Am I right in saying we have gone from a protracted and ultimately idiotic debate about what constitutes a Londoner, to a protracted and immediately idiotic debate about what constitutes an inner or outer Londoner based on his or her perception of telephone number prefixes?
It's better than pro wrestling.
14th May in Glasgow. WWE. My son's Christmas present from santa. Oh god.
Heh, no escape from Indy even in the wrasslin.
Greg Hemphill @greghemphill69 20 hrs @R_Roddy_Piper Shout out for Scottish Independence, legend? Come on, big man. We NEED you.
Mr. Briskin, I probably bet on about half the qualifying sessions. Usually, I prefer to wait for P3, which means many races I don't bet on because P3's at 3am or so. I typically make race bets after the grid is known.
Mr. Briskin, pre-qualifying's already up. I usually link the pre-qualifying, pre-race and post-race analysis articles to pb.com.
Because P3's very early for this weekend, the pre-qualifying piece is up before rather than after it.
Well... I backed Rosberg at 16 with Ladbrokes and 24 with Betfair, hedging with the latter fairly recently. I do think his odds are a little long at the minute, but (with Betfair) I'm green either way, so I'm not going to fiddle with my title bets.
Mr. Briskin, alas, I don't really have enough money to 'pile in'
If he does win I'll be rather happy, though. I also backed (pre-season) Magnussen at 51. Obviously that hasn't come off, but I'm still quite pleased with how things have turned out.
Do you think the interim government was entirely wise to consider removing russian as an official language?
Just a bit of headline grabbing провокация, or провокація as the Ukrainians would say.
Big difference, eh?
If PB were a country, we would be ruled by Charles our only resident OE.
But what if PB were confined to Scotland? Who then would our ruler be and why?
The rebel in me says it would be MalcomG, his preference for calling a spade a f***ing shovel has a directness that one appreciates in a ruler. However, common sense says that it would be either Easteross - he is some sort of aristo and therefore a member of the natural ruling class. I suppose JackW is another contender.
Personally, I'd take Charles, MalcomG, Easteross, JackW or TSE (who has put himself forward for the post of dictator for life) over the current bunch of politicians who aspire to govern us, none of them could do a worse job
On topic I think Axelrod is impressive but I wonder how much help he'll be if he doesn't understand local British politics. Like Massie I can see how he might be helpful in recruiting good UK talent, but it's getting a bit late to be doing that.
On topic I think Axelrod is impressive but I wonder how much help he'll be if he doesn't understand local British politics. Like Massie I can see how he might be helpful in recruiting good UK talent, but it's getting a bit late to be doing that.
I have my doubts wether Axelrod can do for Miliband, what he did for Obama - Labour may be paying him a six figure stipend, but they'll have trouble raising anything like the $500million he had to play with for his 'grassroot' TV campaigns.
As Guido has noted today, AxelRods CV is not as rosey as Douglas Alexander would like it to be portrayed.
SeanT & Morris, the lack of support that Lab are giving to the No campaign is bewildering. If Douglas Alexander and all the Lab campaign team are the best campaigners that they can muster (no reason to doubt that), then why are they not fully engaged with the No campaign which is months away rather than the GE next year? Dougie is actually Scottish! Losing the referendum is far more important to the long term prospects of the Labour party than losing GE2015. Yet they are under funding the No campaign. Bizarre. But this is a mistake I am happy about.
I think there are deep subconscious forces at work here.
A lot of Labour people are instinctively anti-British, that is to say they abhor and dislike many things we see as quintessentially British - the monarchy, the flag, the army, the history of rampant conquest, the Empire, posh men in top hats, Eton, the anthem, the City of London, the Royal Navy, our nuclear deterrent, the lion and the unicorn, duffing up the French, eating loads of beef.
Note how, whenever lefties are challenged to produce something good about Britain, it is the NHS they adduce. That's all they can think of. The NHS.
Therefore, many of them consciously or subconsciously WANT the YES voters to win, as they believe it will be a final deathblow to Britain's delusions of grandeur, and a kick in the nuts for Tories. They secretly hate Britishness and they are desperate to see it broken into pieces.
However they are also smart enough to realise that a YES vote is, very clearly, an existential threat to Labour down south.
Thus their immobility. They consciously want NO to win, yet subconsciously they want YES to win. The psychic struggle produces complete paralysis.
It is germane here to point out that the NHS is not a beast of the Union, having always been completely separate in Scotland (originally the Scottish Health Service till a sleekit Tory Sec of State for Scotland deliberately changed the name to NHS). Indeed the SHS and NHS are sister organizations from the same post-war and Beveridgean roots, but that was a whole different world and a different concept of 'Britishness'. They are organizationally quite separate and have latterly been diverging more rapidly. It is a standard No Campaign trope to allege that the NHS is at risk of being broken up by independence - which is of course a fib (considering how the Irish manage, to answer the obvious question).
The biggest problem Labour faces is that Labour support is more concentrated in younger people who are less likely to actually go and vote.The voter registration process with younger people especially is a long,hard slog,made a lot easier if the party's message is attractive. It's wrong anyway that policy is distorted to favour older people to the extent it does because of their propensity to vote.
On Vanilla, it's actually been working fine today. How's it been for others who have suffered problems?
Good afternoon Mr Dancer - Today is absolutely no problem, I am on a different Laptop however which really shouldn't make that much difference. Yesterday was particuarly frustrating, but to be quite honest that was the first problems I had encountered with Vanilla.
Afternoon all, its been a topping day up here in old Easter Ross so fuelled Harriet up and took her for a shiftie round the lawns these past few hours. Grass looking much better with stripes through it.
If there's a nighthawks being prepared can I suggest this video on investigative journalism (not quite politics, I accept)? A Bulgarian newspaper sets up a sting to catch someone trying to illegally buy a baby in the act. The buyers? The Sunday Times trying to sting someone trying to illegally sell a baby...
SeanT & Morris, the lack of support that Lab are giving to the No campaign is bewildering. If Douglas Alexander and all the Lab campaign team are the best campaigners that they can muster (no reason to doubt that), then why are they not fully engaged with the No campaign which is months away rather than the GE next year? Dougie is actually Scottish! Losing the referendum is far more important to the long term prospects of the Labour party than losing GE2015. Yet they are under funding the No campaign. Bizarre. But this is a mistake I am happy about.
I think there are deep subconscious forces at work here.
A lot of Labour people are instinctively anti-British, that is to say they abhor and dislike many things we see as quintessentially British - the monarchy, the flag, the army, the history of rampant conquest, the Empire, posh men in top hats, Eton, the anthem, the City of London, the Royal Navy, our nuclear deterrent, the lion and the unicorn, duffing up the French, eating loads of beef.
Note how, whenever lefties are challenged to produce something good about Britain, it is the NHS they adduce. That's all they can think of. The NHS.
Therefore, many of them consciously or subconsciously WANT the YES voters to win, as they believe it will be a final deathblow to Britain's delusions of grandeur, and a kick in the nuts for Tories. They secretly hate Britishness and they are desperate to see it broken into pieces.
However they are also smart enough to realise that a YES vote is, very clearly, an existential threat to Labour down south.
Thus their immobility. They consciously want NO to win, yet subconsciously they want YES to win. The psychic struggle produces complete paralysis.
They are organizationally quite separate and have latterly been diverging......
As has life expectancy, north and south of the border.
On Vanilla, it's actually been working fine today. How's it been for others who have suffered problems?
Good afternoon Mr Dancer - Today is absolutely no problem, I am on a different Laptop however which really shouldn't make that much difference. Yesterday was particuarly frustrating, but to be quite honest that was the first problems I had encountered with Vanilla.
Same here - yesterday was a complete nightmare - today it's been fine.
