Was listening to my Derek and Clive collection yesterday and it put me in mind of the current political situation. The closing down of debate and discussion by messrs Blair and Brown under the colourful cloak of PC has led us, step by step to a position where we are in the mindset of the protagonists ..... 'Endangered species? I say f@@k em.' In other words, we are approaching a moment of critical mass, and the concept of the state safety net will ebb away. After all, if you can't breathe without it being in some fashion prejudiced, why would you not turn to the screw em parties? Well done New Labour, well done.
Since the "S" word has been mentioned my daughter is sitting her higher history today. One of the mandatory subjects is "the crisis in the Scottish Identity" after WW1. This involves studying a number of Scottish Nationalist supporting writers (almost completely now out of print) and considering how their work was motivated by their desire for an independent Scotland. Apparently Scotland had a new Enlightenment in the 1920s and 30s. Must have missed it.
It really is propaganda of the most blatant and frankly absurd kind to which there is only 1 correct answer and it is being written by many hundred new voters this afternoon. The power of office. Never to be underestimated.
Has there been recent polling on in/out on the EU in the UK? Are we taking UKIP as a proxy for that? Would be interesting to know if the increased Kipper support comes with an increase in those likely to vote Out should we have a referendum.
Lots of rumours on Twitter that IPSOS did a poll for BTOGETHER, a week or two ago, but BT didn't publish as it wasn't good for No.
It's certainly noticeable that there's been an oddly long gap since the last IPSOS indyref poll.
It's strange how utterly blind labour are to the risk of a yes vote.
They are the party with effectively everything to lose in the event of Scottish independence.
As I've said before, their bizarre inertia comes from several causes - one is outright Denial, the prospect of sindy is so horrifying they cannot contemplate it, let alone fight it - or they pretend it won't especially harm Labour.
Also they are psychically paralysed - they know YES is an existential threat to Labour yet secretly half of them want the UK to break up just to give Tory unionist monarchist union jack waving old Etonian quasi fascist (insert favourite idiotic lefty meme here) BritNats a knee in the groin.
I'm guessing that when the campaign starts properly (May 30?) Labour heads will rule Labour hearts and they will start fighting for their political lives, and a NO vote - but who knows. We are in uncharted territory.
Mr. T., The consensus seems to be that to ensure a No vote then positive reasons for the Union to remain will have to be argued. Perhaps the reason that they haven't been so far is that nobody can think of any. So maybe Labour appear paralysed because they don't actually have anything to say.
Just a note of caution. What new illegal substance will be developed to replace these lost drug revenues? What's the likely toxicity/addictiveness. Thionite anyone?
Cannabis causes mental health problems.
"1600 Australian children aged 14 to 15 were studied for seven years. The ones who used cannabis every day were 5 times more likely to become depressed and anxious by the end of the study."
Just a note of caution. What new illegal substance will be developed to replace these lost drug revenues? What's the likely toxicity/addictiveness. Thionite anyone?
Cannabis causes mental health problems.
Alcohol makes you sleep with inappropriate people.
Lots of rumours on Twitter that IPSOS did a poll for BTOGETHER, a week or two ago, but BT didn't publish as it wasn't good for No.
It's certainly noticeable that there's been an oddly long gap since the last IPSOS indyref poll.
It's strange how utterly blind labour are to the risk of a yes vote.
They are the party with effectively everything to lose in the event of Scottish independence.
As I've said before, their bizarre inertia comes from several causes - one is outright Denial, the prospect of sindy is so horrifying they cannot contemplate it, let alone fight it - or they pretend it won't especially harm Labour.
Also they are psychically paralysed - they know YES is an existential threat to Labour yet secretly half of them want the UK to break up just to give Tory unionist monarchist union jack waving old Etonian quasi fascist (insert favourite idiotic lefty meme here) BritNats a knee in the groin.
I'm guessing that when the campaign starts properly (May 30?) Labour heads will rule Labour hearts and they will start fighting for their political lives, and a NO vote - but who knows. We are in uncharted territory.
Mr. T., The consensus seems to be that to ensure a No vote then positive reasons for the Union to remain will have to be argued. Perhaps the reason that they haven't been so far is that nobody can think of any. So maybe Labour appear paralysed because they don't actually have anything to say.
That's the point, yes. Forget the scaremongering, Scotland is a different nation, with different legal system, different traditions and holidays, different outlook and different history which was merged into GB by bribery in the 18th century. Why on earth wouldn't they vote for Independence aside from fear?
Just a note of caution. What new illegal substance will be developed to replace these lost drug revenues? What's the likely toxicity/addictiveness. Thionite anyone?
Cannabis causes mental health problems.
Alcohol makes you sleep with inappropriate people.
And cats. Well, it does in my world - have a drink -> snore -> get banished to the spare room -> cat comes to curl up alongside.
Just a note of caution. What new illegal substance will be developed to replace these lost drug revenues? What's the likely toxicity/addictiveness. Thionite anyone?
Cannabis causes mental health problems.
Alcohol makes you sleep with inappropriate people.
Put simply, there is a limit to how much people are prepared to pay in taxes.
There are two limits here.
Firstly, there is a political limit to the acceptability of tax rises - but as you point out, where that limit lies has been different in the past. So it is not inviolable.
