politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Have you been on the weekend IndyRef betting roller coaster

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited April 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Have you been on the weekend IndyRef betting roller coaster?

What’s good from a punting point of view is that is is one of the few political betting markets which are now liquid with a fair bit of activity.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    Have the SNat trolls and turnips broken "Vanilla"?

    :ARSE:
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    Well done, OGH.

    In another part of the forest entirely I suggested to my son that Arsenal would win on penalties. I suspect he was behind the sofa for most of the time. Anyway, it's my daughter who's the punter in the family.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    From Guido's gaff. Not sure but worth a wave to Wodger. :)
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Sorry to go off topic so early, but I've been busy investigating a different electoral market, which is also topical:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/how-far-will-lib-dems-slide-down.html

    I'd be grateful if someone could confirm the links work for other people.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    antifrank said:

    Sorry to go off topic so early, but I've been busy investigating a different electoral market, which is also topical:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/how-far-will-lib-dems-slide-down.html

    I'd be grateful if someone could confirm the links work for other people.

    Yes, it works. Anything else...?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    edited April 2014
    Much obliged, Fluffy.

    Nothing else, I'm a man of simple needs.

    There will be further similar posts in the coming days.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    antifrank said:

    Much obliged, Fluffy.

    Nothing else, I'm a man of simple needs.

    One assume that you are going into compi with OGH. [Complementary would not suffice.] Why 'that' blogging system?

    :gets-mez-goat:
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    FPT
    Miller has obviously hit the tories in the polls and boosted UKIP, but on a couple of newspaper threads today I've also read some dreadful comments about the appointment of Sajid Javed as culture secretary.

    I suspect there is a significant minority of people in our country who don;t just abhor Islamism. They abhor Islam.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    FluffyThoughts said:

    antifrank said:

    Much obliged, Fluffy.

    Nothing else, I'm a man of simple needs.

    One assume that you are going into compi with OGH. [Complementary would not suffice.] Why 'that' blogging system?

    :gets-mez-goat:
    Not at all. It's just somewhere to put up the tables without losing them in historical threads on here. I'm not expecting many visitors, so I don't need anything fancy. I doubt I'll reach 20 posts in total.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    FPT @Paul_Mid_Beds

    Tory strategists can put forward whatever policies they like. With their record since 2010, I and many others won't be voting for them in 2015 whatever false promises they make. Sorry Dave, we don't believe anything your party says anymore.

    I suppose there are two readings of this:

    1. They have repeatedly lied since 2010 and therefore you don't believe that they say

    - I don't think the Tories have lied since 2010? Certainly not everything has gone to plan, and they haven't managed to implement their manifesto (and there are somethings in law that weren't in the manifesto) but they are in Coalition after all

    - Can you be more specific about the lies?

    2. You don't like what they have done since 2010 and therefore you won't vote for them.

    - This is at least logically consistent, although the second half of the post is an non sequitur. What have they done (or not done) that has got you so riled up?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited April 2014
    taffys said:

    FPT
    Miller has obviously hit the tories in the polls and boosted UKIP, but on a couple of newspaper threads today I've also read some dreadful comments about the appointment of Sajid Javed as culture secretary.

    I suspect there is a significant minority of people in our country who don;t just abhor Islamism. They abhor Islam.

    I think you'd have trouble finding someone who could name the Culture Secretary. Knowing that there is such a thing as a Culture Secretary would probably be rare.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    What's with the artistic formatting, or is it just me?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Charles said:

    - I don't think the Tories have lied since 2010? Certainly not everything has gone to plan, and they haven't managed to implement their manifesto (and there are somethings in law that weren't in the manifesto) but they are in Coalition after all

    Rather mysteriously quite a few of the Tory election promises that the coalition has failed to implement were LibDem election promises as well, like Lords reform and voter-triggered recall elections.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312
    FPT Josias Jessop

    Sounds more like the old "pretend you don't live with anyone so you can continue to claim IS as a lone parent" problem.

    IS and ESA are potentially very leaky on the change of circumstances score as unlike JSA claimants they are not required to go to the Jobcentre every two weeks and declare that their circumstances haven't changed. You might not catch people any more often, but when you do, you have evidence they have lied once a fortnight.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edmundintokyo said:

    Charles said:

    - I don't think the Tories have lied since 2010? Certainly not everything has gone to plan, and they haven't managed to implement their manifesto (and there are somethings in law that weren't in the manifesto) but they are in Coalition after all

    Rather mysteriously quite a few of the Tory election promises that the coalition has failed to implement were LibDem election promises as well, like Lords reform and voter-triggered recall elections.
    I'll give you the recall elections, but Lords reform I don't hold against them given how difficult it has been to achieve consensus in the last hundred years (and my view that major constitutional reform needs at least consensus among the parties, if not ratification in a referendum)

    But how many people really get het up about recall elections?

    I have a suspicion about what it is that Paul_Mid_Beds doesn't like, but to be fair, I thought I'd give him the chance to set out his position for himself
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    edmundintokyo said:

    Charles said:

    - I don't think the Tories have lied since 2010? Certainly not everything has gone to plan, and they haven't managed to implement their manifesto (and there are somethings in law that weren't in the manifesto) but they are in Coalition after all

    Rather mysteriously quite a few of the Tory election promises that the coalition has failed to implement were LibDem election promises as well, like Lords reform and voter-triggered recall elections.

    You can throw in no VAT rise, no end to universal benefits and no rise in employee NI contributions.

  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    So the Yes rampers got their fingers burnt. Chapeau to OGH for applying the flame. Let's hope they try it again.
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    SouthamObserver said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Charles said:

    - I don't think the Tories have lied since 2010? Certainly not everything has gone to plan, and they haven't managed to implement their manifesto (and there are somethings in law that weren't in the manifesto) but they are in Coalition after all

    Rather mysteriously quite a few of the Tory election promises that the coalition has failed to implement were LibDem election promises as well, like Lords reform and voter-triggered recall elections.

    You can throw in no VAT rise, no end to universal benefits and no rise in employee NI contributions.