SeanT & Morris, the lack of support that Lab are giving to the No campaign is bewildering. If Douglas Alexander and all the Lab campaign team are the best campaigners that they can muster (no reason to doubt that), then why are they not fully engaged with the No campaign which is months away rather than the GE next year? Dougie is actually Scottish! Losing the referendum is far more important to the long term prospects of the Labour party than losing GE2015. Yet they are under funding the No campaign. Bizarre. But this is a mistake I am happy about.
I think there are deep subconscious forces at work here.
A lot of Labour people are instinctively anti-British, that is to say they abhor and dislike many things we see as quintessentially British - the monarchy, the flag, the army, the history of rampant conquest, the Empire, posh men in top hats, Eton, the anthem, the City of London, the Royal Navy, our nuclear deterrent, the lion and the unicorn, duffing up the French, eating loads of beef.
Note how, whenever lefties are challenged to produce something good about Britain, it is the NHS they adduce. That's all they can think of. The NHS.
Therefore, many of them consciously or subconsciously WANT the YES voters to win, as they believe it will be a final deathblow to Britain's delusions of grandeur, and a kick in the nuts for Tories. They secretly hate Britishness and they are desperate to see it broken into pieces.
However they are also smart enough to realise that a YES vote is, very clearly, an existential threat to Labour down south.
Thus their immobility. They consciously want NO to win, yet subconsciously they want YES to win. The psychic struggle produces complete paralysis.
They are organizationally quite separate and have latterly been diverging......
As has life expectancy, north and south of the border.
Yet somehow that is still Westminster's fault...
very poor.
that's terrible nonsense to imagine that the health system (beyond a certain basic level of provision) makes a large difference to life expectancy. (terrible nonsense, or just trolling i suppose)
Well, I've been one of Labour's harshest critics in recent weeks, but I for one think hiring Axelrod is a great move. Obama's campaigns have been more left-wing rhetorically than anything Labour have said recently (a sad indictment of how far Labour has slid in recent years, but true all the same). The 2012 Obama campaign should really be drawn on for Labour: that campaign managed to reject the establishment consensus that cutting the deficit was necessary (there was a sharp drop in US opinion polls between mid-2011 at the height of Tea Party insanity compared to late 2012 on the question of how big a priority people thought the deficit was), that no-one would be considered "credible" unless they made huge spending cuts and clobbered the poor.
They also rejected the Blair/Clinton-esque cartoonish stereotype of the typical "aspirational" middle-class voter; they recognised even the moderately affluent were utterly disgusted at fat cats thinking they don't have to pay any tax and big businesses who think they deserve to call the shots on everything that matters to the country and that they can hold the country to ransom whenever any government threatens them with making things a tiny bit more difficult for them. A lesson which currently has not been learnt by New Labour prats like Alan Milburn and Pat McFadden, still stuck in a 1990s timewarp, judging by their comments in recent days on how Labour has to be more "pro-business".
SeanT & Morris, the lack of support that Lab are giving to the No campaign is bewildering. If Douglas Alexander and all the Lab campaign team are the best campaigners that they can muster (no reason to doubt that), then why are they not fully engaged with the No campaign which is months away rather than the GE next year? Dougie is actually Scottish! Losing the referendum is far more important to the long term prospects of the Labour party than losing GE2015. Yet they are under funding the No campaign. Bizarre. But this is a mistake I am happy about.
I think there are deep subconscious forces at work here.
Note how, whenever lefties are challenged to produce something good about Britain, it is the NHS they adduce. That's all they can think of. The NHS.
Therefore, many of them consciously or subconsciously WANT the YES voters to win, as they believe it will be a final deathblow to Britain's delusions of grandeur, and a kick in the nuts for Tories. They secretly hate Britishness and they are desperate to see it broken into pieces.
However they are also smart enough to realise that a YES vote is, very clearly, an existential threat to Labour down south.
Thus their immobility. They consciously want NO to win, yet subconsciously they want YES to win. The psychic struggle produces complete paralysis.
They are organizationally quite separate and have latterly been diverging......
As has life expectancy, north and south of the border.
Yet somehow that is still Westminster's fault...
very poor.
that's terrible nonsense to imagine that the health system (beyond a certain basic level of provision) makes a large difference to life expectancy. (terrible nonsense, or just trolling i suppose)
I agree - life expectancy is a function of a range of factors - only one of which is the Health Service. However, some of our more excitable Nationalist friends lay the blame for poor health outcomes in Scotland at Westminster's door - when responsibility clearly lies both north and south of the border.
Games host Glasgow shown to have worst life expectancy in UK Office for National Statistics finds just 75% of boys and 85% of girls in Scottish city can expect to reach their 65th birthday
SeanT & Morris, the lack of support that Lab are giving to the No campaign is bewildering. If Douglas Alexander and all the Lab campaign team are the best campaigners that they can muster (no reason to doubt that), then why are they not fully engaged with the No campaign which is months away rather than the GE next year? Dougie is actually Scottish! Losing the referendum is far more important to the long term prospects of the Labour party than losing GE2015. Yet they are under funding the No campaign. Bizarre. But this is a mistake I am happy about.
I think there are deep subconscious forces at work here.
Note how, whenever lefties are challenged to produce something good about Britain, it is the NHS they adduce. That's all they can think of. The NHS.
Therefore, many of them consciously or subconsciously WANT the YES voters to win, as they believe it will be a final deathblow to Britain's delusions of grandeur, and a kick in the nuts for Tories. They secretly hate Britishness and they are desperate to see it broken into pieces.
However they are also smart enough to realise that a YES vote is, very clearly, an existential threat to Labour down south.
Thus their immobility. They consciously want NO to win, yet subconsciously they want YES to win. The psychic struggle produces complete paralysis.
They are organizationally quite separate and have latterly been diverging......
As has life expectancy, north and south of the border.
Yet somehow that is still Westminster's fault...
very poor.
that's terrible nonsense to imagine that the health system (beyond a certain basic level of provision) makes a large difference to life expectancy. (terrible nonsense, or just trolling i suppose)
I agree - life expectancy is a function of a range of factors - only one of which is the Health
Games host Glasgow shown to have worst life expectancy in UK Office for National Statistics finds just 75% of boys and 85% of girls in Scottish city can expect to reach their 65th birthday
Deprivation - though important - is not the only factor.
Nonsense, the Tories have been stealing life years from Scotland and that's why they live longer. Break the link with Westminster and Scots will live to be 150.
Danny much of what you say is undoubtedly true from the perspective of a leftie but the fact remains that only the trade unions and the Coop want to fund the Labour Party and one finds very few Labour councillors or MPs/MSPs/AMs/MEPs living in the sprawling housing estates and inner city dwellings whose occupants they rely on to turn out election after election to vote for them and on whose behalf Labour does little in return.
Games host Glasgow shown to have worst life expectancy in UK Office for National Statistics finds just 75% of boys and 85% of girls in Scottish city can expect to reach their 65th birthday
Deprivation - though important - is not the only factor.
Glasgow's health stats are an absolute tragedy. And yes, many factors. I kind of think independence might be an opportunity for cultural change in the west of scotland which might start to change things. (Finland managed to turn around its similarly poor health stats in the 70s (I think) so it can be done)
Danny much of what you say is undoubtedly true from the perspective of a leftie but the fact remains that only the trade unions and the Coop want to fund the Labour Party and one finds very few Labour councillors or MPs/MSPs/AMs/MEPs living in the sprawling housing estates and inner city dwellings whose occupants they rely on to turn out election after election to vote for them and on whose behalf Labour does little in return.
I agree - which is why Labour needs to actually offer something to those in sprawling housing estates and inner city dwellings (like Obama did), rather than trying to court big business-men and fat cats while taking the "core vote" for granted like too many in the Labour high-command seem to think.
