKIP switching. And it was on their news - 100,000 people signing a petition.
On the Mail too. This has undone all the budget bounce, a disaster for Dave.
The VI figures do not yet support that assumption. The public think all politicians are troughers, they aren't going to start changing votes over one more piggy.
After the budget I was highly hopeful of having a level VI poll to win the bet with Paddy. Now I've got the rest of the quarter and it just doesn't seem like its going to happen. There was a definite bounce after the budget, it just seems to have gone away.
The Tory vote briefly hit 35 with YouGov, it's now in the 32-34 range. labour are definitely falling back a point or two. The lead looks like 3-5 solidly this week. The Tory share may briefly dip on the back of Miller doubt, but it's a passing storm, unless Cam caves and falls into the press trap. Miller is the stalking horse like Jacqui Smith was. There is plenty of room for an outlier to show level pegging, although I don't expect crossover until conference season. Labour are not polling, as a party, or for Ed individually as a govt in waiting. Contraction and crossover in the absence of a black swan is, for me, inevitable over the next 9 months. Remember the Tories are polling, with leakage to UKIP and with the baggage of government, at their 2005 election level. It will be far easier for them to mobilise the defence vote than it was to launch an assault back then. In 2005 there was no visible economic failure of Labour to hammer home. Now there is. Governments don't moan about being 3 down a year out. They relish it.
You don;t understand. The economic news today is so good, so toxic to labour's last redoubt economic critique 'cost of living crisis' that compouter has no choice but to bore us all rigid with his Miller parroting.
"crossover in the absence of a black swan is, for me, inevitable"...the most over used phrase on PB now for two years. Strange how it hasn't happened, eh.
I think the most important points to take away are that the Conservative majority in 2010 would have been thin, and that prior to 2010 (97, 01, 05) Scottish independence would not have given them a majority.
You don;t understand. The economic news today is so good, so toxic to labour's last redoubt economic critique 'cost of living crisis' that compouter has no choice but to bore us all rigid with his Miller parroting.
Nah, just think this is one of the most comical episodes of Camerons leadership since Derek Conway.
The supermarket figure was based on staples, however. In my experience staples - sugar, butter, milk, that sort of stuff - is almost never discounted or sold on a BOGOF basis. Neither is it really feasible to use more of it simply because it is cheaper. How much flour can you get through, for example?
The supermarkets appear to be in the middle of a price war on milk at the moment. One can't move for offers of discounts, if I will only buy an extra four pints that I don't need. Bread, again, there are loads of deals that encourage waste - particularly as much supermarket bread keeps exceptionally badly.
As to flour, I'd dispute whether you can consider that a staple any more. Most breadmakers gather dust and the Great Britain Bake Off is more watched than imitated.
"Benjamin Harris-Quinney, Director of Conservative Grassroots said: "The damage from the handling of Maria Miller's expenses scandal is now very close to being permanent with two thirds of those who voted Conservative in 2010 saying they are less likely to do so in the 2014 European and k62015 general elections."
Always think PB should be kept up to date with what really matters..........no need for the thanks ;-)
The daftest bit of this charade is that if she'd been a Labour MP and the Tories had complained like this, you'd have accused them of being misogynist.
Is it not rather more likely that we waste even more food than was previously thought? No doubt what was bought could have fed 77m but that does not mean it did.
The supermarket figure was based on staples, however. In my experience staples - sugar, butter, milk, that sort of stuff - is almost never discounted or sold on a BOGOF basis. Neither is it really feasible to use more of it simply because it is cheaper. How much flour can you get through, for example?
With every post you just confirm that you know nothing.
"crossover in the absence of a black swan is, for me, inevitable"...the most over used phrase on PB now for two years. Strange how it hasn't happened, eh.
Surely the most over used phrase on here over the last 2 years is "PB Tories < insert vague insult >.."
But the most over used phrase at the mo surely must be credited to your good self?
The daftest bit of this charade is that if she'd been a Labour MP and the Tories had complained like this, you'd have accused them of being misogynist.
She ought to have resigned last year.
The funniest part of it is the fact she is being hunted most actively by the right wing media and Dave is stood there, as the stale Guinness fart of expenses cheating wafts around him, like a rabbit in headlights.
Is it not rather more likely that we waste even more food than was previously thought? No doubt what was bought could have fed 77m but that does not mean it did.
The supermarket figure was based on staples, however. In my experience staples - sugar, butter, milk, that sort of stuff - is almost never discounted or sold on a BOGOF basis. Neither is it really feasible to use more of it simply because it is cheaper. How much flour can you get through, for example?
With every post you just confirm that you know nothing.
"crossover in the absence of a black swan is, for me, inevitable"...the most over used phrase on PB now for two years. Strange how it hasn't happened, eh.
Surely the most over used phrase on here over the last 2 years is "PB Tories < insert vague insult >.."