    I thought it was a rule that when there was a change of Government, the incoming lot always said that they'd inherited a far worse mess than they had anticipated, so sadly some if not all of their financial promises would have to be deferred...

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    Innocent_Abroad said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Charles said:

    - I don't think the Tories have lied since 2010? Certainly not everything has gone to plan, and they haven't managed to implement their manifesto (and there are somethings in law that weren't in the manifesto) but they are in Coalition after all

    Rather mysteriously quite a few of the Tory election promises that the coalition has failed to implement were LibDem election promises as well, like Lords reform and voter-triggered recall elections.

    You can throw in no VAT rise, no end to universal benefits and no rise in employee NI contributions.

    I thought it was a rule that when there was a change of Government, the incoming lot always said that they'd inherited a far worse mess than they had anticipated, so sadly some if not all of their financial promises would have to be deferred...

    It's not usual that the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirms it, in a note to his successor.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    Charles said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Charles said:

    - I don't think the Tories have lied since 2010? Certainly not everything has gone to plan, and they haven't managed to implement their manifesto (and there are somethings in law that weren't in the manifesto) but they are in Coalition after all

    Rather mysteriously quite a few of the Tory election promises that the coalition has failed to implement were LibDem election promises as well, like Lords reform and voter-triggered recall elections.
    I'll give you the recall elections, but Lords reform I don't hold against them given how difficult it has been to achieve consensus in the last hundred years (and my view that major constitutional reform needs at least consensus among the parties, if not ratification in a referendum)

    But how many people really get het up about recall elections?

    I have a suspicion about what it is that Paul_Mid_Beds doesn't like, but to be fair, I thought I'd give him the chance to set out his position for himself
    I must admit, I don't like the concept of recall elections at all. Someone is elected to serve for five years. It is supposed to be hard to stop being an MP (you technically need to take job in pay of the Crown, the Chiltern Hundreds, to do it voluntarily). If you're unhappy with your representative, perhaps you should have thought a bit harder about where to cast your vote.

    Re Lords reform: it seems to me that everyone agrees (a) the Labour reforms have not given the upper chamber any greater legitimacy, and (b) this should be a cross-party affair. It would be good if we could put together a Royal Commission to study the problem and suggest a solution. MPs would have a free vote on the recommendations, and there would then be a referendum to agree the changes. Personally, I think it would be a good thing if: (a) the upper chamber was less 'whippable', and less susceptible to the day-to-day vagaries of public opinion, and (b) elected on a more proportional system, so that if we were to have a truly disproportionate FPTP result in the Commons, then it would be constrained to some extent.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Labour actually went to law to defend the principle that manifesto promises were not promises at all and no government could be held bound by anything it had previously said in order to get elected.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,704
    No top down reorganisations of the NHS.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    HurstLlama said:

    Labour actually went to law to defend the principle that manifesto promises were not promises at all and no government could be held bound by anything it had previously said in order to get elected.

    Which really ought to be fair enough in a parliamentary democracy where candidates stand both as individuals with their own views and as representatives of a party; where events can require a reassessment of priorities / practicalities; and where a party, never mind an individual, may not be in a position to implement what they said they'd do.

    I dislike the increasing trend of hauling politicians before courts - whether legal or panels / commissions - on the basis of their judgement. It should be to the electorate that they're accountable, not judges. Anything else undermines the democratic principle.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    HurstLlama said:

    Labour actually went to law to defend the principle that manifesto promises were not promises at all and no government could be held bound by anything it had previously said in order to get elected.

    You don't elect a party. You elect a person to be your MP.

    If you want to elect a party and have manifesto promises are contractual committments, then change the system to one where you elect parties.

    MPs are held accountable by the electors every five years.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Innocent_Abroad said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Charles said:

    - I don't think the Tories have lied since 2010? Certainly not everything has gone to plan, and they haven't managed to implement their manifesto (and there are somethings in law that weren't in the manifesto) but they are in Coalition after all

    Rather mysteriously quite a few of the Tory election promises that the coalition has failed to implement were LibDem election promises as well, like Lords reform and voter-triggered recall elections.

    You can throw in no VAT rise, no end to universal benefits and no rise in employee NI contributions.

    I thought it was a rule that when there was a change of Government, the incoming lot always said that they'd inherited a far worse mess than they had anticipated, so sadly some if not all of their financial promises would have to be deferred...

    Best not to make the promise in the first place. The LDs actually pointed out during the GE campaign that the Tories would have to put up VAT to fund their plans. The Tories furiously and repeatedly denied it.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Let's hope they try it again.

    Lol, Macavity Monica, the non-bettor.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Charles said:

    - I don't think the Tories have lied since 2010? Certainly not everything has gone to plan, and they haven't managed to implement their manifesto (and there are somethings in law that weren't in the manifesto) but they are in Coalition after all

    Rather mysteriously quite a few of the Tory election promises that the coalition has failed to implement were LibDem election promises as well, like Lords reform and voter-triggered recall elections.
    I'll give you the recall elections, but Lords reform I don't hold against them given how difficult it has been to achieve consensus in the last hundred years (and my view that major constitutional reform needs at least consensus among the parties, if not ratification in a referendum)

    But how many people really get het up about recall elections?

    I have a suspicion about what it is that Paul_Mid_Beds doesn't like, but to be fair, I thought I'd give him the chance to set out his position for himself
    I must admit, I don't like the concept of recall elections at all. Someone is elected to serve for five years. It is supposed to be hard to stop being an MP (you technically need to take job in pay of the Crown, the Chiltern Hundreds, to do it voluntarily). If you're unhappy with your representative, perhaps you should have thought a bit harder about where to cast your vote.
    That's all well and good in theory. However, in practice we are given basically zero information on new MPs other than their party label. The party system is so strong that candidates are effectively barred from airing any views of their own before the election, and unless they happen to be particularly well known, it's career suicide for them not to vote loyally with the leadership afterwards, so there's very little to choose from even if its someone with one term under their belt.