Secondly, there is a practical limit to the amount that people on low to middling incomes can pay for healthcare. This is a very real limit that cannot be breached without sending these people very deep into debt.
Once you start charging the logical endpoint is that you come up against that limit and people avoid medical treatment because they can't afford it.
pretty poor form if it was under Chatham House rules. And it was journalists.
His response? Pretty good. And Cam's/Cons' response to UKIP? Pretty good also. Forget UKIP as a focus. Focus on achievements. Everyone knows what UKIP stands for (= so far not much = anti-EU/immigration control) so no need to mention them every moment.
Put simply, there is a limit to how much people are prepared to pay in taxes.
There are two limits here.
Firstly, there is a political limit to the acceptability of tax rises - but as you point out, where that limit lies has been different in the past. So it is not inviolable.
Secondly, there is a practical limit to the amount that people on low to middling incomes can pay for healthcare. This is a very real limit that cannot be breached without sending these people very deep into debt.
Once you start charging the logical endpoint is that you come up against that limit and people avoid medical treatment because they can't afford it.
Mr Me., I did say that we need a grown up debate about how good healthcare can be provided for all on the basis of need. If you are going to stand on the inviolability of the current arrangements that debate can never be had and down the line we will have inequalities of health outcomes so vast as to make today's look equitable.
Just a note of caution. What new illegal substance will be developed to replace these lost drug revenues? What's the likely toxicity/addictiveness. Thionite anyone?
Cannabis causes mental health problems.
"1600 Australian children aged 14 to 15 were studied for seven years. The ones who used cannabis every day were 5 times more likely to become depressed and anxious by the end of the study."
However,young brains do need protecting from any pollutants which is why,where cannabis has been decriminalised,any retail outlets have to operate strict regulation to ensure access is removed from under 18s.You are always asked for ID for proof of age.
Legal regulation is the way forward.Let's get rid of the criminals and the criminalisation of users.Criminalisation is more harmful than the drugs themselves.
Today, Ed's intellectual self confidence reminded me of the intellectual self confidence Hannibal had before the Battle of Zama or Crassus before Carrhae
The best positive reasons are not about MEPs or political arrangements, they're about values. For centuries, Great Britain has stood for constitutionalism, rule of law, and parliamentarism. The nation as a whole has a down-to-Earth outlook, a sense of fair play and a love for the underdog. We share a language, a religious heritage, more than three centuries of history and stood up for all that is right in two world wars. Under the world famous union flag, we have shown time and time again a united Britain can punch above its weight in the international community.
Lots of rumours on Twitter that IPSOS did a poll for BTOGETHER, a week or two ago, but BT didn't publish as it wasn't good for No.
It's certainly noticeable that there's been an oddly long gap since the last IPSOS indyref poll.
It's strange how utterly blind labour are to the risk of a yes vote.
They are the party with effectively everything to lose in the event of Scottish independence.
I'm guessing that when the campaign starts properly (May 30?) Labour heads will rule Labour hearts and they will start fighting for their political lives, and a NO vote - but who knows. We are in uncharted territory.
Mr. T., The consensus seems to be that to ensure a No vote then positive reasons for the Union to remain will have to be argued. Perhaps the reason that they haven't been so far is that nobody can think of any. So maybe Labour appear paralysed because they don't actually have anything to say.
Daft. There's a billion positive reasons to stay in the UK: basically they are the negative reasons given a positive spin (which is exactly what the SNP are doing with some skill - taking all the so-called negatives about England/Tories/Britain and making them *positive* reasons to vote YES).
e.g. the indy-EU question could be reframed as: Guaranteed continued EU membership and a continued rebate by sticking with Britain! 71 MEPS fighting for Scottish (and British) interests at Strasbourg rather than 9 (or whatever)! a guarantee that as a big country we won't be pushed around, when small countries can suffer in Brussels (look at Ireland)!
This stuff is easy. Make the negatives sound positive.
No, the reason Labour aren't making these positive arguments, or making them with any verve, is deeper. I hope/believe they will wise up soon.
Sean, reality shows that the MEPs do not fight for Scottish interests, recent taking of Scottish farmer payments and giving to English farmers, recent Minister who said he used wrong notes and went against Scottish interests. England wanting out of EU so rebate is not worth worrying about and in reality we have more chance of keeping if we vote YES.
Not as easy as you think, reality trumps your imagination.
Lots of rumours on Twitter that IPSOS did a poll for BTOGETHER, a week or two ago, but BT didn't publish as it wasn't good for No.
It's certainly noticeable that there's been an oddly long gap since the last IPSOS indyref poll.
It's strange how utterly blind labour are to the risk of a yes vote.
They are the party with effectively everything to lose in the event of Scottish independence.
.
Mr. T., The consensus seems to be that to ensure a No vote then positive reasons for the Union to remain will have to be argued. Perhaps the reason that they haven't been so far is that nobody can think of any. So maybe Labour appear paralysed because they don't actually have anything to say.
Daft. There's a billion positive reasons to stay in the UK: basically they are the negative reasons given a positive spin (which is exactly what the SNP are doing with some skill - taking all the so-called negatives about England/Tories/Britain and making them *positive* reasons to vote YES).
e.g. the indy-EU question could be reframed as: Guaranteed continued EU membership and a continued rebate by sticking with Britain! 71 MEPS fighting for Scottish (and British) interests at Strasbourg rather than 9 (or whatever)! a guarantee that as a big country we won't be pushed around, when small countries can suffer in Brussels (look at Ireland)!