Games host Glasgow shown to have worst life expectancy in UK Office for National Statistics finds just 75% of boys and 85% of girls in Scottish city can expect to reach their 65th birthday
Deprivation - though important - is not the only factor.
I kind of think independence might be an opportunity for cultural change in the west of scotland which might start to change things. (Finland managed to turn around its similarly poor health stats in the 70s (I think) so it can be done)
Why does that require independence? You've already got a separate health service, and responsibility for health has been devolved since 1999 - if you haven't started to turn it around in the last 15 years, why should you expect to in the next?
I fear too many use the "if only we were independent" crutch to avoid looking themselves in the mirror. It's been too easy to blame "Westminster" or "the Tories". Physician - heal thyself!
The general idea is that looking exclusively at marginality overlooks the different nature of the seats (who's second, is there a relevant third player, where is the seat). The constituency odds factor those matters in to the best judgement of bookies and punters. By arranging constituencies by order of odds rather than majority, we can see how many seats gamblers expect the parties to take.
The odds presently favour Labour to get most seats but not an overall majority. But if we assume these markets are 100% related contingencies (they're not, but it's a tool for judging the markets) we can assess what odds the constituency markets imply we should look for when betting on a Conservative overall majority or most seats. My findings are that contrary to previously-expressed views there is only a small advantage to playing individual constituency markets as a proxy for those markets; others have overlooked the Lib Dem seats that the Conservatives are considered likely to win.
"A lot of Labour people are instinctively anti-British, that is to say they abhor and dislike many things we see as quintessentially British - the monarchy, the flag, the army, the history of rampant conquest, the Empire, posh men in top hats, Eton, the anthem, the City of London, the Royal Navy, our nuclear deterrent, the lion and the unicorn, duffing up the French, eating loads of beef."
I am not sure that is an all-encompassing view of Britain to be fair, but a claim that lefties hate Britain and its history is always popular on here. I guess people enjoy having their prejudices confirmed.
I'd say that many Labour people are instinctively uncomfortable with nationalism and that leads them to feel just as uncomfortable with the British kind as with the Scottish kind. They just do not get it, by and large - which is why Labour had such a tin ear about immigration for so long. When Labour tries to be nationalistic - British jobs for British workers - it does not sound at all convincing.
" ... terrible nonsense to imagine that the health system (beyond a certain basic level of provision) makes a large difference to life expectancy... "
The Health Service (beyond a certain basic provision) doesn't make a large difference to life expectancy? Is this one of those super clever "weather isn't climate arguments" or perhaps you have a different idea of what a basic level of provision means.
In previous generations I would have died 16 years ago from kidney failure and my wife 13 years ago from breast cancer. We are both still kicking and in rude health thanks to the advances in medicine and their availability through the health service. We can both expect to live for many years yet. The same is true for millions of other people who have survived what would once have been fatal illness because of treatments made possible by the health service, more than enough to be statistically significant.
So what do you class as a basic level of provision?
very few Labour councillors or MPs/MSPs/AMs/MEPs living in the sprawling housing estates and inner city dwellings whose occupants they rely on to turn out election after election to vote for them and on whose behalf Labour does little in return.
And these are the people the SNP are going after....and let's face it, they've got least to lose if the status quo is overturned.
Wonder whether they've worked that out in Dartmouth Park NW5?
Games host Glasgow shown to have worst life expectancy in UK Office for National Statistics finds just 75% of boys and 85% of girls in Scottish city can expect to reach their 65th birthday
Deprivation - though important - is not the only factor.
I kind of think independence might be an opportunity for cultural change in the west of scotland which might start to change things. (Finland managed to turn around its similarly poor health stats in the 70s (I think) so it can be done)
Why does that require independence? You've already got a separate health service, and responsibility for health has been devolved since 1999 - if you haven't started to turn it around in the last 15 years, why should you expect to in the next?
I fear too many use the "if only we were independent" crutch to avoid looking themselves in the mirror. It's been too easy to blame "Westminster" or "the Tories". Physician - heal thyself!
I don't think it necessarily requires independence, but as I said, independence might be an opportunity or a catalyst for cultural change- and I think culture has to change to improve health outcomes.
Again, you sounds rather "statist" - a separate health service- but I thought we agreed that the health service only plays a minor part in determining life expectancy?
"A lot of Labour people are instinctively anti-British, that is to say they abhor and dislike many things we see as quintessentially British - the monarchy, the flag, the army, the history of rampant conquest, the Empire, posh men in top hats, Eton, the anthem, the City of London, the Royal Navy, our nuclear deterrent, the lion and the unicorn, duffing up the French, eating loads of beef."
I am not sure that is an all-encompassing view of Britain to be fair, but a claim that lefties hate Britain and its history is always popular on here. I guess people enjoy having their prejudices confirmed.
I'd say that many Labour people are instinctively uncomfortable with nationalism and that leads them to feel just as uncomfortable with the British kind as with the Scottish kind. They just do not get it, by and large - which is why Labour had such a tin ear about immigration for so long. When Labour tries to be nationalistic - British jobs for British workers - it does not sound at all convincing.
The most prominent lefty on here, now that Snowflake has gone! - is NPXMP.
He has openly admitted he feels no special love or affection for Britain, and would be just as happy representing Amsterdam, Geneva or Vladivostok.
If a onetime and prospective Labour MP is happy to confess this on a blog, you can imagine what unspoken sentiments lurk in the leftwing soul.
That is to say: I am right, and you know it.
I worry about the margin of error in your polling sample of 1.
"A lot of Labour people are instinctively anti-British, that is to say they abhor and dislike many things we see as quintessentially British - the monarchy, the flag, the army, the history of rampant conquest, the Empire, posh men in top hats, Eton, the anthem, the City of London, the Royal Navy, our nuclear deterrent, the lion and the unicorn, duffing up the French, eating loads of beef."
I am not sure that is an all-encompassing view of Britain to be fair, but a claim that lefties hate Britain and its history is always popular on here. I guess people enjoy having their prejudices confirmed.
I'd say that many Labour people are instinctively uncomfortable with nationalism and that leads them to feel just as uncomfortable with the British kind as with the Scottish kind. They just do not get it, by and large - which is why Labour had such a tin ear about immigration for so long. When Labour tries to be nationalistic - British jobs for British workers - it does not sound at all convincing.
The most prominent lefty on here, now that Snowflake has gone! - is NPXMP.
He has openly admitted he feels no special love or affection for Britain, and would be just as happy representing Amsterdam, Geneva or Vladivostok.
If a onetime and prospective Labour MP is happy to confess this on a blog, you can imagine what unspoken sentiments lurk in the leftwing soul.
That is to say: I am right, and you know it.
Yes, Nick is a puzzle. But I am not sure he is entirely representative of most Labour people, of whom there were 8,609,527 at the last general election.
" ... terrible nonsense to imagine that the health system (beyond a certain basic level of provision) makes a large difference to life expectancy... "
The Health Service (beyond a certain basic provision) doesn't make a large difference to life expectancy? Is this one of those super clever "weather isn't climate arguments" or perhaps you have a different idea of what a basic level of provision means.
In previous generations I would have died 16 years ago from kidney failure and my wife 13 years ago from breast cancer. We are both still kicking and in rude health thanks to the advances in medicine and their availability through the health service. We can both expect to live for many years yet. The same is true for millions of other people who have survived what would once have been fatal illness because of treatments made possible by the health service, more than enough to be statistically significant.
So what do you class as a basic level of provision?
Sorry for not being clear. Of course the health service does a great job, that's not my point at all. In terms of differences in average life expectancy, the major determinants are going to be lifestyle- diet smoking alcohol and exercise, as well as affluence. (unless some statisticians would like to show me the error of my ways- i think this is probably true).
But talking about averages of course does not take into account the fine work done in the hospitals every day.