    The problem right now is that we have the worst of both world's: an electoral system based around voting in your individual MP, but a party system that means they are merely a cog in the party machine.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Charles said:

    - I don't think the Tories have lied since 2010? Certainly not everything has gone to plan, and they haven't managed to implement their manifesto (and there are somethings in law that weren't in the manifesto) but they are in Coalition after all

    Rather mysteriously quite a few of the Tory election promises that the coalition has failed to implement were LibDem election promises as well, like Lords reform and voter-triggered recall elections.
    I'll give you the recall elections, but Lords reform I don't hold against them given how difficult it has been to achieve consensus in the last hundred years (and my view that major constitutional reform needs at least consensus among the parties, if not ratification in a referendum)

    But how many people really get het up about recall elections?

    I have a suspicion about what it is that Paul_Mid_Beds doesn't like, but to be fair, I thought I'd give him the chance to set out his position for himself
    I must admit, I don't like the concept of recall elections at all. Someone is elected to serve for five years. It is supposed to be hard to stop being an MP (you technically need to take job in pay of the Crown, the Chiltern Hundreds, to do it voluntarily). If you're unhappy with your representative, perhaps you should have thought a bit harder about where to cast your vote.

    Re Lords reform: it seems to me that everyone agrees (a) the Labour reforms have not given the upper chamber any greater legitimacy, and (b) this should be a cross-party affair. It would be good if we could put together a Royal Commission to study the problem and suggest a solution. MPs would have a free vote on the recommendations, and there would then be a referendum to agree the changes. Personally, I think it would be a good thing if: (a) the upper chamber was less 'whippable', and less susceptible to the day-to-day vagaries of public opinion, and (b) elected on a more proportional system, so that if we were to have a truly disproportionate FPTP result in the Commons, then it would be constrained to some extent.
    Circumstances can change, but I'd look to make the barrier to a recall election very high - say 30% of voters in a constituency physically signing a petition? Otherwise it will just become a tool of political mischief

    On Lords reform I completely agree. It needs a Royal Commission; I would incorporate a regional element into the HoL system, so that you can finally eliminate some of the overweighing of certain UK regions in the Commons (it's a lot less bad than it used to be, but - I think - Wales is still over-represented)

    But it needs consensus. Perhaps a DevoMax Commission after No wins in September?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Good morning, everyone.

    I still hope No wins. Not just because that's the result I want, but it would have the added bonus of Salmond failing.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    It was actually the LD support for the VAT rise in 2010 which initiated the big move of many of their 2010 supporters over to Labour. Reneging on tuition fees promises merely confirmed an impression already created.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Charles said:

    - I don't think the Tories have lied since 2010? Certainly not everything has gone to plan, and they haven't managed to implement their manifesto (and there are somethings in law that weren't in the manifesto) but they are in Coalition after all

    Rather mysteriously quite a few of the Tory election promises that the coalition has failed to implement were LibDem election promises as well, like Lords reform and voter-triggered recall elections.
    I'll give you the recall elections, but Lords reform I don't hold against them given how difficult it has been to achieve consensus in the last hundred years (and my view that major constitutional reform needs at least consensus among the parties, if not ratification in a referendum)

    But how many people really get het up about recall elections?

    I have a suspicion about what it is that Paul_Mid_Beds doesn't like, but to be fair, I thought I'd give him the chance to set out his position for himself
    I must admit, I don't like the concept of recall elections at all. Someone is elected to serve for five years. It is supposed to be hard to stop being an MP (you technically need to take job in pay of the Crown, the Chiltern Hundreds, to do it voluntarily). If you're unhappy with your representative, perhaps you should have thought a bit harder about where to cast your vote.

    Re Lords reform: it seems to me that everyone agrees (a) the Labour reforms have not given the upper chamber any greater legitimacy, and (b) this should be a cross-party affair. It would be good if we could put together a Royal Commission to study the problem and suggest a solution. MPs would have a free vote on the recommendations, and there would then be a referendum to agree the changes. Personally, I think it would be a good thing if: (a) the upper chamber was less 'whippable', and less susceptible to the day-to-day vagaries of public opinion, and (b) elected on a more proportional system, so that if we were to have a truly disproportionate FPTP result in the Commons, then it would be constrained to some extent.
    Circumstances can change, but I'd look to make the barrier to a recall election very high - say 30% of voters in a constituency physically signing a petition? Otherwise it will just become a tool of political mischief
    That's often cited as an objection, but it has not been the experience of other countries where recall elections are already in law.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    edited April 2014
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    I still hope No wins. Not just because that's the result I want, but it would have the added bonus of Salmond failing.

    Will Project Fear defeat Project Fib? I still believe Fib will just edge it. In a referendum, telling voters what they want to hear has very few down sides as unlike in a GE when it turns out you were not being entirely frank you can't subsequently be kicked out of office.

  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312
    On Lords reform my bottom line is: no appointees.

    I find it particularly offensive that an MP rejected by his local electorate can immediately be reappointed to Parliament for life, thus circumventing the wishes of the people.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    Great song; best not ask the armed-wing of the Labour Party....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SPogGqCgeM

    :muppet-watch:
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    SouthamObserver said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    I still hope No wins. Not just because that's the result I want, but it would have the added bonus of Salmond failing.

    Will Project Fear defeat Project Fib? I still believe Fib will just edge it. In a referendum, telling voters what they want to hear has very few down sides as unlike in a GE when it turns out you were not being entirely frank you can't subsequently be kicked out of office.

    Fear trumps everything.

    “it is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.”
    ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Indeed, Miss DiCanio, but one must avoid being hated.

    It's the hatred of the blues which has led to such leftist tactical voting, after all. If the hate weren't there the Conservatives would be in much better shape.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    rcs1000 said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Labour actually went to law to defend the principle that manifesto promises were not promises at all and no government could be held bound by anything it had previously said in order to get elected.

    You don't elect a party. You elect a person to be your MP.

    If you want to elect a party and have manifesto promises are contractual committments, then change the system to one where you elect parties.

    MPs are held accountable by the electors every five years.
    Thank goodness you told me. All these years and I never knew how our parliamentary system worked. I never realised that there was no connection between the candidates on the ballot paper and the party labels that appear next to their names.