This stuff is easy. Make the negatives sound positive.
No, the reason Labour aren't making these positive arguments, or making them with any verve, is deeper. I hope/believe they will wise up soon.
As I have said before it is induced by schizophrenia (not caused by cannabis so far as I know). The importance of Scotland to left leaning voters in the UK is obvious. The importance of the rest of the UK to left leaning supporters in Scotland rather less so. Scottish Labour supporters want to know what is in it for them. Miliband does not inspire and the polling indicates he might well lose (crossover is another problem no is going to have to suffer soon).
Many of the obvious commercial benefits of being a part of a successful economic union does not apply to this segment either: you mean it is good for bankers and fund managers???
They look at a UK government which, whatever its colour after 2015, will be introducing harsh benefit cuts and they listen to the lies of extra money being promised by the SNP on the back of oil and they wonder.
The MPs have jobs and careers and ambitions and will nearly all be on board. How much influence they will have over the rank and file is the question on which the referendum turns. It remains uncertain.
Any Labour supporters want to go on the record and say that Ed's PMQ performance today was that of a Prime Minister in Waiting?
@IsabelHardman: Miliband's intellectual superiority cld take tips from the bard "The fool doth think he is wise but the wise man knows himself to be a fool"
What makes you think that the majority of UKIP-voters will come to see the world the way you do in time for polling day, given that we have evidence that they disagree with you today?
To date UKIP have no track record of translating Euro votes into GE votes, or indeed council by election votes. A trend or pattern remains until it is broken.
They have the precedent of converting 18.8% of their 2009 share of the vote into the 2010GE vote.
BJB believes this will fall to below 10%, whereas the polling evidence is that it will rise substantially.
It is not I who is defying the trend or pattern.
Wow, less than one in five? That's impressive! They could be on for 5, maybe 6 percent next year! One more heave....
Well, exactly.
In 2009, the blazers got 16% of the Euro vote. 25% of that 16% said they'd vote blazer in 2010. Only 18% actually did. Blazer GE result: 3%.
In 2014, the blazers are polling about 28% ahead of the Euros; 56% are now saying they'll vote blazer next year. This would produce a blazer GE share, in 2015, of:
- 16%, if the 56% are exactly as good as their word, so that UKIP keep 56% of 28%; or - 12%, if the 56% are as reliable as the 25% "pledgers" were last time, i.e. they keep 3/4 of 56% of 28%; or - 5.4%, if they retain at the 2015 GE only the 18% of their Euro vote share they historically did retain at the 2010 GE.
We can thus say that the lower bound of blazer share is probably 5% and the upper is probably 16%. The outcome depends on actual retention, and here all we really know is that the blazers' record of vote retention is absymal.
As I pointed out upthread, in 2010 wasting your vote on UKIP was an act with few perceived risks, because it was clear the worst PM of all time and the worst government in 100 years were going to be removed. In 2015, to indulge yourself the same way is a very different story, because you're going to get either another coalition or Labour back. This will test - to destruction - the UKIPper football chant that they're all the same. Given that UKIPpers are old men who can remember several Labour governments, this ostensible belief looks shaky.
For this reason I think UKIP's retention rate will be worse than between 2009 and 2010, not better. Hence they won't keep 75% of the pledges, but rather 40 to 50% of them. This means they'll poll south of 10% at the GE.
I'd be happy to have a CFD type punt on this, at say £5 a full point either side of 10% with a knockout at +/- 5 %age points?
The best positive reasons are not about MEPs or political arrangements, they're about values. For centuries, Great Britain has stood for constitutionalism, rule of law, and parliamentarism. The nation as a whole has a down-to-Earth outlook, a sense of fair play and a love for the underdog. We share a language, a religious heritage, more than three centuries of history and stood up for all that is right in two world wars. Under the world famous union flag, we have shown time and time again a united Britain can punch above its weight in the international community.
Socrates, that is just wonk speak , what you would expect from an idiot like Milliband , nobody will vote for those reasons. We have had too many wars , we have our own better flag , language will not change , nor the other points you make.
pretty poor form if it was under Chatham House rules. And it was journalists.
His response? Pretty good. And Cam's/Cons' response to UKIP? Pretty good also. Forget UKIP as a focus. Focus on achievements. Everyone knows what UKIP stands for (= so far not much = anti-EU/immigration control) so no need to mention them every moment.
The Conservatives would be well within their rights to never talk to BBC journalists under Chatham House rules again.
Since the "S" word has been mentioned my daughter is sitting her higher history today. One of the mandatory subjects is "the crisis in the Scottish Identity" after WW1. This involves studying a number of Scottish Nationalist supporting writers (almost completely now out of print) and considering how their work was motivated by their desire for an independent Scotland. Apparently Scotland had a new Enlightenment in the 1920s and 30s. Must have missed it.
It really is propaganda of the most blatant and frankly absurd kind to which there is only 1 correct answer and it is being written by many hundred new voters this afternoon. The power of office. Never to be underestimated.