Games host Glasgow shown to have worst life expectancy in UK Office for National Statistics finds just 75% of boys and 85% of girls in Scottish city can expect to reach their 65th birthday
Deprivation - though important - is not the only factor.
I kind of think independence might be an opportunity for cultural change in the west of scotland which might start to change things. (Finland managed to turn around its similarly poor health stats in the 70s (I think) so it can be done)
Why does that require independence? You've already got a separate health service, and responsibility for health has been devolved since 1999 - if you haven't started to turn it around in the last 15 years, why should you expect to in the next?
I fear too many use the "if only we were independent" crutch to avoid looking themselves in the mirror. It's been too easy to blame "Westminster" or "the Tories". Physician - heal thyself!
I don't think it necessarily requires independence, but as I said, independence might be an opportunity or a catalyst for cultural change- and I think culture has to change to improve health outcomes.
Again, you sounds rather "statist" - a separate health service- but I thought we agreed that the health service only plays a minor part in determining life expectancy?
Who, or what is going to lead the culture change? I would suggest primary care (GPs) and Public Education are the keys. But the last major public health campaign we had here was the AIDS one (some deride it now, but it saved tens of thousands of lives, if you compare the UK with France) - copying the Finnish model is within the power and remit of the Scottish government - why not lead the way for the rest of the UK?
I don't think it necessarily requires independence, but as I said, independence might be an opportunity or a catalyst for cultural change- and I think culture has to change to improve health outcomes.
Again, you sounds rather "statist" - a separate health service- but I thought we agreed that the health service only plays a minor part in determining life expectancy?
Who, or what is going to lead the culture change? I would suggest primary care (GPs) and Public Education are the keys. But the last major public health campaign we had here was the AIDS one (some deride it now, but it saved tens of thousands of lives, if you compare the UK with France) - copying the Finnish model is within the power and remit of the Scottish government - why not lead the way for the rest of the UK?
Well, the GPs are already doing their best I suspect. And, if I remember correctly, evidence suggest that education is not necessary. Everybody knows fine well that smoking is bad, and a sausage supper is not a feast of antioxidants.
A major cultural earthquake might produce something more.
(equally it might not. its not a prediction, only musing here).
Anyway, here in the east, its bedtime, so fare ye well!
"A lot of Labour people are instinctively anti-British, that is to say they abhor and dislike many things we see as quintessentially British - the monarchy, the flag, the army, the history of rampant conquest, the Empire, posh men in top hats, Eton, the anthem, the City of London, the Royal Navy, our nuclear deterrent, the lion and the unicorn, duffing up the French, eating loads of beef."
I am not sure that is an all-encompassing view of Britain to be fair, but a claim that lefties hate Britain and its history is always popular on here. I guess people enjoy having their prejudices confirmed.
I'd say that many Labour people are instinctively uncomfortable with nationalism and that leads them to feel just as uncomfortable with the British kind as with the Scottish kind. They just do not get it, by and large - which is why Labour had such a tin ear about immigration for so long. When Labour tries to be nationalistic - British jobs for British workers - it does not sound at all convincing.
The most prominent lefty on here, now that Snowflake has gone! - is NPXMP.
He has openly admitted he feels no special love or affection for Britain, and would be just as happy representing Amsterdam, Geneva or Vladivostok.
If a onetime and prospective Labour MP is happy to confess this on a blog, you can imagine what unspoken sentiments lurk in the leftwing soul.
That is to say: I am right, and you know it.
Yes, Nick is a puzzle. But I am not sure he is entirely representative of most Labour people, of whom there were 8,609,527 at the last general election.
Until and unless someone produces a better explanation for Labour's bizarre paralysis re the indyref - when a YES vote presents an existential threat to the future of the party in England - then my theory must be accepted as true.
"A lot of Labour people are instinctively anti-British, that is to say they abhor and dislike many things we see as quintessentially British - the monarchy, the flag, the army, the history of rampant conquest, the Empire, posh men in top hats, Eton, the anthem, the City of London, the Royal Navy, our nuclear deterrent, the lion and the unicorn, duffing up the French, eating loads of beef."
I am not sure that is an all-encompassing view of Britain to be fair, but a claim that lefties hate Britain and its history is always popular on here. I guess people enjoy having their prejudices confirmed.
I'd say that many Labour people are instinctively uncomfortable with nationalism and that leads them to feel just as uncomfortable with the British kind as with the Scottish kind. They just do not get it, by and large - which is why Labour had such a tin ear about immigration for so long. When Labour tries to be nationalistic - British jobs for British workers - it does not sound at all convincing.
The most prominent lefty on here, now that Snowflake has gone! - is NPXMP.
He has openly admitted he feels no special love or affection for Britain, and would be just as happy representing Amsterdam, Geneva or Vladivostok.
If a onetime and prospective Labour MP is happy to confess this on a blog, you can imagine what unspoken sentiments lurk in the leftwing soul.
That is to say: I am right, and you know it.
Yes, Nick is a puzzle. But I am not sure he is entirely representative of most Labour people, of whom there were 8,609,527 at the last general election.
Until and unless someone produces a better explanation for Labour's bizarre paralysis re the indyref - when a YES vote presents an existential threat to the future of the party in England - then my theory must be accepted as true.
I think it goes back to "New Labour" - "Old Labour" were as patriotic as the Tories - they built the British bomb with an economy that was on its knees and couldn't remotely afford it - Callaghan saw off the Argies with a couple of well placed subs - a lesson Thatcher failed to learn. And Wilson told Johnson where he could stick it on Vietnam.
I've no doubt working class Labour voters are as patriotic as their Tory neighbours - which is why many (not showing up in OGH analysis because they went on strike in 2010) are now drawn to UKIP - it's the death of the shop steward and his replacement by the Poly Lecturer - and now, worse, SPAD, that has divorced Labour from its roots.....and they come on here and complain that it's Cameron who has got to reach out to them on the housing estates of Scotland.....
"A lot of Labour people are instinctively anti-British, that is to say they abhor and dislike many things we see as quintessentially British - the monarchy, the flag, the army, the history of rampant conquest, the Empire, posh men in top hats, Eton, the anthem, the City of London, the Royal Navy, our nuclear deterrent, the lion and the unicorn, duffing up the French, eating loads of beef."
I am not sure that is an all-encompassing view of Britain to be fair, but a claim that lefties hate Britain and its history is always popular on here. I guess people enjoy having their prejudices confirmed.
I'd say that many Labour people are instinctively uncomfortable with nationalism and that leads them to feel just as uncomfortable with the British kind as with the Scottish kind. They just do not get it, by and large - which is why Labour had such a tin ear about immigration for so long. When Labour tries to be nationalistic - British jobs for British workers - it does not sound at all convincing.
The most prominent lefty on here, now that Snowflake has gone! - is NPXMP.
He has openly admitted he feels no special love or affection for Britain, and would be just as happy representing Amsterdam, Geneva or Vladivostok.
If a onetime and prospective Labour MP is happy to confess this on a blog, you can imagine what unspoken sentiments lurk in the leftwing soul.
That is to say: I am right, and you know it.
Yes, Nick is a puzzle. But I am not sure he is entirely representative of most Labour people, of whom there were 8,609,527 at the last general election.
Until and unless someone produces a better explanation for Labour's bizarre paralysis re the indyref - when a YES vote presents an existential threat to the future of the party in England - then my theory must be accepted as true.
If I suggest that Nick Clegg is literally the devil incarnate because his eyes are too close together it is not the case that my theory must be accepted as true until someone suggests a better theory. Something can just be wrong, even without comparison to another perspective.
The main reason why the trade union movement produces far fewer Labour leaders than it used to is because the trade union movement is much smaller than it once was.
It was made quite clear to me in one of my OU books that deprivation=ill health. I accept that. It's science.