    *Checks original post*

    Nope, I don't see where I said I wanted manifesto promises to be contractual commitments. In fact I don't see where I expressed a view at all, just stated a fact in the context of a discussion that was then on going.

    Anyway, patronise all you like.
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    rcs1000 said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Labour actually went to law to defend the principle that manifesto promises were not promises at all and no government could be held bound by anything it had previously said in order to get elected.

    You don't elect a party. You elect a person to be your MP.

    If you want to elect a party and have manifesto promises are contractual committments, then change the system to one where you elect parties.

    MPs are held accountable by the electors every five years.
    So you are happy for the Party machines to sack Euro-MPs one day and appoint another the next? No? Thought not.

    MPs are also accountable to their activists, no matter how few or how weird, for their nomination, before they can be "held accountable by the electors". Like most activists, I suspect you'd like to keep your own Party machine and criminalise everyone else's. I've met 'em - left and right.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Interesting piece on glacial warfare(ish) in Kashmir:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-26967340
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Theuniondivvie said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Let's hope they try it again.

    Lol, Macavity Monica, the non-bettor.

    Indeed. Always first with an opinion, always last with a bet.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited April 2014
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Interesting piece on glacial warfare(ish) in Kashmir:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-26967340

    You may want a trip there yourself, after your party gets rubbished on May 22nd. It might clear the head; and if you get hold of an AK47, why anything can happen.

    BTW, good morning to all.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    anotherDave said:

    Charles said:



    Circumstances can change, but I'd look to make the barrier to a recall election very high - say 30% of voters in a constituency physically signing a petition? Otherwise it will just become a tool of political mischief

    That's often cited as an objection, but it has not been the experience of other countries where recall elections are already in law.
    There's two objections:

    1. My view is coloured by the entirely political partisan driven Gray Davies recall election

    2. If, say, an MP is elected on 40% of the vote with the split being 40/30/20/10 then it needs to be meaningful, otherwise the smallest of the parties, who's views were comprehensively rejected, can trigger a recall. I'd also, perhaps, limit recalls to 1 per constituency per parliament to prevent vexatious recalls
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    SouthamObserver said:

    It was actually the LD support for the VAT rise in 2010 which initiated the big move of many of their 2010 supporters over to Labour. Reneging on tuition fees promises merely confirmed an impression already created.

    I really wanted to go on voting LD, but those two decisions ……

    No way on God's grren earth am I going to vote Tory- lite. And I still haven't forgiven Labour for Iraq.

    Green???????

    Seperate toipic: Please, pretty please, can we have a "like" button back
  • WelshBertieWelshBertie Posts: 124
    taffys said:

    FPT
    Miller has obviously hit the tories in the polls and boosted UKIP, but on a couple of newspaper threads today I've also read some dreadful comments about the appointment of Sajid Javed as culture secretary.

    I suspect there is a significant minority of people in our country who don;t just abhor Islamism. They abhor Islam.

    The irony being he isn't even a practicing muslim and his wife's a christian. I've seen some of the comments, they veer from the boderline (and occasionally overt) racist to the petty class warriors who hate him because he was a banker. He's clearly not popular with the frothing hordes from the left. And a few kippers too (Easy to spot...they can't help from mentioning the EUSSR eventually), though with UKIP these days they're hoovering up plenty of the resentful left wing including the ex-BNP vote, though hopefully a more moderate party like UKIP might be a good thing in that regard..

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    SouthamObserver said:

    In a referendum, telling voters what they want to hear has very few down sides as unlike in a GE when it turns out you were not being entirely frank you can't subsequently be kicked out of office.

    Except the SNP would be on 2% in the polls, as the forces of Re-unionism gain the upper hand.

    A 51%-49% Yes win on a tissue of lies makes an independent Scotland ungovernable.

  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    MikeK said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Interesting piece on glacial warfare(ish) in Kashmir:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-26967340

    You may want a trip there yourself, after your party gets rubbished on May 22nd. It might clear the head; and if you get hold of an AK47, why anything can happen.

    BTW, good morning to all.

    That's a bizarre reply to that post. I guess it's five o'clock somewhere.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    SouthamObserver said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    I still hope No wins. Not just because that's the result I want, but it would have the added bonus of Salmond failing.

    Will Project Fear defeat Project Fib? I still believe Fib will just edge it. In a referendum, telling voters what they want to hear has very few down sides as unlike in a GE when it turns out you were not being entirely frank you can't subsequently be kicked out of office.

    Except you consider Project Fear is fibbing about the likelihood of a currency union, so even by your analysis they must be Project Fear & Fibs.

  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    anotherDave said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Charles said:

    - I don't think the Tories have lied since 2010? Certainly not everything has gone to plan, and they haven't managed to implement their manifesto (and there are somethings in law that weren't in the manifesto) but they are in Coalition after all

    Rather mysteriously quite a few of the Tory election promises that the coalition has failed to implement were LibDem election promises as well, like Lords reform and voter-triggered recall elections.
    I'll give you the recall elections, but Lords reform I don't hold against them given how difficult it has been to achieve consensus in the last hundred years (and my view that major constitutional reform needs at least consensus among the parties, if not ratification in a referendum)

    But how many people really get het up about recall elections?

    I have a suspicion about what it is that Paul_Mid_Beds doesn't like, but to be fair, I thought I'd give him the chance to set out his position for himself
    I must admit, I don't like the concept of recall elections at all. Someone is elected to serve for five years. It is supposed to be hard to stop being an MP (you technically need to take job in pay of the Crown, the Chiltern Hundreds, to do it voluntarily). If you're unhappy with your representative, perhaps you should have thought a bit harder about where to cast your vote.