I would be very surprised if that was really all there was to it, unless you can provide the relevant syllabus and reading list. And to be honest, I'm not sure that I would want to use the likes of Hugh MacDiarmid as propaganda for anything to do with 21st century politics, if only because he was too nationalistic for the Reds and too communist for the nationalist movement of the time - and because politics have changed so much since the time. I suspect your daughter's work is as much about the Labour Party and its scions as anything else, for instance.
But, in any case, your argument misses the point that virtually anything to do with the UK's history can now be regarded as propaganda, thanks to the No Campaign - for instance on your logic merely doing an essay on the Great War must be construed as force-feeding with unionist propaganda because its very existence means we must vote no.
You also forget it's not so long since Scottish history was barely taught in the country, and even what they had had been kickstarted by the terminal 19th century equivalent of crowd-sourcing a university professorship. Are we to ignore 20th century Scottish history completely except when it suits the unionists?
0 15% (the SE seat is quite hard to lose) 1 25% 2 10% 3 25% (If they get 2, they should get 3) 4 15% (London is a possibility rather than a probability) More than 4 10%
Ed made to look very very stupid. Or is that intellectually self confident?
What happened in today's PMQ?
Sparrow of the Guardian - "Snap PMQs Verdict: Miliband had the edge during the first exchange, on renting, but Cameron was just about on top during the second exchange (principally because of his fourth answer, where he was very strong on the benefits of investment). Overall, though, honour was satisfied on both sides, and there was no clear winner."
Since the "S" word has been mentioned my daughter is sitting her higher history today. One of the mandatory subjects is "the crisis in the Scottish Identity" after WW1. This involves studying a number of Scottish Nationalist supporting writers (almost completely now out of print) and considering how their work was motivated by their desire for an independent Scotland. Apparently Scotland had a new Enlightenment in the 1920s and 30s. Must have missed it.
It really is propaganda of the most blatant and frankly absurd kind to which there is only 1 correct answer and it is being written by many hundred new voters this afternoon. The power of office. Never to be underestimated.
I would be very surprised if that was really all there was to it, unless you can provide the relevant syllabus and reading list. And to be honest, I'm not sure that I would want to use the likes of Hugh MacDiarmid as propaganda for anything to do with 21st century politics, if only because he was too nationalistic for the Reds and too communist for the nationalist movement of the time - and because politics have changed so much since the time. I suspect your daughter's work is as much about the Labour Party and its scions as anything else, for instance.
But, in any case, your argument misses the point that virtually anything to do with the UK's history can now be regarded as propaganda, thanks to the No Campaign - for instance on your logic merely doing an essay on the Great War must be construed as force-feeding with unionist propaganda because its very existence means we must vote no.
You also forget it's not so long since Scottish history was barely taught in the country, and even what they had had been kickstarted by the terminal 19th century equivalent of crowd-sourcing a university professorship. Are we to ignore 20th century Scottish history completely except when it suits the unionists?
MacDiarmid was obviously the towering figure of the period but they have also had to study and repeat the views of Eric Linklater and Neil Gunn along with several others. Not their literary works of course, just their political views. Every one of those studied believed in an independent Scotland and considered the Union crushed Scotland socially and culturally. No doubt this is just a coincidence.
I agree that when I was at school 35 years ago Scottish history formed a very small part of the curriculum and this needed corrected. But these forgotten novelists and half forgotten poets are an interesting choice don't you think?
pretty poor form if it was under Chatham House rules. And it was journalists.
His response? Pretty good. And Cam's/Cons' response to UKIP? Pretty good also. Forget UKIP as a focus. Focus on achievements. Everyone knows what UKIP stands for (= so far not much = anti-EU/immigration control) so no need to mention them every moment.
The Conservatives current campaign for the EU Parliament is focused on lies. If it's a dress rehearsal for the GE, I think you're going to be disappointed.
[older stuff deleted for space] Daft. There's a billion positive reasons to stay in the UK: basically they are the negative reasons given a positive spin (which is exactly what the SNP are doing with some skill - taking all the so-called negatives about England/Tories/Britain and making them *positive* reasons to vote YES).
e.g. the indy-EU question could be reframed as: Guaranteed continued EU membership and a continued rebate by sticking with Britain! 71 MEPS fighting for Scottish (and British) interests at Strasbourg rather than 9 (or whatever)! a guarantee that as a big country we won't be pushed around, when small countries can suffer in Brussels (look at Ireland)!
This stuff is easy. Make the negatives sound positive.
No, the reason Labour aren't making these positive arguments, or making them with any verve, is deeper. I hope/believe they will wise up soon.
As I have said before it is induced by schizophrenia (not caused by cannabis so far as I know). The importance of Scotland to left leaning voters in the UK is obvious. The importance of the rest of the UK to left leaning supporters in Scotland rather less so. Scottish Labour supporters want to know what is in it for them. Miliband does not inspire and the polling indicates he might well lose (crossover is another problem no is going to have to suffer soon).
Many of the obvious commercial benefits of being a part of a successful economic union does not apply to this segment either: you mean it is good for bankers and fund managers???
They look at a UK government which, whatever its colour after 2015, will be introducing harsh benefit cuts and they listen to the lies of extra money being promised by the SNP on the back of oil and they wonder.
The MPs have jobs and careers and ambitions and will nearly all be on board. How much influence they will have over the rank and file is the question on which the referendum turns. It remains uncertain.