But the most over used phrase at the mo surely must be credited to your good self?
There cannot be many left who haven't put the knife in, surely.
"When the political obituaries come to be written about Maria Miller, the most depressing truth for the Culture Secretary will be how her expenses subsumed everything else about her career (and finally put her on the public's radar), because it's very difficult to name anything else she has achieved in office"
Is it not rather more likely that we waste even more food than was previously thought? No doubt what was bought could have fed 77m but that does not mean it did.
The supermarket figure was based on staples, however. In my experience staples - sugar, butter, milk, that sort of stuff - is almost never discounted or sold on a BOGOF basis. Neither is it really feasible to use more of it simply because it is cheaper. How much flour can you get through, for example?
With every post you just confirm that you know nothing.
"crossover in the absence of a black swan is, for me, inevitable"...the most over used phrase on PB now for two years. Strange how it hasn't happened, eh.
Surely the most over used phrase on here over the last 2 years is "PB Tories < insert vague insult >.."
But the most over used phrase at the mo surely must be credited to your good self?
It's Hodges, Topping, I mean Barber, it's Hodges.
I know it amuses you to think that Topping and I are the same person, and far be it from me to try and persuade you otherwise...
Personally I find you stuck record contributions about, well pretty much anything, to be a nice counterpoint to your complaint about something being overused.
Is it not rather more likely that we waste even more food than was previously thought? No doubt what was bought could have fed 77m but that does not mean it did.
The supermarket figure was based on staples, however. In my experience staples - sugar, butter, milk, that sort of stuff - is almost never discounted or sold on a BOGOF basis. Neither is it really feasible to use more of it simply because it is cheaper. How much flour can you get through, for example?
With every post you just confirm that you know nothing.
"crossover in the absence of a black swan is, for me, inevitable"...the most over used phrase on PB now for two years. Strange how it hasn't happened, eh.
Surely the most over used phrase on here over the last 2 years is "PB Tories < insert vague insult >.."
But the most over used phrase at the mo surely must be credited to your good self?
It's Hodges, Topping, I mean Barber, it's Hodges.
I know it amuses you to think that Topping and I are the same person, and far be it from me to try and persuade you otherwise...
Personally I find you stuck record contributions about, well pretty much anything, to be a nice counterpoint to your complaint about something being overused.
@George_Osborne: Good news from IMF: UK forecast to grow faster than any other western country + has biggest upgrade. Proof our #LongTermEconomicPlan working
@George_Osborne: The Growth Deniers in Labour Party seem intent today on talking down UK economy. That is the biggest risk to the recovery
I think the most important points to take away are that the Conservative majority in 2010 would have been thin, and that prior to 2010 (97, 01, 05) Scottish independence would not have given them a majority.
Except that New Labour without Scotland, 1997-2010, would not have had Brown, Darling, Reid, Dewar, Cook... etc etc etc - many of their leading politicians (and some of these guys were very popular, in their time, hard as it is to believe). Plus all the cash, energy and activists from SLAB, too.
You have to subtract all that Scottish added value from Labour to get the true position. Would they still have won so convincingly? No. They might have lost.
And in future young, politically motivated Scots - who tend to be leftwing - will probably stay in Scotland. So no future Tony Blairs, either.
I was agreeing until the last bit. I think the politically ambitious will still want to head south as quickly as they can even if we have independence.
The sad truth is that an independent Scotland will be a country of little consequence to anyone but the Scots themselves. The ambitious will still want the bigger stage. The trick is to make sure that stage is available for all of our children to play on.
"Benjamin Harris-Quinney, Director of Conservative Grassroots said: "The damage from the handling of Maria Miller's expenses scandal is now very close to being permanent with two thirds of those who voted Conservative in 2010 saying they are less likely to do so in the 2014 European and k62015 general elections."
Always think PB should be kept up to date with what really matters..........no need for the thanks ;-)
A good rule of thumb, is that anyone who feels the need to refer to themselves as "Conservative Grassroots" is neither Conservative, nor reflective of the grassroots
"Benjamin Harris-Quinney, Director of Conservative Grassroots said: "The damage from the handling of Maria Miller's expenses scandal is now very close to being permanent with two thirds of those who voted Conservative in 2010 saying they are less likely to do so in the 2014 European and k62015 general elections."
Always think PB should be kept up to date with what really matters..........no need for the thanks ;-)
A good rule of thumb, is that anyone who feels the need to refer to themselves as "Conservative Grassroots" is neither Conservative, nor reflective of the grassroots
Funny you say that, there are actually two different groups who call themselves "Conservative Grassroots".
"Benjamin Harris-Quinney, Director of Conservative Grassroots said: "The damage from the handling of Maria Miller's expenses scandal is now very close to being permanent with two thirds of those who voted Conservative in 2010 saying they are less likely to do so in the 2014 European and k62015 general elections."