I enjoyed my OU courses, except the one on Literature, which I felt could have been more correctly described as "A Feminist Perspective on Literature Theory"
My view that we know Shakespeare and not Aphra Behn so well was more to do with quality than gender was not well received.
The main reason why the trade union movement produces far fewer Labour leaders than it used to is because the trade union movement is much smaller than it once was.
I suspect there are still substantially more shop stewards/Union officials than there are either Polytechnic Lecturers or SPADS. New Labour has been captured by the producer interests....
Makes sense to me Sean. You're not on number 2 though are you. If the next threads boring I might try to help - I just want a new thread - I guess I am demanding and it is the easter hols
I note that no one has offered a better theory to mine.
On a more important note, I have a plotting problem in my next thriller.
Can someone offer me a rational reason why
1) a child might apparently have the ability to predict the future
and/or, why
2) a mother would want to psychologically torment her own son
Yes, it's a cheerful book. But if someone could sort out those problems for me I will give their name to a heroic, sexy character in the novel.
Is he actually predicting unexpected events, or if you logically follow things through, the things being predicted are predictable. If the latter than he is just incredibly bright which would explain 2.....
Eek wins it in One! How long do we normally wait for threads nowadays? We're +12hours at the moment aren't we? Please don't take this as a criticism Team OGH, I'm just excited about the Chinese Grand Prix and the holidays.
I note that no one has offered a better theory to mine.
On a more important note, I have a plotting problem in my next thriller.
Can someone offer me a rational reason why
1) a child might apparently have the ability to predict the future
and/or, why
2) a mother would want to psychologically torment her own son
Yes, it's a cheerful book. But if someone could sort out those problems for me I will give their name to a heroic, sexy character in the novel.
1) The kid gets sent text messages predicting events to his phone, or events happen on his playstation that subsequently happen in real life, or he believes it is on his phone/ game.
" ... terrible nonsense to imagine that the health system (beyond a certain basic level of provision) makes a large difference to life expectancy... "
The Health Service (beyond a certain basic provision) doesn't make a large difference to life expectancy? Is this one of those super clever "weather isn't climate arguments" or perhaps you have a different idea of what a basic level of provision means.
In previous generations I would have died 16 years ago from kidney failure and my wife 13 years ago from breast cancer. We are both still kicking and in rude health thanks to the advances in medicine and their availability through the health service. We can both expect to live for many years yet. The same is true for millions of other people who have survived what would once have been fatal illness because of treatments made possible by the health service, more than enough to be statistically significant.
So what do you class as a basic level of provision?
Sorry for not being clear. Of course the health service does a great job, that's not my point at all. In terms of differences in average life expectancy, the major determinants are going to be lifestyle- diet smoking alcohol and exercise, as well as affluence. (unless some statisticians would like to show me the error of my ways- i think this is probably true).
But talking about averages of course does not take into account the fine work done in the hospitals every day.
OK, I think I am with you now.
One thought, smoking, drinking to excess and eating a bad diet all cost money - lots of it (fags are nearly nine quid a packet). Therefore, if affluence was a factor then poorer people would be healthier and live longer lives. Maybe a way to reduce any disparities of health outcomes between the poorer and the more affluent would actually be to cut benefits, hard.
Or maybe John Reid had it right. If you are living your life on benefits on a shit estate then hanging on for a few more years as a drooling vegetable in a council funded nursing home is not all that attractive.
The main reason why the trade union movement produces far fewer Labour leaders than it used to is because the trade union movement is much smaller than it once was.
I suspect there are still substantially more shop stewards/Union officials than there are either Polytechnic Lecturers or SPADS. New Labour has been captured by the producer interests....
There are no polytechnic lecturers. You are stuck in the 1980s!
Let's not get into 2, and as for 1 if we were to tell you it would spoil the whole concept surely.
New Thread Please.
I write thrillers, I have to get into 2. However if I can get a good answer to 1 then 2 might be less necessary to the plot.
Hope that makes sense, cause it doesn't make any sense to me. This book is a bitch to plot.
I have second album syndrome.
A way of doing it would be for the mother to have a weak/perverted form of 1), where she believes the only way to prepare her son for a future event that she has seen via precognition is to toughen him up, something that appears to outsiders (and the child himself) as psychological torture. Through his precognition the child might see a bleak future, whilst the mother thinks it is the best future he can get (at least according to her precognition).
A bit like Sarah Connor appearing a weirdo for trying to toughen up her son in Terminator 2.
Besides, just because you can see the future, doesn't mean you have to behave rationally to get the best outcome.
And you say "might apparently have the ability to predict the future". There's some wriggle room there that might be fun to investigate. What if the mother *believes* her son has the power, but the son does not? What if she's afraid of the power? As a child, did he predict something (e.g. the death of his father) that she has never forgiven him for?
Human beings are brilliant at seeing patterns where none exist: has she wrongly seen patterns that make her believe her son has the gift, and when things do not turn out right, she believes he lied to her. This leads her to abuse him.
The main reason why the trade union movement produces far fewer Labour leaders than it used to is because the trade union movement is much smaller than it once was.
I suspect there are still substantially more shop stewards/Union officials than there are either Polytechnic Lecturers or SPADS. New Labour has been captured by the producer interests....
There are no polytechnic lecturers. You are stuck in the 1980s!
I hate this thinking. I just don't believe it to be true. But there's hours of TV programming devoted the food things and I just don't think it's possible to debate the issue anymore.
SeanT & Morris, the lack of support that Lab are giving to the No campaign is bewildering. If Douglas Alexander and all the Lab campaign team are the best campaigners that they can muster (no reason to doubt that), then why are they not fully engaged with the No campaign which is months away rather than the GE next year? Dougie is actually Scottish! Losing the referendum is far more important to the long term prospects of the Labour party than losing GE2015. Yet they are under funding the No campaign. Bizarre. But this is a mistake I am happy about.
I think there are deep subconscious forces at work here.
A lot of Labour people are instinctively anti-British, that is to say they abhor and dislike many things we see as quintessentially British - the monarchy, the flag, the army, the history of rampant conquest, the Empire, posh men in top hats, Eton, the anthem, the City of London, the Royal Navy, our nuclear deterrent, the lion and the unicorn, duffing up the French, eating loads of beef.
Note how, whenever lefties are challenged to produce something good about Britain, it is the NHS they adduce. That's all they can think of. The NHS.
Therefore, many of them consciously or subconsciously WANT the YES voters to win, as they believe it will be a final deathblow to Britain's delusions of grandeur, and a kick in the nuts for Tories. They secretly hate Britishness and they are desperate to see it broken into pieces.
However they are also smart enough to realise that a YES vote is, very clearly, an existential threat to Labour down south.
Thus their immobility. They consciously want NO to win, yet subconsciously they want YES to win. The psychic struggle produces complete paralysis.
They are organizationally quite separate and have latterly been diverging......
As has life expectancy, north and south of the border.
Yet somehow that is still Westminster's fault...
All I said in the posting (which you so carefully edited) was that the last refuge of the people whom @SeanT is criticising is not even that. Nothing to do with which was better or worse. No Westminster.
But as for health, now you raise it: two points:
1: the recent increase in divergence was IIRC 0.1 year and noted as within error margin even by the newspaper - but as I recall you or perhaps someone else still jumped on it gleefully
2. heterogeneity within the two health services' areas is much greater than that between - and other posters did make some useful comments on Glasgow and the area. Though I would adduce appalling council housing (Labour), industrial policies (Mrs Thatcher and successors), and unemployment (ditto) and PFI/PPP (both lots) as major problem factors.
I note that no one has offered a better theory to mine.
On a more important note, I have a plotting problem in my next thriller.