This seems an eminently sensible attempt to resolve the apparent paradox. Though I would add that MSPs also exist - and are a significant component of the Labour Party in Scotland. Moreover, they have a far better hope than MPs of surviving a Yes vote and staying in their current careers (admittedly at the cost of a chance at a MP's seat, and UK peerage a long way down the line). But only if they shut up, and don't upset a fair number of their voters by coming out publicly for No.
Yet one would have thought that party discipline would be brought to bear ...
[older stuff deleted for space] Daft. There's a billion positive reasons to stay in the UK: basically they are the negative reasons given a positive spin (which is exactly what the SNP are doing with some skill - taking all the so-called negatives about England/Tories/Britain and making them *positive* reasons to vote YES).
e.g. the indy-EU question could be reframed as: Guaranteed continued EU membership and a continued rebate by sticking with Britain! 71 MEPS fighting for Scottish (and British) interests at Strasbourg rather than 9 (or whatever)! a guarantee that as a big country we won't be pushed around, when small countries can suffer in Brussels (look at Ireland)!
This stuff is easy. Make the negatives sound positive.
No, the reason Labour aren't making these positive arguments, or making them with any verve, is deeper. I hope/believe they will wise up soon.
As I have said before it is induced by schizophrenia (not caused by cannabis so far as I know). The importance of Scotland to left leaning voters in the UK is obvious. The importance of the rest of the UK to left leaning supporters in Scotland rather less so. Scottish Labour supporters want to know what is in it for them. Miliband does not inspire and the polling indicates he might well lose (crossover is another problem no is going to have to suffer soon).
Many of the obvious commercial benefits of being a part of a successful economic union does not apply to this segment either: you mean it is good for bankers and fund managers???
They look at a UK government which, whatever its colour after 2015, will be introducing harsh benefit cuts and they listen to the lies of extra money being promised by the SNP on the back of oil and they wonder.
The MPs have jobs and careers and ambitions and will nearly all be on board. How much influence they will have over the rank and file is the question on which the referendum turns. It remains uncertain.
This seems an eminently sensible attempt to resolve the apparent paradox. Though I would add that MSPs also exist - and are a significant component of the Labour Party in Scotland. Moreover, they have a far better hope than MPs of surviving a Yes vote and staying in their current careers (admittedly at the cost of a chance at a MP's seat, and UK peerage a long way down the line). But only if they shut up, and don't upset a fair number of their voters by coming out publicly for No.
Yet one would have thought that party discipline would be brought to bear ...
My bold
that's an interesting point - these egalitarian socialists do like their titles.
Ed made to look very very stupid. Or is that intellectually self confident?
What happened in today's PMQ?
Sparrow of the Guardian - "Snap PMQs Verdict: Miliband had the edge during the first exchange, on renting, but Cameron was just about on top during the second exchange (principally because of his fourth answer, where he was very strong on the benefits of investment). Overall, though, honour was satisfied on both sides, and there was no clear winner."
You would have to be pretty one eyed Labour to call that one even, that was a win for Cameron as clear as any you will see.
Mr. Eagles, you have my thanks for subjecting yourself to PMQs and reporting back. What did Cameron and Grumpy say to one another?
Bercow called Simon Burns, a Tory MP whom he hates/has poor relations, Tory MPs cheered and Bercow got upset at the noise.
When Dave answered Burns' question, Dave ended his answer with something along the lines of "When my right hon friend gets called during PMQs you know hard work, digging in and perseverance pay off."
And Bercow said something when calling the next Speaker "Yes, the PM is finding that out isn't he?"
On paper it doesn't seem bad, but from his voice and general demeanour Bercow was angry at Dave.
Last year in a moment of madness, I subscribed to the online version of The Spectator for £79.99.
I never read it once, and forgot I had done it.
Just looked at my bank statement, and the subscription has been renewed! Is there any way out of it?
Phoning apple wasn't a pleasant experience, a computer told me to look on the website, and the website wont allow me to ask because I don't have the latest version of firefox!
On the verge of smashing the room up!
Autorenewal is evil. I unsubscribed to SurveyMonkey, which I'd found occasionally useful, pureply because of that. Interestingly, in the "Oh, why did you go?" email they sent afterwards, it was listed as one of the reasons that people might choose, so they're aware that it annoys us. They just think that they'll get more customers than they lose - a bit like phone canvassing, which also often annoys people, but probably not enough to make them change their votes.
Ed made to look very very stupid. Or is that intellectually self confident?
What happened in today's PMQ?
Sparrow of the Guardian - "Snap PMQs Verdict: Miliband had the edge during the first exchange, on renting, but Cameron was just about on top during the second exchange (principally because of his fourth answer, where he was very strong on the benefits of investment). Overall, though, honour was satisfied on both sides, and there was no clear winner."
You would have to be pretty one eyed Labour to call that one even, that was a win for Cameron as clear as any you will see.
On the whole I find Mr Sparrow even handed when reporting on PMQs – But I appreciate your concern regarding the ‘Guardian’ in general – any paper that can claim Clegg came out on top in the Farage face-off should be viewed with suspicion…!