Always think PB should be kept up to date with what really matters..........no need for the thanks ;-)
A good rule of thumb, is that anyone who feels the need to refer to themselves as "Conservative Grassroots" is neither Conservative, nor reflective of the grassroots
Funny you say that, there are actually two different groups who call themselves "Conservative Grassroots".
"Benjamin Harris-Quinney, Director of Conservative Grassroots said: "The damage from the handling of Maria Miller's expenses scandal is now very close to being permanent with two thirds of those who voted Conservative in 2010 saying they are less likely to do so in the 2014 European and k62015 general elections."
Always think PB should be kept up to date with what really matters..........no need for the thanks ;-)
A good rule of thumb, is that anyone who feels the need to refer to themselves as "Conservative Grassroots" is neither Conservative, nor reflective of the grassroots
Funny you say that, there are actually two different groups who call themselves "Conservative Grassroots".
The sad truth is that an independent Scotland will be a country of little consequence to anyone but the Scots themselves. The ambitious will still want the bigger stage. The trick is to make sure that stage is available for all of our children to play on.
Why on earth, after the effects on the UK of Scotch politicians such as Blair and Brown, would we ever allow a Scotchman near Westminster again?
AIUI any EU citizen can stand for Westminster. We need to be ʎpooןq sure that these people are well and truly out of our political lives forever after the harm they have done. If they try to join the EU we need to be ready with that veto otherwise they will back like tertiary syphilis.
I think the most important points to take away are that the Conservative majority in 2010 would have been thin, and that prior to 2010 (97, 01, 05) Scottish independence would not have given them a majority.
Except that New Labour without Scotland, 1997-2010, would not have had Brown, Darling, Reid, Dewar, Cook... etc etc etc - many of their leading politicians (and some of these guys were very popular, in their time, hard as it is to believe). Plus all the cash, energy and activists from SLAB, too.
You have to subtract all that Scottish added value from Labour to get the true position. Would they still have won so convincingly? No. They might have lost.
And in future young, politically motivated Scots - who tend to be leftwing - will probably stay in Scotland. So no future Tony Blairs, either.
I was agreeing until the last bit. I think the politically ambitious will still want to head south as quickly as they can even if we have independence.
The sad truth is that an independent Scotland will be a country of little consequence to anyone but the Scots themselves. The ambitious will still want the bigger stage. The trick is to make sure that stage is available for all of our children to play on.
If you are someone like Mr Blair, perhaps so (except, to correct Mr T on a pedantic point, that he left when he was still in short trousers). And his impact on the world stage is, let's say, a matter for debate. But Scotlad should not be run for the benefit of greasy pole merchants who want MPs' and Lords seats.
The true comparison is whether Scotland, for the Scots, is going to get more attention on its own than as part of the UK. To take just one recent example, consider fisheries and farming policy with relation to the EU and how London has managed it for Scottish farmers and fishermen - most recently by simply holding back a large grant of moneys specifically intended for Scottish farmers.
"Benjamin Harris-Quinney, Director of Conservative Grassroots said: "The damage from the handling of Maria Miller's expenses scandal is now very close to being permanent with two thirds of those who voted Conservative in 2010 saying they are less likely to do so in the 2014 European and k62015 general elections."
Always think PB should be kept up to date with what really matters..........no need for the thanks ;-)
A good rule of thumb, is that anyone who feels the need to refer to themselves as "Conservative Grassroots" is neither Conservative, nor reflective of the grassroots
Funny you say that, there are actually two different groups who call themselves "Conservative Grassroots".
The UK to grow 2.9% this year they say, the fastest of the G7 nations.
It would be nice if it was true but the IMF's forecast record is just pants. Having grossly underestimated the UK's growth in the past I think they are now in danger of going too far the other way.
The Q1 figure later this month will give us some idea. The February production figures were terrific but the PMI indications were more modest. I think the consensus is still something around 0.7% which makes the IMF forecast look at the top of the range for me.
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
I seem to recall that in law you can't defame a party, only identifiable individuals.
I'm sure you can't defame a political party.
It might constitute an offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (cf the Miranda Grell case) but I'd have to look that up.
Some years ago there was vicious in-fighting in the local BNP, when their local councillor fell out with the leadership. We were trying to squash the BNP in a by-election, so I asked a well-known cartoonist to do a sketch of a man and a woman (not depicting anyone in particular) wrestling, with a caption "The BNP is more interested in fighting each other than working for you" or something like that. It was spiked by the central legal department, who said it risked an expensive libel action with the BNP. We were too busy fighting the by-election (where the BNP ended up with some trivial vote anyway) so I shrugged it off. But it always seemed weird advice to me.
What's your view on the leaflet in question, Nick?
"Benjamin Harris-Quinney, Director of Conservative Grassroots said: "The damage from the handling of Maria Miller's expenses scandal is now very close to being permanent with two thirds of those who voted Conservative in 2010 saying they are less likely to do so in the 2014 European and k62015 general elections."