    Re Lords reform: it seems to me that everyone agrees (a) the Labour reforms have not given the upper chamber any greater legitimacy, and (b) this should be a cross-party affair. It would be good if we could put together a Royal Commission to study the problem and suggest a solution. MPs would have a free vote on the recommendations, and there would then be a referendum to agree the changes. Personally, I think it would be a good thing if: (a) the upper chamber was less 'whippable', and less susceptible to the day-to-day vagaries of public opinion, and (b) elected on a more proportional system, so that if we were to have a truly disproportionate FPTP result in the Commons, then it would be constrained to some extent.
    Circumstances can change, but I'd look to make the barrier to a recall election very high - say 30% of voters in a constituency physically signing a petition? Otherwise it will just become a tool of political mischief
    That's often cited as an objection, but it has not been the experience of other countries where recall elections are already in law.
    It was certainly political mischief by the Democrats in Wisconsin in 2012 and the US Gun Lobby in Colorado in 2013
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    Innocent_Abroad said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Labour actually went to law to defend the principle that manifesto promises were not promises at all and no government could be held bound by anything it had previously said in order to get elected.

    You don't elect a party. You elect a person to be your MP.

    If you want to elect a party and have manifesto promises are contractual committments, then change the system to one where you elect parties.

    MPs are held accountable by the electors every five years.
    So you are happy for the Party machines to sack Euro-MPs one day and appoint another the next? No? Thought not.

    MPs are also accountable to their activists, no matter how few or how weird, for their nomination, before they can be "held accountable by the electors". Like most activists, I suspect you'd like to keep your own Party machine and criminalise everyone else's. I've met 'em - left and right.

    Who says I'm against parties being able to change Euro mps?

    I abhor the closed list system we use for the European elections.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    So the Yes rampers got their fingers burnt. Chapeau to OGH for applying the flame. Let's hope they try it again.

    Turnip head, just some people betting on yes, not all are professionals like Mike. They will make a healthy profit on 19th September after the vote.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. K, I have no idea what you're talking about.

    Also, when trying to post this, all the comments became centred. Very odd.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    TwistedFireStopper said:

    MikeK said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Interesting piece on glacial warfare(ish) in Kashmir:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-26967340

    You may want a trip there yourself, after your party gets rubbished on May 22nd. It might clear the head; and if you get hold of an AK47, why anything can happen.

    BTW, good morning to all.

    That's a bizarre reply to that post. I guess it's five o'clock somewhere.

    And still 1940 by the looks of it.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    I still hope No wins. Not just because that's the result I want, but it would have the added bonus of Salmond failing.

    MD , disappointment looms I am afraid.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    MarqueeMark said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    In a referendum, telling voters what they want to hear has very few down sides as unlike in a GE when it turns out you were not being entirely frank you can't subsequently be kicked out of office.

    Except the SNP would be on 2% in the polls, as the forces of Re-unionism gain the upper hand.

    A 51%-49% Yes win on a tissue of lies makes an independent Scotland ungovernable.

    Ha Ha Ha , what a divvy. Do you not understand that 50% + 1 is a winner. Currently we have 1 Tory MP but are governed by Westminster, spot a flaw in your pathetically stupid thinking there. Pop round and have tea with kate Bush more your level.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. G, for Salmond!

    Incidentally, I've got a sort-of tip for China. Hulkenberg, top 6 at 1.75 with Betfair (only £12 available). Reasoning is simple: it's similar to Bahrain, where Force India were arguably second fastest. And Hulkenberg has been top 6 in every race so far (in Australia's that's contingent on Ricciardo's appeal failing).
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. G, for Salmond!

    Incidentally, I've got a sort-of tip for China. Hulkenberg, top 6 at 1.75 with Betfair (only £12 available). Reasoning is simple: it's similar to Bahrain, where Force India were arguably second fastest. And Hulkenberg has been top 6 in every race so far (in Australia's that's contingent on Ricciardo's appeal failing).

    MD , he will be on top of the world on the 19th, his life ambition achieved.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,789
    edited April 2014
    Charles said:


    Charles

    I saw this:

    twitter.com/StatelyHomeNews/status/449524118329638913

    and thought of you.

    How about shaking out a few pennies and buying Lord Halifax's former home ?

    As a fellow Old Etonian, Oxonian and Conservative I believe it is your responsibility to the nation.

    And I'm sure it would be impress your American inlaws immensely.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. G, I do hope not.

    Cao Cao was confident of victory at the Red Cliffs, and Varro at Cannae.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    edited April 2014
    @Innocent_abroad:

    Re the Euro MP thing again - it's worth remembering how we all felt about people being able to defect. Personally, I'd scrap the closed lists and go for simple STV multi-member constituencies, which would mean that certain MEPs in the East of England (*cough* Duff *cough*) would be unlikely to get elected, irrespective of the popularity of their party.

    I also fundamentally disagree with you regarding activists. An MP is the representative of his constituents, not his activists. If you choose to spend your time trying to get someone elected, that's your problem: he or she is not beholden to you.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    malcolmg said:

    Currently we have 1 Tory MP but are governed by Westminster....

    Unckie:

    Is your excuse 'McEwens' or a stella [sic] session of 'Wife-beater'? There are 56-million of us Engerlisch and only 5-million of you Oirish imports....

  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    Interesting that in the 3 polls we have seen this weekend (YouGov, Opinium and ComRes), Cameron's personal ratings are down (-6, -5 and -4) but so are Milibands (-2, -1 and -2).

    (And in the VI only in Opinium have Labour benefited at the Tories' expense: -1 on the week in YouGov, no change in ComRes, and +3 in Opinium.)

    Surely Labour as the main opposition should be doing better? Taking everything into account they're really not in a position to overturn the Conservative between now and 2015.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    edited April 2014
    FluffyThoughts said:

    malcolmg said:

    Currently we have 1 Tory MP but are governed by Westminster....

    Unckie:

    Is your excuse 'McEwens' or a stella [sic] session of 'Wife-beater'? There are 56-million of us Engerlisch and only 5-million of you Oirish imports....

    Fluffy , I note you do not dispute the undemocratic position that we are in now and in almost every election for the last 50 years. Our vote is pointless as it does not count , UK must be the most undemocratic country in the world.

    PS. only scruff would be drinking this early on a Sunday, you should not get confused that other people follow your own habits.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    another_richard said:

    Charles said:


    Charles

    I saw this:

    twitter.com/StatelyHomeNews/status/449524118329638913

    and thought of you.