Can someone offer me a rational reason why
1) a child might apparently have the ability to predict the future
and/or, why
2) a mother would want to psychologically torment her own son
Yes, it's a cheerful book. But if someone could sort out those problems for me I will give their name to a heroic, sexy character in the novel.
Is he actually predicting unexpected events, or if you logically follow things through, the things being predicted are predictable. If the latter than he is just incredibly bright which would explain 2.....
Here's the set up. A single mum, Rachel, has moved from London to Cornwall - wild west Penwith - to live in a grand old house, owned by an aristo family: the Luxmores. Her new husband David Luxmore is a rich lawyer. The Luxmores made their money from tinning - operating those cruel, undersea mines on the Penwith cliffs, like Botallack. In which so many young men died.
The Luxmores were so successful over so many centuries a local legend arose that they had a kind of second sight - they always knew where to find tin, whereas other speculators went bust.
David Luxmore has a young son, a strange beautiful nine year old boy, Jamie - angelic, dark hair, violet eyes, very clever, charismatic, yet also a little odd.
At the end of chapter one, during an innocent summer picnic, Jamie Luxmore turns to his new stepmother and tells her she is going to die at Christmas.
And thus the clock is set ticking.
That's my hook and my beginning. Quite nice. But to keep the balance between suspense and believeability i need a rational reason why it might appear that this boy is successfully predicting the future, whereas in reality he is just blah de blah. Then I can toggle between the supernatural and the logical and keep the reader guessing, and scared (I hope)
That's a nice setup. You have a long-standing rumour about the family that would make coincidences appear deliberate.
For instance, the boy could refuse to go to school and miss the bus, on a day the bus goes into a ditch, killing another child (*). With most kids that would be a coincidence: because of the family superstitions, locals would talk. A couple of such events - and they don't even have to be dramatic, just public - and the rumours would spread. They don't even actually have to have occurred; local rumours and gossip could elevate a non-event into an event.
He could be a victim of the family superstition, or really have the gift.
I note that no one has offered a better theory to mine.
On a more important note, I have a plotting problem in my next thriller.
Can someone offer me a rational reason why
1) a child might apparently have the ability to predict the future
and/or, why
2) a mother would want to psychologically torment her own son
Yes, it's a cheerful book. But if someone could sort out those problems for me I will give their name to a heroic, sexy character in the novel.
Very sadly I believe 2) is relatively common and stems from post-natal depression in its many forms. I'm not sure you want your novel to be a study of the psychosis of new mothers, that said.
The most prominent lefty on here, now that Snowflake has gone! - is NPXMP.
He has openly admitted he feels no special love or affection for Britain, and would be just as happy representing Amsterdam, Geneva or Vladivostok.
If a onetime and prospective Labour MP is happy to confess this on a blog, you can imagine what unspoken sentiments lurk in the leftwing soul.
That is to say: I am right, and you know it.
Although we're clearly perfectly happy with non Mancunians (and non Brits in general) playing for Manchester United. Or, for that matter, Swiss CEOs of British firms.
Perhaps NPXMP is just better at the globalisation thing than most other people: competent, caring legislator, animal lover, enjoys travel, will vote loyally.
Here's the set up. A single mum, Rachel, has moved from London to Cornwall - wild west Penwith - to live in a grand old house, owned by an aristo family: the Luxmores. Her new husband David Luxmore is a rich lawyer. The Luxmores made their money from tinning - operating those cruel, undersea mines on the Penwith cliffs, like Botallack. In which so many young men died.
The Luxmores were so successful over so many centuries a local legend arose that they had a kind of second sight - they always knew where to find tin, whereas other speculators went bust.
David Luxmore has a young son, a strange beautiful nine year old boy, Jamie - angelic, dark hair, violet eyes, very clever, charismatic, yet also a little odd.
At the end of chapter one, during an innocent summer picnic, Jamie Luxmore turns to his new stepmother and tells her she is going to die at Christmas.
And thus the clock is set ticking.
That's my hook and my beginning. Quite nice. But to keep the balance between suspense and believeability i need a rational reason why it might appear that this boy is successfully predicting the future, whereas in reality he is just blah de blah. Then I can toggle between the supernatural and the logical and keep the reader guessing, and scared (I hope)
The mundane answers are
1. The boy causes the Mum's death (either wittingly or unwittingly)
2. The boy was prompted by another actor who causes the Mum's death
Games host Glasgow shown to have worst life expectancy in UK Office for National Statistics finds just 75% of boys and 85% of girls in Scottish city can expect to reach their 65th birthday
Deprivation - though important - is not the only factor.
I kind of think independence might be an opportunity for cultural change in the west of scotland which might start to change things. (Finland managed to turn around its similarly poor health stats in the 70s (I think) so it can be done)
Why does that require independence? You've already got a separate health service, and responsibility for health has been devolved since 1999 - if you haven't started to turn it around in the last 15 years, why should you expect to in the next?
I fear too many use the "if only we were independent" crutch to avoid looking themselves in the mirror. It's been too easy to blame "Westminster" or "the Tories". Physician - heal thyself!
It is not just the health service , it needs independence so that proper social policies can be implemented to change the whole culture and system currently in place. This can never be achieved whilst just receiving pocket money from Westminster.
" ... terrible nonsense to imagine that the health system (beyond a certain basic level of provision) makes a large difference to life expectancy... "
The Health Service (beyond a certain basic provision) doesn't make a large difference to life expectancy? Is this one of those super clever "weather isn't climate arguments" or perhaps you have a different idea of what a basic level of provision means.
In previous generations I would have died 16 years ago from kidney failure and my wife 13 years ago from breast cancer. We are both still kicking and in rude health thanks to the advances in medicine and their availability through the health service. We can both expect to live for many years yet. The same is true for millions of other people who have survived what would once have been fatal illness because of treatments made possible by the health service, more than enough to be statistically significant.
So what do you class as a basic level of provision?
Sorry for not being clear. Of course the health service does a great job, that's not my point at all. In terms of differences in average life expectancy, the major determinants are going to be lifestyle- diet smoking alcohol and exercise, as well as affluence. (unless some statisticians would like to show me the error of my ways- i think this is probably true).
But talking about averages of course does not take into account the fine work done in the hospitals every day.
OK, I think I am with you now.
One thought, smoking, drinking to excess and eating a bad diet all cost money - lots of it (fags are nearly nine quid a packet). Therefore, if affluence was a factor then poorer people would be healthier and live longer lives. Maybe a way to reduce any disparities of health outcomes between the poorer and the more affluent would actually be to cut benefits, hard.
Or maybe John Reid had it right. If you are living your life on benefits on a shit estate then hanging on for a few more years as a drooling vegetable in a council funded nursing home is not all that attractive.
Hurst , people in these positions are buying bootleg cigarettes , mainly from China and such like at a fraction of your £9 a packet. They are full of crap , couple this with extremely poor diet and drinking lots of very cheap high strength booze and you have the cocktail that kills these people early, throw in damp crappy houses, no exercise and you have most of the reasons for the disparity.
Games host Glasgow shown to have worst life expectancy in UK Office for National Statistics finds just 75% of boys and 85% of girls in Scottish city can expect to reach their 65th birthday
Deprivation - though important - is not the only factor.
I kind of think independence might be an opportunity for cultural change in the west of scotland which might start to change things. (Finland managed to turn around its similarly poor health stats in the 70s (I think) so it can be done)
Why does that require independence? You've already got a separate health service, and responsibility for health has been devolved since 1999 - if you haven't started to turn it around in the last 15 years, why should you expect to in the next?
I fear too many use the "if only we were independent" crutch to avoid looking themselves in the mirror. It's been too easy to blame "Westminster" or "the Tories". Physician - heal thyself!
It is not just the health service , it needs independence so that proper social policies can be implemented to change the whole culture and system currently in place. This can never be achieved whilst just receiving pocket money from Westminster.