Always think PB should be kept up to date with what really matters..........no need for the thanks ;-)
A good rule of thumb, is that anyone who feels the need to refer to themselves as "Conservative Grassroots" is neither Conservative, nor reflective of the grassroots
Funny you say that, there are actually two different groups who call themselves "Conservative Grassroots".
Except that New Labour without Scotland, 1997-2010, would not have had Brown, Darling, Reid, Dewar, Cook... etc etc etc - many of their leading politicians (and some of these guys were very popular, in their time, hard as it is to believe).
Sean, get off this hobby horse.
No-one knows what these persons would have done in an alternative rUK universe, except that it would be in some way different.
I've already exploded your canard that Scots will/should be barred from a future rUK Westminster...
I was agreeing until the last bit. I think the politically ambitious will still want to head south as quickly as they can even if we have independence.
The sad truth is that an independent Scotland will be a country of little consequence to anyone but the Scots themselves. The ambitious will still want the bigger stage. The trick is to make sure that stage is available for all of our children to play on.
If you are someone like Mr Blair, perhaps so (except, to correct Mr T on a pedantic point, that he left when he was still in short trousers). And his impact on the world stage is, let's say, a matter for debate. But Scotlad should not be run for the benefit of greasy pole merchants who want MPs' and Lords seats.
The true comparison is whether Scotland, for the Scots, is going to get more attention on its own than as part of the UK. To take just one recent example, consider fisheries and farming policy with relation to the EU and how London has managed it for Scottish farmers and fishermen - most recently by simply holding back a large grant of moneys specifically intended for Scottish farmers.
If you are someone like Mr Blair, perhaps so (except, to correct Mr T on a pedantic point, that he left when he was still in short trousers). And his impact on the world stage is, let's say, a matter for debate. But Scotlad should not be run for the benefit of greasy pole merchants who want MPs' and Lords seats.
The true comparison is whether Scotland, for the Scots, is going to get more attention on its own than as part of the UK. To take just one recent example, consider fisheries and farming policy with relation to the EU and how London has managed it for Scottish farmers and fishermen - most recently by simply holding back a large grant of moneys specifically intended for Scottish farmers.
I said: Putting aside little details as to whether Scotland will be in the EU how do you think smaller countries are treated inside it? When did anyone last listen to anything they had to say? The EU is run for the benefit of Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain in that order. No one else gets a look in as a general rule but mid ranking countries such as Poland can sometimes get their way by sucking up to the Germans.
Wee countries get trod on for the greater good. Ask Ireland, Portugal, Greece.
Scottish farmers have a much better chance of having their concerns addressed as a part of the UK delegation. On their own they will be ignored. If they are lucky they may get a crumb from the table.
The sad truth is that an independent Scotland will be a country of little consequence to anyone but the Scots themselves. The ambitious will still want the bigger stage. The trick is to make sure that stage is available for all of our children to play on.
Why on earth, after the effects on the UK of Scotch politicians such as Blair and Brown, would we ever allow a Scotchman near Westminster again?
AIUI any EU citizen can stand for Westminster. We need to be ʎpooןq sure that these people are well and truly out of our political lives forever after the harm they have done. If they try to join the EU we need to be ready with that veto otherwise they will back like tertiary syphilis.
Standby for an announcement relating to the future of the internet shortly.
Boxingguru has been collared by the boys in blue.
Where am I meant to get ridiculous 'anon' chatter whilst watching sport now - sure there are other streams but Nutjob/Boxingguru had an atmosphere all of its own. A sad day that PIPCU has collared them.
For me a little part of the internet that I like to call my 5th home or so died this week.
I think the most important points to take away are that the Conservative majority in 2010 would have been thin, and that prior to 2010 (97, 01, 05) Scottish independence would not have given them a majority.
Except that New Labour without Scotland, 1997-2010, would not have had Brown, Darling, Reid, Dewar, Cook... etc etc etc - many of their leading politicians (and some of these guys were very popular, in their time, hard as it is to believe). Plus all the cash, energy and activists from SLAB, too.
You have to subtract all that Scottish added value from Labour to get the true position. Would they still have won so convincingly? No. They might have lost.
And in future young, politically motivated Scots - who tend to be leftwing - will probably stay in Scotland. So no future Tony Blairs, either.
I was agreeing until the last bit. I think the politically ambitious will still want to head south as quickly as they can even if we have independence.
The sad truth is that an independent Scotland will be a country of little consequence to anyone but the Scots themselves. The ambitious will still want the bigger stage. The trick is to make sure that stage is available for all of our children to play on.
Why on earth, after Scotland has just sued for divorce (with much vitriol and hatred being cast the way of England) should England then say Oh please do let your kids come and use our swimming pool?