    How about shaking out a few pennies and buying Lord Halifax's former home ?

    As a fellow Old Etonian, Oxonian and Conservative I believe it is your responsibility to the nation.

    And I'm sure it would be impress your American inlaws immensely.
    Mebbe.

    We've done that sort of conversion before (although Alanbrooke's stamping ground, not yours). Problem is that there are so many copycats these days - as there are in the reversionary market - that it is difficult to make a satisfactory return.

    We did make decent money on a Northumberland country house we sold recently but was on the market for a good 9 months.

    Will take a look, though - thanks for flagging it up
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    malcolmg said:



    Ha Ha Ha , what a divvy. Do you not understand that 50% + 1 is a winner. Currently we have 1 Tory MP but are governed by Westminster, spot a flaw in your pathetically stupid thinking there.

    Your insult well seems to be running dry - poor effort. 2/10

    Scotland is still part of the UK, the UK being governed by a Coalition that includes one Tory and 11 LibDem Scottish MP's. Northern Ireland with no MP's in the Coalition has a better case for a break with the Union, by your argument.

    It is painfully clear that the height of the SNP's ambitions is to win with 50% plus one. Based on economics at the most 0.1% optimistic end of the spectrum. Many would call that so unlikely to come to pass as to be the peddling of lies. Well, good luck for running an independent Scotland when that unravels. The Scottish Govt's first prudent act might need to be banning the sale of piano wire.... Although I doubt there is a lamp post that could carry the weight of the corpulent trougher that is Alex Salmond. Will he be spending his nights at this year's Ryder Cup in his own bed? Course not - he'll have the Scots paying for one of the top suites at Gleneagles, if past form is anything to go by....


  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    malcolmg said:

    PS. only scruff would be drinking this early on a Sunday, you should not get confused that other people follow your own habits.

    Unckie:

    Enough of your High-Anglican mores: We are all "Europe" now, no...?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    edited April 2014
    MarqueeMark said:

    malcolmg said:



    Ha Ha Ha , what a divvy. Do you not understand that 50% + 1 is a winner. Currently we have 1 Tory MP but are governed by Westminster, spot a flaw in your pathetically stupid thinking there.

    Your insult well seems to be running dry - poor effort. 2/10

    Scotland is still part of the UK, the UK being governed by a Coalition that includes one Tory and 11 LibDem Scottish MP's. Northern Ireland with no MP's in the Coalition has a better case for a break with the Union, by your argument.

    It is painfully clear that the height of the SNP's ambitions is to win with 50% plus one. Based on economics at the most 0.1% optimistic end of the spectrum. Many would call that so unlikely to come to pass as to be the peddling of lies. Well, good luck for running an independent Scotland when that unravels. The Scottish Govt's first prudent act might need to be banning the sale of piano wire.... Although I doubt there is a lamp post that could carry the weight of the corpulent trougher that is Alex Salmond. Will he be spending his nights at this year's Ryder Cup in his own bed? Course not - he'll have the Scots paying for one of the top suites at Gleneagles, if past form is anything to go by....
    Forecasting mass suicides in Scotland and the hanging of the FM from a lamp post by piano wire?

    10/10 for incoherence and unpleasantness, though I take into account you being very, very angry.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Millsy said:

    Surely Labour as the main opposition should be doing better? Taking everything into account they're really not in a position to overturn the Conservative between now and 2015.

    The fascinating thing about this Parliament is that even with 2 of the three main parties (as at 2010 anyway!) in Coalition, Labour has not been able to stand outside the tent and piss in with any degree of accuracy.

    2010 was supposed to be a great election to lose. All Labour had to do was stand around and wait for the Govt. to implode under the weight of public opprobrium over unbearable levels of cuts and unemployment. Hmmmm.....
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited April 2014
    "... only scruff would be drinking this early on a Sunday ..."

    On a post timed at 11:59! They breed them hard in Scotland. Probably down to Calvinism and the doctrine of predestination, also the lack of bishops to show them the way.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    MarqueeMark said:

    malcolmg said:



    Ha Ha Ha , what a divvy. Do you not understand that 50% + 1 is a winner. Currently we have 1 Tory MP but are governed by Westminster, spot a flaw in your pathetically stupid thinking there.

    Your insult well seems to be running dry - poor effort. 2/10

    Scotland is still part of the UK, the UK being governed by a Coalition that includes one Tory and 11 LibDem Scottish MP's. Northern Ireland with no MP's in the Coalition has a better case for a break with the Union, by your argument.

    It is painfully clear that the height of the SNP's ambitions is to win with 50% plus one. Based on economics at the most 0.1% optimistic end of the spectrum. Many would call that so unlikely to come to pass as to be the peddling of lies. Well, good luck for running an independent Scotland when that unravels. The Scottish Govt's first prudent act might need to be banning the sale of piano wire.... Although I doubt there is a lamp post that could carry the weight of the corpulent trougher that is Alex Salmond. Will he be spending his nights at this year's Ryder Cup in his own bed? Course not - he'll have the Scots paying for one of the top suites at Gleneagles, if past form is anything to go by....


    Ha Ha Ha , wonderful reply , I see you are well versed on democracy UK style and personal insults.
    What a big jessie, it is down to absolute fannies like you that support is rising. Typical unionist response to a perfectly rational response to your initial overblown rhetoric.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    edited April 2014
    Theuniondivvie said:

    I take into account you being very, very angry.

    Oh, I am in fine fettle me. I have nothing to be angry about.

    Scotland is not going to vote for independence, because of the clowns making the case for it. Even allowing for the clowns making the case against independence. But if Scotland does somehow crawl over the line for 50% plus one, I won't mourn the Union. It matters not a jot to me. Even if I did, it would be more than made up for by the spectator sport of watching a fourth-string set of politicians make a spectacular hash of running their new country.....
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    HurstLlama said:

    "... only scruff would be drinking this early on a Sunday ..."