I think you would be on stronger ground advocating smarter spending rather than just more spending.
Alexrod's appointment is getting coverage in the US:
Oops! Brits Hire David Axelrod, But Can't Spell His Name BY F. BRINLEY BRUTON LONDON - The crowing announcement that Britain's Labour Party had hired Barack Obama's campaign guru and former adviser David Axelrod to help propel it back to power distilled why it might need the strategist’s help.
The release on Labour’s website misspelled Axelrod’s name in the headline: "David Alexrod joins the team."
Games host Glasgow shown to have worst life expectancy in UK Office for National Statistics finds just 75% of boys and 85% of girls in Scottish city can expect to reach their 65th birthday
Deprivation - though important - is not the only factor.
I kind of think independence might be an opportunity for cultural change in the west of scotland which might start to change things. (Finland managed to turn around its similarly poor health stats in the 70s (I think) so it can be done)
Why does that require independence? You've already got a separate health service, and responsibility for health has been devolved since 1999 - if you haven't started to turn it around in the last 15 years, why should you expect to in the next?
I fear too many use the "if only we were independent" crutch to avoid looking themselves in the mirror. It's been too easy to blame "Westminster" or "the Tories". Physician - heal thyself!
In that case you ought to be sending lots of money to the Yes Campaign and the pro-indy folk, who are all in favour of dumping that very crutch.
The North Karelia project is possibly the best public health project of modern times. There is nothing in it that is not already possible in devolved Scotland, apart from the political will.
Games host Glasgow shown to have worst life expectancy in UK Office for National Statistics finds just 75% of boys and 85% of girls in Scottish city can expect to reach their 65th birthday
Deprivation - though important - is not the only factor.
Glasgow's health stats are an absolute tragedy. And yes, many factors. I kind of think independence might be an opportunity for cultural change in the west of scotland which might start to change things. (Finland managed to turn around its similarly poor health stats in the 70s (I think) so it can be done)
There are plenty of thoughtful Americans here, in the US, everywhere who exude a sense of authority and competence; and we Brits are happy to follow and take advice from them.
Dave A ain't one of them. He comes across as a sub-type that Brits naturally take against: loud, seemingly insular, opinionated (in a non-Brit way). Through no fault of his I'm sure.
I note that no one has offered a better theory to mine.
On a more important note, I have a plotting problem in my next thriller.
Can someone offer me a rational reason why
1) a child might apparently have the ability to predict the future
and/or, why
2) a mother would want to psychologically torment her own son
Yes, it's a cheerful book. But if someone could sort out those problems for me I will give their name to a heroic, sexy character in the novel.
1) Seems to connect somehow to Tom Knox 3 - the Cambodia one.
Or possibly future echoes - the child is somehow experiencing things on the time-space continuum differently. See the Stone Tape by Nigel 'Quatermass' Kneale.
2) Control freakery. The mother (who perhaps married too young or to the wrong man) trying to live her life differently through her son ?
Obviously, I've just re-started here - but since the Indy Ref seems to feature prominently I'm sure for the purposes of pbc debate clarification the actual (Ladbrokes, seems to be the simplest to find online) odds wouldn't go amiss-
Games host Glasgow shown to have worst life expectancy in UK Office for National Statistics finds just 75% of boys and 85% of girls in Scottish city can expect to reach their 65th birthday
Deprivation - though important - is not the only factor.
I kind of think independence might be an opportunity for cultural change in the west of scotland which might start to change things. (Finland managed to turn around its similarly poor health stats in the 70s (I think) so it can be done)
Why does that require independence? You've already got a separate health service, and responsibility for health has been devolved since 1999 - if you haven't started to turn it around in the last 15 years, why should you expect to in the next?
I fear too many use the "if only we were independent" crutch to avoid looking themselves in the mirror. It's been too easy to blame "Westminster" or "the Tories". Physician - heal thyself!
It is not just the health service , it needs independence so that proper social policies can be implemented to change the whole culture and system currently in place. This can never be achieved whilst just receiving pocket money from Westminster.
I think you would be on stronger ground advocating smarter spending rather than just more spending.
I never mentioned more spending , again it is just your unionist bias coming through. I said they needed to to introduce different social policies to improve things, no mention of just throwing money at it, that is just your Tory viewpoint.
You could add a twist by throwing in some Russian connection, (either the mum was Russian, didn't know it perhaps (adopted), or travels to Russia for some reason) and avoids dying on 25th December only to meet her doom on January 7th... Appointment in Samarra- type scenario...
Whom is the "last refuge of the people" to who you are referring Carnyx?
The NHS - see SeanT's original post.
And if it was sleekit that was the other problem, my apologies - I will provide translations in future. In this context: sly, cunning.
I'd only heard sleekit in the Burns sense.....you learn something new every day!
Good to see Scots can "decline" (sic) just like English.....
Not many Scots that would not understand and know what sleekit meant. There is no decline and it is in common use in Scotland , you have been ensconced down south for too long , hard to imagine any Scottish person not knowing sleekit meaning.
Comments
Greg Hemphill @greghemphill69 20 hrs
@R_Roddy_Piper Shout out for Scottish Independence, legend? Come on, big man. We NEED you.
Rowdy Roddy Piper @R_Roddy_Piper 20 hrs
@greghemphill69 FREEDOM FOR SCOTLAND!
Mr. Briskin, I probably bet on about half the qualifying sessions. Usually, I prefer to wait for P3, which means many races I don't bet on because P3's at 3am or so. I typically make race bets after the grid is known.
Because P3's very early for this weekend, the pre-qualifying piece is up before rather than after it.
Well... I backed Rosberg at 16 with Ladbrokes and 24 with Betfair, hedging with the latter fairly recently. I do think his odds are a little long at the minute, but (with Betfair) I'm green either way, so I'm not going to fiddle with my title bets.
I read it!
Well done on Rosberg - I hope for your sake you piled in.
If he does win I'll be rather happy, though. I also backed (pre-season) Magnussen at 51. Obviously that hasn't come off, but I'm still quite pleased with how things have turned out.
Personally, I'd take Charles, MalcomG, Easteross, JackW or TSE (who has put himself forward for the post of dictator for life) over the current bunch of politicians who aspire to govern us, none of them could do a worse job
As Guido has noted today, AxelRods CV is not as rosey as Douglas Alexander would like it to be portrayed.
It's wrong anyway that policy is distorted to favour older people to the extent it does because of their propensity to vote.
I've had problems for a little while now, except today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_8csduQFCo&app=desktop
Especially if the person next door has an 0208 phone number, no doubt!
BTW, I fall between "Shirtless Men" and "Empty" - that must make me the opposite of a stuffed shirt.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.hu/2014/04/the-conservatives-overall-chances.html
As you will see, I take quite a different view of this subject from some of the greatest pb luminaries. But I hope I have made my case.
Yet somehow that is still Westminster's fault...
that's terrible nonsense to imagine that the health system (beyond a certain basic level of provision) makes a large difference to life expectancy. (terrible nonsense, or just trolling i suppose)
They also rejected the Blair/Clinton-esque cartoonish stereotype of the typical "aspirational" middle-class voter; they recognised even the moderately affluent were utterly disgusted at fat cats thinking they don't have to pay any tax and big businesses who think they deserve to call the shots on everything that matters to the country and that they can hold the country to ransom whenever any government threatens them with making things a tiny bit more difficult for them. A lesson which currently has not been learnt by New Labour prats like Alan Milburn and Pat McFadden, still stuck in a 1990s timewarp, judging by their comments in recent days on how Labour has to be more "pro-business".
Games host Glasgow shown to have worst life expectancy in UK
Office for National Statistics finds just 75% of boys and 85% of girls in Scottish city can expect to reach their 65th birthday
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/16/games-host-glasgow-worst-life-expectancy-uk
Deprivation - though important - is not the only factor.