After any YES vote there will, I reckon, be a very mild surge of anti-Scottish feeling. It won't be nasty or violent or permanent, but it will be there, and maybe for a decade or two it will be a little harder for Scots to make it in London, in any arena.
More significantly, it will be almost impossible for Scots (with recognisable Scots accents) to make it in professions like serious journalism or high politics in London, as the English will (rightly) say, Hold on, you've got your own country now, you told us to go away, why are you still trying to run my country, or tell me how to run mine?
Smart Scots will see these hurdles, and stay home, and be big fish in the little pond.
Michael Gove? Jim Naughtie? Andrew Marr? Andrew Neil? Can you seriously see any of these people wanting to play in a toy sandpit?
I accept that the next generation might have it harder but England is a very welcoming place: just look at their cricket team.
Standby for an announcement relating to the future of the internet shortly.
I don't know if it's related but we discovered today that there's a bug in OpenSSL, which runs something like half the websites in the world and particularly the more secure ones, that allows people to undetectably steal... well, everything. Everyone's scrambling to fix it right now, but apparently it's been there since 2011, so who knows what went walkabouts where in the mean time.
PS. You might want to stay off internet banking for the next day or two.
Cameron has allowed his judgement to be clouded by his woman problem and is now seen to be discriminating against men.The problem he has with Maria is but a symptom of his wider woman problem.
Standby for an announcement relating to the future of the internet shortly.
I don't know if it's related but we discovered today that there's a bug in OpenSSL, which runs something like half the websites in the world and particularly the more secure ones, that allows people to undetectably steal... well, everything. Everyone's scrambling to fix it right now, but apparently it's been there since 2011, so who knows what went walkabouts where in the mean time.
PS. You might want to stay off internet banking for the next day or two.
Quite a lot of new constituency markets up at Ladbrokes since the start of the week - over 200 in total available now. http://bit.ly/1gxOzKT
Is there any procedure by which I can get the bet limit on my account raised? I can only make bets on politics which win me a fiver, and frankly that's putting a slight dampner on the whole thing.
EDIT: For the record, I know the answer is probably no.
Quite a lot of new constituency markets up at Ladbrokes since the start of the week - over 200 in total available now. http://bit.ly/1gxOzKT
Is there any procedure by which I can get the bet limit on my account raised? I can only make bets on politics which win me a fiver, and frankly that's putting a slight dampner on the whole thing.
EDIT: For the record, I know the answer is probably no.
Quincel, if you drop me an email politics@ladbrokes.co.uk, I can investigate.
Standby for an announcement relating to the future of the internet shortly.
I don't know if it's related but we discovered today that there's a bug in OpenSSL, which runs something like half the websites in the world and particularly the more secure ones, that allows people to undetectably steal... well, everything. Everyone's scrambling to fix it right now, but apparently it's been there since 2011, so who knows what went walkabouts where in the mean time.
PS. You might want to stay off internet banking for the next day or two.
Quite a lot of new constituency markets up at Ladbrokes since the start of the week - over 200 in total available now. http://bit.ly/1gxOzKT
Is there any procedure by which I can get the bet limit on my account raised? I can only make bets on politics which win me a fiver, and frankly that's putting a slight dampner on the whole thing.
EDIT: For the record, I know the answer is probably no.
Quincel, if you drop me an email politics@ladbrokes.co.uk, I can investigate.
Sent, worth a try and thanks in advance for your efforts.
Standby for an announcement relating to the future of the internet shortly.
I don't know if it's related but we discovered today that there's a bug in OpenSSL, which runs something like half the websites in the world and particularly the more secure ones, that allows people to undetectably steal... well, everything. Everyone's scrambling to fix it right now, but apparently it's been there since 2011, so who knows what went walkabouts where in the mean time.
PS. You might want to stay off internet banking for the next day or two.
How many southern Irish people successfully entered British politics in the years after Irish independence? Zero? 3? How many southern Irish people are now serious politicians or serious political commentators in the UK, rather than comedians or chat show hosts? Zero? 2?
The position of Eire was rather different to that of Scotland.
Not many Irish people wanted to become 'serious politicians or commentators' in the UK, I suspect... After all they had just escaped John Bull's grasp and had a nation to build.
Any Scottish separation will be less rancorous and, certainly in comparison to the Irish example, is little more than symbolic...
Bang on the money with that point, and that is the reason why Cameron is standing by her rather than her any rubbish about her gender. If Miller had been a bloke in that post, the same critics would be claiming that it was because he sticks by his mates instead.
If you think that the future shape of the nation or the small matter of a complete shakeup of the constitutional settlement for both Scotland and the rest of the UK are small matters worthy of small notice, then you'll forgive me if I ignore everything you have to say about anything.
The fact that public life in Scotland will have a direct impact on the way people will vote in the referendum is so glaringly obvious that it is hardly worth mentioning. Given this fact you would think that the NO campaign would pay some heed to it wouldn't you?