MacDiarmid was obviously the towering figure of the period but they have also had to study and repeat the views of Eric Linklater and Neil Gunn along with several others. Not their literary works of course, just their political views. Every one of those studied believed in an independent Scotland and considered the Union crushed Scotland socially and culturally. No doubt this is just a coincidence.
I agree that when I was at school 35 years ago Scottish history formed a very small part of the curriculum and this needed corrected. But these forgotten novelists and half forgotten poets are an interesting choice don't you think?
Without seeing the syllabus/papers and the range of choice for the specific topic, and the course as a whole, I honestly can't comment on your question one way or another. It may simply have been that, like cat-lovers and Schroedinger's pussy, a choice had to be made and inevitably not to the liking of some. One might also want to know when the course was begun - if it was 2 years ago, that would be IIRC well before we knew for sure (a) the date and (b) the electorate age limits for the referendum, never mind whether HMG in London would even let it happen. And you would need to add the planning and development time on top of that.
(On a small point, I am not sure I would call Linklater and Gunn forgotten novelists - even as a student (in a completely different field) I came across and read some of their works in print in the 1970s, and that was before the modern revival in Jocklit. They are still on my bookcase. And that was with nothing more than a (then) very uninformed interest in Scots history and culture.)
And belatedly but not least: very best wishes for good results in her exams.
Mr. Dave, I'd guess that PPB will go down well with most, but personally I loathe the bland sloganising.
The value of a political statement can be gauged by how valid the opposite view is. The classic would be "I believe in low taxes so people keep more of their own money." The opposite is "I believe in high taxes, so we have more for public spending." Obviously I prefer the former, but both are legitimate views.
"I want to give people a choice" is a worthless statement, like saying you want more growth, or a fairer society.
Mr. Dave, I'd guess that PPB will go down well with most, but personally I loathe the bland sloganising.
The value of a political statement can be gauged by how valid the opposite view is. The classic would be "I believe in low taxes so people keep more of their own money." The opposite is "I believe in high taxes, so we have more for public spending." Obviously I prefer the former, but both are legitimate views.
"I want to give people a choice" is a worthless statement, like saying you want more growth, or a fairer society.
Former Co-op Bank chairman Paul Flowers has been fined £400 and ordered to pay £125 costs after admitting possession of drugs.
The 63-year-old admitted two counts of possession of class A drugs - cocaine and methamphetamine - and one count of possession of class C drug ketamine.
The Co-op has said it is trying to recover contractual payments worth £31,000 made to Flowers, who is believed to have been the subject of an inquiry into "lavish expenses".
I like Jupiter's pragmatic and engaged form of ownership (they manage funds for a charity I am involved in). So subject to a few things that the charity cares about, we delegate most voting to them.
My point was simply that as an individual shareholder it is often better to find a house whose approach you like and let them handle it. Of course you could fill in a piece of paper for every investment, but (a) your knowledge of the specific sitution will be limited (b) the time and hassle involved would be significant and (c) the cost of processing bits of paper from everyone would be significant and charged to the fund. So better to centralise those costs and charge them across the entire AUM, unless there is an issue that really matters.
I guess we'll see how Cameron responds to the jibe that he lacks intellectual self-confidence today. Not sure what turning red will tell us about it either way, though.
Perhaps he'll quote Francis Bacon:
There is a difference between happiness and wisdom: he that thinks himself the happiest man is really so; but he that thinks himself the wisest is generally the greatest fool.
I'm too late, I know, Richard, but this Shakespeare quote is best: "A fool thinks he is a wise man. The wise man knows he is a fool."
Mr. Dave, I'd guess that PPB will go down well with most, but personally I loathe the bland sloganising.
The value of a political statement can be gauged by how valid the opposite view is. The classic would be "I believe in low taxes so people keep more of their own money." The opposite is "I believe in high taxes, so we have more for public spending." Obviously I prefer the former, but both are legitimate views.
"I want to give people a choice" is a worthless statement, like saying you want more growth, or a fairer society.
I would dispute that to some extent. "I want to give people a choice" is not a worthless statement when the position of some of the other parties is explicitly "We do not want to give people a choice".
Mr. Tyndall, has any party stated they don't want the public to have a choice? Simply by virtue of having more than one party and elections there's more than one choice. It's a meaningless statement.
I guess we'll see how Cameron responds to the jibe that he lacks intellectual self-confidence today. Not sure what turning red will tell us about it either way, though.
Perhaps he'll quote Francis Bacon:
There is a difference between happiness and wisdom: he that thinks himself the happiest man is really so; but he that thinks himself the wisest is generally the greatest fool.
I'm too late, I know, Richard, but this Shakespeare quote is best: "A fool thinks he is a wise man. The wise man knows he is a fool."
I see Scott P got there before me - and more accurately!
: Survation/Mirror European Election poll CON 24% LAB 28% LDEM 7% UKIP 31%. Is there any point in voting LIBDEM?
Labour only 4 points clear of third place.
Is it possible to bet on them coming third? Maybe Shadsy knows.
Send an email to Paddy too, they may oblige with a market.
I think UKIP are going to damage Labour in places like South Yorkshire, North East, Stoke-on-Trent, whereas they're going to do less well than expected in the prosperous home countries. So therefore Labour may come closer to being third than people expect.
: Survation/Mirror European Election poll CON 24% LAB 28% LDEM 7% UKIP 31%. Is there any point in voting LIBDEM?