I fear too many use the "if only we were independent" crutch to avoid looking themselves in the mirror. It's been too easy to blame "Westminster" or "the Tories". Physician - heal thyself!
The odds presently favour Labour to get most seats but not an overall majority. But if we assume these markets are 100% related contingencies (they're not, but it's a tool for judging the markets) we can assess what odds the constituency markets imply we should look for when betting on a Conservative overall majority or most seats. My findings are that contrary to previously-expressed views there is only a small advantage to playing individual constituency markets as a proxy for those markets; others have overlooked the Lib Dem seats that the Conservatives are considered likely to win.
I am not sure that is an all-encompassing view of Britain to be fair, but a claim that lefties hate Britain and its history is always popular on here. I guess people enjoy having their prejudices confirmed.
I'd say that many Labour people are instinctively uncomfortable with nationalism and that leads them to feel just as uncomfortable with the British kind as with the Scottish kind. They just do not get it, by and large - which is why Labour had such a tin ear about immigration for so long. When Labour tries to be nationalistic - British jobs for British workers - it does not sound at all convincing.
" ... terrible nonsense to imagine that the health system (beyond a certain basic level of provision) makes a large difference to life expectancy... "
The Health Service (beyond a certain basic provision) doesn't make a large difference to life expectancy? Is this one of those super clever "weather isn't climate arguments" or perhaps you have a different idea of what a basic level of provision means.
In previous generations I would have died 16 years ago from kidney failure and my wife 13 years ago from breast cancer. We are both still kicking and in rude health thanks to the advances in medicine and their availability through the health service. We can both expect to live for many years yet. The same is true for millions of other people who have survived what would once have been fatal illness because of treatments made possible by the health service, more than enough to be statistically significant.
So what do you class as a basic level of provision?
Wonder whether they've worked that out in Dartmouth Park NW5?
I don't think it necessarily requires independence, but as I said, independence might be an opportunity or a catalyst for cultural change- and I think culture has to change to improve health outcomes.
Again, you sounds rather "statist" - a separate health service- but I thought we agreed that the health service only plays a minor part in determining life expectancy?
But talking about averages of course does not take into account the fine work done in the hospitals every day.
Well, the GPs are already doing their best I suspect. And, if I remember correctly, evidence suggest that education is not necessary. Everybody knows fine well that smoking is bad, and a sausage supper is not a feast of antioxidants.
A major cultural earthquake might produce something more.
(equally it might not. its not a prediction, only musing here).
Anyway, here in the east, its bedtime, so fare ye well!
I've no doubt working class Labour voters are as patriotic as their Tory neighbours - which is why many (not showing up in OGH analysis because they went on strike in 2010) are now drawn to UKIP - it's the death of the shop steward and his replacement by the Poly Lecturer - and now, worse, SPAD, that has divorced Labour from its roots.....and they come on here and complain that it's Cameron who has got to reach out to them on the housing estates of Scotland.....
Hence all the artists on newsnight always saying YES - while I am NO
My view that we know Shakespeare and not Aphra Behn so well was more to do with quality than gender was not well received.
Let's not get into 2, and as for 1 if we were to tell you it would spoil the whole concept surely.
New Thread Please.
2) The mother is nuts.
One thought, smoking, drinking to excess and eating a bad diet all cost money - lots of it (fags are nearly nine quid a packet). Therefore, if affluence was a factor then poorer people would be healthier and live longer lives. Maybe a way to reduce any disparities of health outcomes between the poorer and the more affluent would actually be to cut benefits, hard.
Or maybe John Reid had it right. If you are living your life on benefits on a shit estate then hanging on for a few more years as a drooling vegetable in a council funded nursing home is not all that attractive.
Despite Easter there is a Friday Populus this week (though it's dated yesterday).
L 35, C 34, LD 9, UKIP 14
So Lab lead 1. YouGov last night - Lab lead 2.
Could crossover come when nobody is really expecting it?
A bit like Sarah Connor appearing a weirdo for trying to toughen up her son in Terminator 2.
Besides, just because you can see the future, doesn't mean you have to behave rationally to get the best outcome.
And you say "might apparently have the ability to predict the future". There's some wriggle room there that might be fun to investigate. What if the mother *believes* her son has the power, but the son does not? What if she's afraid of the power? As a child, did he predict something (e.g. the death of his father) that she has never forgiven him for?
Human beings are brilliant at seeing patterns where none exist: has she wrongly seen patterns that make her believe her son has the gift, and when things do not turn out right, she believes he lied to her. This leads her to abuse him.
But IANAW, and the above is probably ABPOS.
I hate this thinking. I just don't believe it to be true. But there's hours of TV programming devoted the food things and I just don't think it's possible to debate the issue anymore.
But as for health, now you raise it: two points:
1: the recent increase in divergence was IIRC 0.1 year and noted as within error margin even by the newspaper - but as I recall you or perhaps someone else still jumped on it gleefully
2. heterogeneity within the two health services' areas is much greater than that between - and other posters did make some useful comments on Glasgow and the area. Though I would adduce appalling council housing (Labour), industrial policies (Mrs Thatcher and successors), and unemployment (ditto) and PFI/PPP (both lots) as major problem factors.
For instance, the boy could refuse to go to school and miss the bus, on a day the bus goes into a ditch, killing another child (*). With most kids that would be a coincidence: because of the family superstitions, locals would talk. A couple of such events - and they don't even have to be dramatic, just public - and the rumours would spread. They don't even actually have to have occurred; local rumours and gossip could elevate a non-event into an event.
He could be a victim of the family superstition, or really have the gift.
(*) Yes, that's clichéd, but you get the drift.
Perhaps NPXMP is just better at the globalisation thing than most other people: competent, caring legislator, animal lover, enjoys travel, will vote loyally.
1. The boy causes the Mum's death (either wittingly or unwittingly)
2. The boy was prompted by another actor who causes the Mum's death
And if it was sleekit that was the other problem, my apologies - I will provide translations in future. In this context: sly, cunning.
As we used to say on the guardian film talkboards circa. late 90's - You Say That Like It's A Bad Thing
I thought that was the normal state of affairs.
Oops! Brits Hire David Axelrod, But Can't Spell His Name
BY F. BRINLEY BRUTON
LONDON - The crowing announcement that Britain's Labour Party had hired Barack Obama's campaign guru and former adviser David Axelrod to help propel it back to power distilled why it might need the strategist’s help.
The release on Labour’s website misspelled Axelrod’s name in the headline: "David Alexrod joins the team."
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/oops-brits-hire-david-axelrod-cant-spell-his-name-n83841
Good to see Scots can "decline" (sic) just like English.....
http://www.who.int/chp/about/integrated_cd/index2.html
Of course hassling those in Glasgow council estates is not a vote winner for Yes. We know that older people are more likely to vote No.
Tim Farron 2/1
http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/politics
There are plenty of thoughtful Americans here, in the US, everywhere who exude a sense of authority and competence; and we Brits are happy to follow and take advice from them.
Dave A ain't one of them. He comes across as a sub-type that Brits naturally take against: loud, seemingly insular, opinionated (in a non-Brit way). Through no fault of his I'm sure.
Or possibly future echoes - the child is somehow experiencing things on the time-space continuum differently. See the Stone Tape by Nigel 'Quatermass' Kneale.
2) Control freakery. The mother (who perhaps married too young or to the wrong man) trying to live her life differently through her son ?
YES 5/2
NO 2/7
You could add a twist by throwing in some Russian connection, (either the mum was Russian, didn't know it perhaps (adopted), or travels to Russia for some reason) and avoids dying on 25th December only to meet her doom on January 7th... Appointment in Samarra- type scenario...
Lamb or chicken for Easter.
a good friday.