The only thing one really needs to know about "public life in Scotland" is that five out of six votes there are cast for socialist parties. The desire to tax other people will inevitably result in an angry No vote, because how are 5 million others going to keep you in the same style that 75 million used to?
I actually think key - perhaps most - supporters of the No campaign want to lose, however. Osborne, for example, would clearly benefit personally because it would damage Cameron.
As SeanT quite rightly put it, the biggest losers will be Labour. I don't buy the idea that it will permanently remove 40 Labour seats from Westminster, though. Labour does well on a smaller vote share because its voters simply don't turn out in safe seats. Post a Yes I think that would change.
The departure of Scotland (inshallah) would thus be somewhere between trivial and mildly beneficial to the rest of the UK. So I incline to trivial. Very bad for Scotland, but you wear your choices.
I'm sure the Galapagos anemone punches the air whenever it gets laid and sincerely considers it the major national news story of the day. This does not make it so, however, nor even the most important thing happening in the waters around the Galapagos.
Utram bibis? Aquam an undam?
Your use of the Galapagos anemone rather betrays a lack of understanding of the sex life of the Coelenterata which by implication confirms your lack of interest in what is happening in Scotland. I wouldn't call the SNP a socialist party - social democratic yes, but hardly socialist: and still less the Labour party (certainly since Mr Blair took over), at least some of the time (it is apt to get a bit confusing when Ms Lamont says scuh different things on different days).
Carnyx , it can be explained in more simple terms . He is a fanny of the first order, full of wind and piss.
It isn't your computer the bug is in, It is in the servers software.
Thanks for that. I check my account daily and, as of this morning I could account for everything. Mind, I don't know who's watching me, or, indeed why, although it has been suggested in the past. Why, though, I can't imagine, unless it's "anyone who is politically active"!
Except that New Labour without Scotland, 1997-2010, would not have had Brown, Darling, Reid, Dewar, Cook... etc etc etc - many of their leading politicians (and some of these guys were very popular, in their time, hard as it is to believe).
Sean, get off this hobby horse.
No-one knows what these persons would have done in an alternative rUK universe, except that it would be in some way different.
I've already exploded your canard that Scots will/should be barred from a future rUK Westminster...
You don't like it cause I am right.
Furthermore,
1. No Scots with Scottish constituencies will be allowed to sit in Westminster (obviously)
2. As the prolonged and agonising break-up after 2016 stretches on for a decade (which it will, with all its untold consequences), Scots will be rather unpopular: it will be almost impossible for men and women with Scots nationality and accents to get a political hearing in England. They will just get heckled back over Hadrian's Wall.
How many southern Irish people successfully entered British politics in the years after Irish independence? Zero? 3? How many southern Irish people are now serious politicians or serious political commentators in the UK, rather than comedians or chat show hosts? Zero? 2?
Great points - however Messers Norton and Wogan suggest that light entertainment broadcasting is open to all even the Oirish - so hope for the Krankies yet.
Except that New Labour without Scotland, 1997-2010, would not have had Brown, Darling, Reid, Dewar, Cook... etc etc etc - many of their leading politicians (and some of these guys were very popular, in their time, hard as it is to believe).
Sean, get off this hobby horse.
No-one knows what these persons would have done in an alternative rUK universe, except that it would be in some way different.
I've already exploded your canard that Scots will/should be barred from a future rUK Westminster...
You don't like it cause I am right.
Furthermore,
1. No Scots with Scottish constituencies will be allowed to sit in Westminster (obviously)
2. As the prolonged and agonising break-up after 2016 stretches on for a decade (which it will, with all its untold consequences), Scots will be rather unpopular: it will be almost impossible for men and women with Scots nationality and accents to get a political hearing in England. They will just get heckled back over Hadrian's Wall.
How many southern Irish people successfully entered British politics in the years after Irish independence? Zero? 3? How many southern Irish people are now serious politicians or serious political commentators in the UK, rather than comedians or chat show hosts? Zero? 2?
Edward Carson Douglas McGarel Hogg Quintin Hailsham George Osborne ;-)
The problem will probably not be with your bank directly, but more through online purchases. The bug allows people access to the memory of the server, unfortunately many servers are vulnerable.
Comments
When I say shame, I mean womderous happenstance.
BNP's Nick Griffin 'Saved Britain from Going to War in Syria'
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bnp-leader-nick-griffin-literally-prevented-britain-going-war-syria-spokesman-tells-bbc-1442763
PB will recall the daily vilification that Jeremy Hunt endured and we were advised that an exchange of letters was imminent if not sooner. And yet there he sits promoted within the government.