    On a post timed at 11:59! They breed them hard in Scotland. Probably down to Calvinism and the doctrine of predestination, also the lack of bishops to show them the way.

    Hurst , 12pm is earliest opening time for Sunday for my generation and then only if desperate, 11am on other days for same.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    t'internet t'is a wonderful thing. How many "men" standing...?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU9lv_WqK6k
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    MarqueeMark said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    I take into account you being very, very angry.

    Oh, I am in fine fettle me. I have nothing to be angry about.

    Scotland is not going to vote for independence, because of the clowns making the case for it. Even allowing for the clowns making the case against independence. But if Scotland does somehow crawl over the line for 50% plus one, I won't mourn the Union. It matters not a jot to me. Even if I did, it would be more than made up for by the spectator sport of watching a fourth-string set of politicians make a spectacular hash of running their new country.....
    No you will be too busy trying to ingratiate yourself round at Kate Bush's house , hoping to bolster your insecurity, so that you can make yourself feel like you are somebody.
    Jessie.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Now six of the 'Regional Schools Commissioners' announced:

    http://newschoolfinance.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-six-new-regional-schools.html?m=1
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    edited April 2014
    MarqueeMark said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    I take into account you being very, very angry.

    Oh, I am in fine fettle me. I have nothing to be angry about.

    Scotland is not going to vote for independence, because of the clowns making the case for it. Even allowing for the clowns making the case against independence. But if Scotland does somehow crawl over the line for 50% plus one, I won't mourn the Union. It matters not a jot to me. Even if I did, it would be more than made up for by the spectator sport of watching a fourth-string set of politicians make a spectacular hash of running their new country.....
    A fine example of a PB Eunuch screeching at the highest pitch 'I don't care, I really, really don't care, and I'm going carry on telling you this ad infinitum'.

    By the by, how's your own waistline? I get a definite sense of corpulent self-satisfaction coming off you. What gauge of piano wire do think you'd need?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Theuniondivvie said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    I take into account you being very, very angry.

    Oh, I am in fine fettle me. I have nothing to be angry about.

    Scotland is not going to vote for independence, because of the clowns making the case for it. Even allowing for the clowns making the case against independence. But if Scotland does somehow crawl over the line for 50% plus one, I won't mourn the Union. It matters not a jot to me. Even if I did, it would be more than made up for by the spectator sport of watching a fourth-string set of politicians make a spectacular hash of running their new country.....
    A fine example of a PB Eunuch screeching at the highest pitch 'I don't care, I really, really don't care, and I'm going carry on telling you this ad infinitum'.

    Buy the buy, how's your own waistline? I get a definite sense of corpulent self-satisfaction coming off you. What gauge of piano wire do think you'd need?
    Would be a big crane for sure , and a hawser
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Charles said:

    anotherDave said:

    Charles said:



    Circumstances can change, but I'd look to make the barrier to a recall election very high - say 30% of voters in a constituency physically signing a petition? Otherwise it will just become a tool of political mischief

    That's often cited as an objection, but it has not been the experience of other countries where recall elections are already in law.
    I'd also, perhaps, limit recalls to 1 per constituency per parliament to prevent vexatious recalls
    That sounds like a good idea.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Theuniondivvie said:


    By the by, how's your own waistline? I get a definite sense of corpulent self-satisfaction coming off you. What gauge of piano wire do think you'd need?

    Whatever the state of my waistline, none of it has been acquired at the public expense.

    I sense I've hit a nerve....

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    MarqueeMark said:

    Theuniondivvie said:


    By the by, how's your own waistline? I get a definite sense of corpulent self-satisfaction coming off you. What gauge of piano wire do think you'd need?

    Whatever the state of my waistline, none of it has been acquired at the public expense.

    I sense I've hit a nerve....

    No you are just another rich whinger who is only interested in feathering his own nest at the expense of anyone else regardless of how it is done, we get the picture.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    MarqueeMark said:

    Theuniondivvie said:


    By the by, how's your own waistline? I get a definite sense of corpulent self-satisfaction coming off you. What gauge of piano wire do think you'd need?

    Whatever the state of my waistline, none of it has been acquired at the public expense.

    I sense I've hit a nerve....

    Oh dear, fatty outed after spraying fat trougher insults about, tries to claim his own greed is somehow more virtuous.

    I know I've hit a nerve.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Theuniondivvie said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Theuniondivvie said:


    By the by, how's your own waistline? I get a definite sense of corpulent self-satisfaction coming off you. What gauge of piano wire do think you'd need?

    Whatever the state of my waistline, none of it has been acquired at the public expense.

    I sense I've hit a nerve....

    Oh dear, fatty outed after spraying fat trougher insults about, tries to claim his own greed is somehow more virtuous.

    I know I've hit a nerve.
    The greedy troughers are used to being surrounded by sychophants that they are amazed when someone points out reality to them. We just saw the union's finest giving their real opinion, found wanting as ever.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    Theuniondivvie said:

    A fine example of a PB Eunuch screeching at the highest pitch 'I don't care, I really, really don't care, and I'm going carry on telling you this ad infinitum'.

    :squawk:
    Our Pound!!!
    :squawk:

    :squawk:
    Faslane!!!
    :squawk:

    :squawk:
    Freedom-of-information....
    :throttled-throat:

    :braincell-thuds:
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    FluffyThoughts said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    A fine example of a PB Eunuch screeching at the highest pitch 'I don't care, I really, really don't care, and I'm going carry on telling you this ad infinitum'.

    :squawk:
    Our Pound!!!
    :squawk:

    :squawk:
    Faslane!!!
    :squawk:

    :squawk:
    Freedom-of-information....
    :throttled-throat:

    :braincell-thuds:
    Jeff leaps to defend Mutt
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    malcolmg said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Theuniondivvie said:


    By the by, how's your own waistline? I get a definite sense of corpulent self-satisfaction coming off you. What gauge of piano wire do think you'd need?

    Whatever the state of my waistline, none of it has been acquired at the public expense.

    I sense I've hit a nerve....

    Oh dear, fatty outed after spraying fat trougher insults about, tries to claim his own greed is somehow more virtuous.