Labour only 4 points clear of third place.
Is it possible to bet on them coming third? Maybe Shadsy knows.
Send an email to Paddy too, they may oblige with a market.
I think UKIP are going to damage Labour in places like South Yorkshire, North East, Stoke-on-Trent, whereas they're going to do less well than expected in the prosperous home countries. So therefore Labour may come closer to being third than people expect.
Hmm - Yr basing the prediction on differential populations ? Doesn't matter where the votes come from in the Euros so far as 'votes' go. Or are you saying Labour will come 3rd in seats ?
Mr. Tyndall, has any party stated they don't want the public to have a choice? Simply by virtue of having more than one party and elections there's more than one choice. It's a meaningless statement.
Surely as a new party it is perfectly legitimate to claim that you are increasing the choice that people have?
Livingstone reminding people of what a loathsome toad he is with his stereotyping of people and why he was so unfit to be Mayor of London. It certainly never occurs to him that his embrace, intellectual as well as physical, of anti-Semites might be one reason why Jews - and others - would be disinclined to vote for him.
: Survation/Mirror European Election poll CON 24% LAB 28% LDEM 7% UKIP 31%. Is there any point in voting LIBDEM?
Labour only 4 points clear of third place.
Is it possible to bet on them coming third? Maybe Shadsy knows.
Send an email to Paddy too, they may oblige with a market.
I think UKIP are going to damage Labour in places like South Yorkshire, North East, Stoke-on-Trent, whereas they're going to do less well than expected in the prosperous home countries. So therefore Labour may come closer to being third than people expect.
Might there also be a differential turnout between those places (the Northern Metropolitans) that have locals and those that don't (Rural South East)
Mr. Tyndall, has any party stated they don't want the public to have a choice? Simply by virtue of having more than one party and elections there's more than one choice. It's a meaningless statement.
Wasn't that Labour's initial reaction to the Government's decision on annuities? That people were too stupid to be given a choice as to what to do with their money.
Mr. Tyndall, has any party stated they don't want the public to have a choice? Simply by virtue of having more than one party and elections there's more than one choice. It's a meaningless statement.
On the specific issue of EU membership yes, the Labour and Lib Dem positions are that they are not in favour of a choice. The Tories and UKIP both disagree about the timing, mechanics and desired outcome of a referendum but they do at least both agree one should take place in principle.
: Survation/Mirror European Election poll CON 24% LAB 28% LDEM 7% UKIP 31%. Is there any point in voting LIBDEM?
Labour only 4 points clear of third place.
Is it possible to bet on them coming third? Maybe Shadsy knows.
Send an email to Paddy too, they may oblige with a market.
I think UKIP are going to damage Labour in places like South Yorkshire, North East, Stoke-on-Trent, whereas they're going to do less well than expected in the prosperous home countries. So therefore Labour may come closer to being third than people expect.
Hmm - Yr basing the prediction on differential populations ? Doesn't matter where the votes come from in the Euros so far as 'votes' go. Or are you saying Labour will come 3rd in seats ?
I was talking about third in popular vote in the Euros.
Of course Labour usually rely heavily on Scotland and Wales to boost their popular vote in GB. This time that might not happen to the same extent.
Miss Cyclefree, that's something I'd forgotten. You're right that, in that area at least, the intellectually self-confident Labour Party was against choice.
Whether that makes my suggestion wanting more choice is a meaningless slogan depends on whether you think Labour's policy is valid, or bonkers.
Sky: Police investigating link between "Skullcracker" and an armed robbery on Chelsea BS in Sunbury-on-Thames this morning...
The person who decided it was okay to place him in an open prison despite having 13 life sentences ought to be dismissed.
What holding someone in public service to account for their decisions? Good grief man, it would be the end of civilisation as we know it. The thin end of the wedge. Impossible. Preposterous. Where would it end? Great heavens you'll be suggesting that people are sacked for incompetence next, or that senior public servants don't really earn the 6 figure salaries they are paid.
Comments
'Endangered species? I say f@@k em.'
In other words, we are approaching a moment of critical mass, and the concept of the state safety net will ebb away. After all, if you can't breathe without it being in some fashion prejudiced, why would you not turn to the screw em parties?
Well done New Labour, well done.
It really is propaganda of the most blatant and frankly absurd kind to which there is only 1 correct answer and it is being written by many hundred new voters this afternoon. The power of office. Never to be underestimated.
And yes, I know I could have used this:
lmgtfy.com/
"1600 Australian children aged 14 to 15 were studied for seven years. The ones who used cannabis every day were 5 times more likely to become depressed and anxious by the end of the study."
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/cannabismentalhealthkey.aspx?theme=mobile
Paddy Power @paddypower 5m
England Centre-Back cupboard looking a bit bare, let’s see who could be going to Brazil...
twitter.com/paddypower/status/463994418119200768
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100270400/if-the-bbc-is-to-survive-its-next-chairman-must-be-a-political-heavyweight/#disqus_thread
I wonder what the PB consensus on next chairman is?
Firstly, there is a political limit to the acceptability of tax rises - but as you point out, where that limit lies has been different in the past. So it is not inviolable.
Secondly, there is a practical limit to the amount that people on low to middling incomes can pay for healthcare. This is a very real limit that cannot be breached without sending these people very deep into debt.