1. Manufacturing expanded more than expected.
2. UK wages are rising at the fastest pace in 7 years (whilst inflation slows down).
Naturally, voters will make a decision based on David Cameron's handling of minor misdoing by a midling no-mark cabinet minister few can identify - and not based on the fact the last vestiges of Ed Miliband's economic critique of the government are being utterly atomised.
I actually think key - perhaps most - supporters of the No campaign want to lose, however. Osborne, for example, would clearly benefit personally because it would damage Cameron.
As SeanT quite rightly put it, the biggest losers will be Labour. I don't buy the idea that it will permanently remove 40 Labour seats from Westminster, though. Labour does well on a smaller vote share because its voters simply don't turn out in safe seats. Post a Yes I think that would change.
The departure of Scotland (inshallah) would thus be somewhere between trivial and mildly beneficial to the rest of the UK. So I incline to trivial. Very bad for Scotland, but you wear your choices.
I'm sure the Galapagos anemone punches the air whenever it gets laid and sincerely considers it the major national news story of the day. This does not make it so, however, nor even the most important thing happening in the waters around the Galapagos.
Utram bibis? Aquam an undam?
So there were extenuating circumstances!
Especially when they are made to someone who attended a welsh comprehensive!! LOL
Eg in 2000 they had a market share of 30% and sold 100,000 loaves of bread a day to 59 million people
In 2007 they had a market share of 33% and therefore should have sold 110,000 loaves; however, they sold 143,000.
Therefore, either:
1/ their market share has grown to 43%, or
2/ there are 77 million people living here, or
3/ more bread is being eaten per capita, or
4/ some or all of the above apply.
77 million may well be the wrong number, but it doesn't make the official number right.
But she is still there and I really don't see her going now. Cameron showed an enormous reluctance to be bullied by the press and even stood by Mitchell for the best part of a month despite the lies of the Police Federation members. Is this really going to go on and on? What else is there to say?
Personally, I don't think she was worth it. But there we are.
LOL
Remember the PB Golden Rule.
The PB tories are always wrong. The PB tories never learn.
In no way are the purples as big a threat to LAB as CON
Which just might be why so many Tory MPs are sh*tting themselves in fear since the kippers are still nowhere the 3.1% they got in 2010 and show no sign whatsoever of crashing back down to those kind of levels any time soon.
The supermarket figure was based on staples, however. In my experience staples - sugar, butter, milk, that sort of stuff - is almost never discounted or sold on a BOGOF basis. Neither is it really feasible to use more of it simply because it is cheaper. How much flour can you get through, for example?
I went for a job interview at Lidl once. It was in purchasing. Odd head office, in a converted house in Wimbledon. They were at pains to explain that their price strategy was to seek retail price advantage in processed foods, but always at "A-eins Qualitaet".
Their processed stuff is indeed cheaper but their staples were basically the same price as at Tesco. This tends to persuade me that there is something in the Tesco claim, although I doubt there are 20 million more people. Two to four I could believe, and it would then chime with the other data rather better.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26938990
On the Mail too. This has undone all the budget bounce, a disaster for Dave.
The public think all politicians are troughers, they aren't going to start changing votes over one more piggy.
The census registers those who are here with some degree of pemanence but is not as good at picking up those who drift, whether they are local or not. It stands to reason that the increase in immigrant labour from the EU with minimal monitoring or control is going to increase the "drift" element and the gross total of those present at any one time will be higher than the census indicates but I think 77m or even 70m is very unlikely for the reasons RCS has pointed out.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/maria-miller-expenses-scandal-tory-mp-says-cameron-would-have-sacked-her-days-ago--if-she-was-called-mark-9245698.html
"I do wonder if her name was Mark Miller something different might happen. Colleagues think he would have been gone a week ago," the MP told the Huffington Post.
Hodges unamed sources all over the show.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10751943/Maria-Miller-Im-suprised-she-hasnt-resigned-says-senior-Tory-MP.html
"One member of the 1922 Committee Executive said: “She should do the honourable thing and resign. She has been foolish and selfish. She is damaging the party and putting the Prime Minister in a very difficult position.”
Con 306
Lab 217
LD 46
DUP 8
Others 14
Con maj.
There is plenty of room for an outlier to show level pegging, although I don't expect crossover until conference season.
Labour are not polling, as a party, or for Ed individually as a govt in waiting. Contraction and crossover in the absence of a black swan is, for me, inevitable over the next 9 months.
Remember the Tories are polling, with leakage to UKIP and with the baggage of government, at their 2005 election level. It will be far easier for them to mobilise the defence vote than it was to launch an assault back then. In 2005 there was no visible economic failure of Labour to hammer home. Now there is.