    I know I've hit a nerve.
    The greedy troughers are used to being surrounded by sychophants that they are amazed when someone points out reality to them. We just saw the union's finest giving their real opinion, found wanting as ever.
    Surely Marquee 'I'm not fat just big boned' Mark can't be the Union's finest? Even I'm not that optimistic!
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited April 2014
    Theuniondivvie said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Theuniondivvie said:


    By the by, how's your own waistline? I get a definite sense of corpulent self-satisfaction coming off you. What gauge of piano wire do think you'd need?

    Whatever the state of my waistline, none of it has been acquired at the public expense.

    I sense I've hit a nerve....

    Oh dear, fatty outed after spraying fat trougher insults about, tries to claim his own greed is somehow more virtuous.

    I know I've hit a nerve.

    Speaking of fat troughers, Salmond has recently spent a week in the US with his wife at the Scottish taxpayers' expense.
    Did he meet anyone important?
    Did he sign any contracts to bring jobs to Scotland?
    Or was he on his family holidays with the public purse picking up the bill?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    From UK Polling Report:
    "...Lib Dem MPs might outperform the national trend, but it doesn’t render them immune to it. If you’ve lost a third to a half of your support, it has to come from somewhere and would be naive to expect it all to come from places you don’t need it.

    As a caveat to this Lib Dem optimism though, look at the Scottish Parliament election in 2011. In that case Lib Dem incumbents didn’t seem to do any better, if anything the Liberal Democrats lost more support in areas where they had the most support to begin with, the very opposite pattern. The cause of this is probably a floor effect (the Lib Dems lost 8% of the vote in the election, but started off with less than 8% in many seats, so by definition more of their lost support had to come in their stronger seats).

    If the Lib Dems do really badly we may see the same effect at Westminster, if the Lib Dems lose enough support it’s impossible for it all to come from seats where they have hardly any support to begin with! The question is to what degree, if any, Lib Dem MPs can outperform the swing against them."

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7687
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Theuniondivvie said:


    By the by, how's your own waistline? I get a definite sense of corpulent self-satisfaction coming off you. What gauge of piano wire do think you'd need?

    Whatever the state of my waistline, none of it has been acquired at the public expense.

    I sense I've hit a nerve....

    Oh dear, fatty outed after spraying fat trougher insults about, tries to claim his own greed is somehow more virtuous.

    I know I've hit a nerve.

    Speaking of fat troughers, Salmond has recently spent a week in the US with his wife at the Scottish taxpayers expense.
    Did he meet anyone important?
    Did he sign any contracts to bring jobs to Scotland?
    Or was he on his family holidays with the public purse picking up the bill?
    Cue the ugly sister joins the fray , the union's finest leap to fatties defence
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Weighty matters being discussed today.

    The best way to get the Scots to reject independence would be for the Conservative Party to advocate separation.

    If you can't hurt your hated partner by leaving, why go?
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Demichellis is 2/1 to be shown a card when he is up against Suarez is a great price
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    I sit here secure in the knowledge that my life expectancy is many years longer than most Scots.

    I do hope you all live long enough to see your beloved independent Scotland. However, the maths ain't looking good. Flowers - or donations to the SNP?

  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    What a crappy thread this is. You're fat, no, you're fatter. I may as well pop over to Guido Fawkes, at least that site isn't meant to be serious.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TwistedFireStopper said:

    What a crappy thread this is. You're fat, no, you're fatter. I may as well pop over to Guido Fawkes, at least that site isn't meant to be serious.

    Only 6 months of this to go...
  • MrsBMrsB Posts: 574
    first time we've had a Scottish subsample based on weightings, rather than the other way round?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    Scott_P said:

    TwistedFireStopper said:

    What a crappy thread this is. You're fat, no, you're fatter. I may as well pop over to Guido Fawkes, at least that site isn't meant to be serious.

    Only 6 months of this to go...
    That's right Scott, you make sure your campaigning (whatever that consists of) is based on a referendum taking place in 6 months.

  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    TwistedFireStopper said:

    What a crappy thread this is. You're fat, no, you're fatter. I may as well pop over to Guido Fawkes, at least that site isn't meant to be serious.

    Dire fatism everywhere. Let's lighten the mood a little.

    Ok, who has hidden it, come on, someone must have misplaced it, has it been kidnapped.....can anyone tell me where the crossover poll is please.
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    Please tell me this is not a wind up. Did a Tory MP go to the press and say this "“The bounce coming to UKIP at the expense of the other parties does seem unfair"
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited April 2014
    Charles said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Charles said:

    - I don't think the Tories have lied since 2010? Certainly not everything has gone to plan, and they haven't managed to implement their manifesto (and there are somethings in law that weren't in the manifesto) but they are in Coalition after all

    Rather mysteriously quite a few of the Tory election promises that the coalition has failed to implement were LibDem election promises as well, like Lords reform and voter-triggered recall elections.
    I'll give you the recall elections, but Lords reform I don't hold against them given how difficult it has been to achieve consensus in the last hundred years (and my view that major constitutional reform needs at least consensus among the parties, if not ratification in a referendum)

    But how many people really get het up about recall elections?

    I have a suspicion about what it is that Paul_Mid_Beds doesn't like, but to be fair, I thought I'd give him the chance to set out his position for himself
    It is a number of things. Peter Hitchens in his column last week put it rather better than I can though.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2597956/Get-ready-to-jail-children-denounce-you.html
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited April 2014
    Paul_Mid_Beds said:


    It is a number of things. Peter Hitchens in his column last week put it rather better than I can though.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2597956/Get-ready-to-jail-children-denounce-you.html

    To Clarify MAIN(first) PART, starting "I told you that David Cameron was a continuation of Blairism by other means...."

    -although the bit at the end just adds fuel to the fire.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,457
    Lucky...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-27009338
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Carola said:

    Now six of the 'Regional Schools Commissioners' announced:

    http://newschoolfinance.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-six-new-regional-schools.html?m=1

    Must be about time for the annual shortage of school places.
This discussion has been closed.