Governments don't moan about being 3 down a year out. They relish it.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4057207.ece
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article4057006.ece
You don;t understand. The economic news today is so good, so toxic to labour's last redoubt economic critique 'cost of living crisis' that compouter has no choice but to bore us all rigid with his Miller parroting.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2008/01/cameron-makes-t.html
As to flour, I'd dispute whether you can consider that a staple any more. Most breadmakers gather dust and the Great Britain Bake Off is more watched than imitated.
https://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/96016/conservative_grassroots_damage_from_handling_of_maria_miller_will_now_have_a_significant_impact_on_2014_and_2015_elections.html
"Benjamin Harris-Quinney, Director of Conservative Grassroots said: "The damage from the handling of Maria Miller's expenses scandal is now very close to being permanent with two thirds of those who voted Conservative in 2010 saying they are less likely to do so in the 2014 European and k62015 general elections."
Always think PB should be kept up to date with what really matters..........no need for the thanks ;-)
The daftest bit of this charade is that if she'd been a Labour MP and the Tories had complained like this, you'd have accused them of being misogynist.
She ought to have resigned last year.
But the most over used phrase at the mo surely must be credited to your good self?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10752146/Non-descript-Maria-Miller-should-be-thankful-for-her-expenses-scandal.html
There cannot be many left who haven't put the knife in, surely.
"When the political obituaries come to be written about Maria Miller, the most depressing truth for the Culture Secretary will be how her expenses subsumed everything else about her career (and finally put her on the public's radar), because it's very difficult to name anything else she has achieved in office"
Personally I find you stuck record contributions about, well pretty much anything, to be a nice counterpoint to your complaint about something being overused.
Now that's ironic, Alanis.
@George_Osborne: The Growth Deniers in Labour Party seem intent today on talking down UK economy. That is the biggest risk to the recovery
"No.10 - Matter of Maria Miller has not arisen."
The sad truth is that an independent Scotland will be a country of little consequence to anyone but the Scots themselves. The ambitious will still want the bigger stage. The trick is to make sure that stage is available for all of our children to play on.
http://grassrootsconservatives.org.uk/
is one of them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26941091
But I suspect a lot of front pages are being held while the lawyers are browbeaten into agreeing that it can be reported.
AIUI any EU citizen can stand for Westminster. We need to be ʎpooןq sure that these people are well and truly out of our political lives forever after the harm they have done. If they try to join the EU we need to be ready with that veto otherwise they will back like tertiary syphilis.
The true comparison is whether Scotland, for the Scots, is going to get more attention on its own than as part of the UK. To take just one recent example, consider fisheries and farming policy with relation to the EU and how London has managed it for Scottish farmers and fishermen - most recently by simply holding back a large grant of moneys specifically intended for Scottish farmers.
Beware.
The UK to grow 2.9% this year they say, the fastest of the G7 nations.
It would be nice if it was true but the IMF's forecast record is just pants. Having grossly underestimated the UK's growth in the past I think they are now in danger of going too far the other way.
The Q1 figure later this month will give us some idea. The February production figures were terrific but the PMI indications were more modest. I think the consensus is still something around 0.7% which makes the IMF forecast look at the top of the range for me.
WikiLeaks @wikileaks 9m
Standby for an announcement relating to the future of the internet shortly.
No-one knows what these persons would have done in an alternative rUK universe, except that it would be in some way different.
I've already exploded your canard that Scots will/should be barred from a future rUK Westminster...
The only truth that matters
Do you promise???
Where am I meant to get ridiculous 'anon' chatter whilst watching sport now - sure there are other streams but Nutjob/Boxingguru had an atmosphere all of its own. A sad day that PIPCU has collared them.
For me a little part of the internet that I like to call my 5th home or so died this week.
I accept that the next generation might have it harder but England is a very welcoming place: just look at their cricket team.
PS. You might want to stay off internet banking for the next day or two.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/maria-miller-expenses-scandal-tory-mp-says-cameron-would-have-sacked-her-days-ago--if-she-was-called-mark-9245698.html
'I know it amuses you to think that Topping and I are the same person, and far be it from me to try and persuade you otherwise.'
compouter2 doing his pot,kettle,black bit.
http://bit.ly/1gxOzKT
http://www.zdnet.com/heartbleed-serious-openssl-zero-day-vulnerability-revealed-7000028166/
EDIT: For the record, I know the answer is probably no.
"Is there any procedure by which I can get the bet limit on my account raised?"
Lose more, often?
It isn't your computer the bug is in, It is in the servers software.
Not many Irish people wanted to become 'serious politicians or commentators' in the UK, I suspect... After all they had just escaped John Bull's grasp and had a nation to build.
Any Scottish separation will be less rancorous and, certainly in comparison to the Irish example, is little more than symbolic...
Mind, I don't know who's watching me, or, indeed why, although it has been suggested in the past. Why, though, I can't imagine, unless it's "anyone who is politically active"!
Douglas McGarel Hogg
Quintin Hailsham
George Osborne ;-)
The problem will probably not be with your bank directly, but more through online purchases.
The bug allows people access to the memory of the server, unfortunately many servers are vulnerable.