Once you start charging the logical endpoint is that you come up against that limit and people avoid medical treatment because they can't afford it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/badly-behaved-men-on-a-stag-night-is-this-what-the-tories-think-of-ukip-voters-9328472.html
Scotland has far more in common with England than Brandenburg has with Bavaria.
His response? Pretty good. And Cam's/Cons' response to UKIP? Pretty good also.
Forget UKIP as a focus. Focus on achievements. Everyone knows what UKIP stands for (= so far not much = anti-EU/immigration control) so no need to mention them every moment.
Mr. Eagles, what has the diminutive delinquent done now?
He deserves to spend time locked in a fridge with a horny honey-badger.
However,young brains do need protecting from any pollutants which is why,where cannabis has been decriminalised,any retail outlets have to operate strict regulation to ensure access is removed from under 18s.You are always asked for ID for proof of age.
Legal regulation is the way forward.Let's get rid of the criminals and the criminalisation of users.Criminalisation is more harmful than the drugs themselves.
http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7481/11
Or is that intellectually self confident?
It appears not.
http://www.talkingdrugs.org/after-delays-uruguay-unveils-marijuana-regulatory-framework
The best positive reasons are not about MEPs or political arrangements, they're about values. For centuries, Great Britain has stood for constitutionalism, rule of law, and parliamentarism. The nation as a whole has a down-to-Earth outlook, a sense of fair play and a love for the underdog. We share a language, a religious heritage, more than three centuries of history and stood up for all that is right in two world wars. Under the world famous union flag, we have shown time and time again a united Britain can punch above its weight in the international community.
PoliticsHome @politicshome
Cameron has a dig at Miliband's 'intellectual self-confidence' comments. "He thinks he's extremely clever and we all know that." #PMQs
England wanting out of EU so rebate is not worth worrying about and in reality we have more chance of keeping if we vote YES.
Not as easy as you think, reality trumps your imagination.
Many of the obvious commercial benefits of being a part of a successful economic union does not apply to this segment either: you mean it is good for bankers and fund managers???
They look at a UK government which, whatever its colour after 2015, will be introducing harsh benefit cuts and they listen to the lies of extra money being promised by the SNP on the back of oil and they wonder.
The MPs have jobs and careers and ambitions and will nearly all be on board. How much influence they will have over the rank and file is the question on which the referendum turns. It remains uncertain.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft
: Survation/Mirror European Election poll CON 24% LAB 28% LDEM 7% UKIP 31%. Is there any point in voting LIBDEM?
In 2009, the blazers got 16% of the Euro vote. 25% of that 16% said they'd vote blazer in 2010. Only 18% actually did. Blazer GE result: 3%.
In 2014, the blazers are polling about 28% ahead of the Euros; 56% are now saying they'll vote blazer next year. This would produce a blazer GE share, in 2015, of:
- 16%, if the 56% are exactly as good as their word, so that UKIP keep 56% of 28%; or
- 12%, if the 56% are as reliable as the 25% "pledgers" were last time, i.e. they keep 3/4 of 56% of 28%; or
- 5.4%, if they retain at the 2015 GE only the 18% of their Euro vote share they historically did retain at the 2010 GE.
We can thus say that the lower bound of blazer share is probably 5% and the upper is probably 16%. The outcome depends on actual retention, and here all we really know is that the blazers' record of vote retention is absymal.
As I pointed out upthread, in 2010 wasting your vote on UKIP was an act with few perceived risks, because it was clear the worst PM of all time and the worst government in 100 years were going to be removed. In 2015, to indulge yourself the same way is a very different story, because you're going to get either another coalition or Labour back. This will test - to destruction - the UKIPper football chant that they're all the same. Given that UKIPpers are old men who can remember several Labour governments, this ostensible belief looks shaky.
For this reason I think UKIP's retention rate will be worse than between 2009 and 2010, not better. Hence they won't keep 75% of the pledges, but rather 40 to 50% of them. This means they'll poll south of 10% at the GE.
I'd be happy to have a CFD type punt on this, at say £5 a full point either side of 10% with a knockout at +/- 5 %age points?
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole
"Jews vote Tory because they are rich, Ken Livingstone says". http://bit.ly/1mBUDk8 There he goes again.
Jews vote Tory because they are rich, Ken Livingstone says
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10813331/Jews-vote-Tory-because-they-are-rich-Ken-Livingstone-says.html
But, in any case, your argument misses the point that virtually anything to do with the UK's history can now be regarded as propaganda, thanks to the No Campaign - for instance on your logic merely doing an essay on the Great War must be construed as force-feeding with unionist propaganda because its very existence means we must vote no.
You also forget it's not so long since Scottish history was barely taught in the country, and even what they had had been kickstarted by the terminal 19th century equivalent of crowd-sourcing a university professorship. Are we to ignore 20th century Scottish history completely except when it suits the unionists?
I'm reckoning the chances are something like:
0 15% (the SE seat is quite hard to lose)
1 25%
2 10%
3 25% (If they get 2, they should get 3)
4 15% (London is a possibility rather than a probability)
More than 4 10%
I agree that when I was at school 35 years ago Scottish history formed a very small part of the curriculum and this needed corrected. But these forgotten novelists and half forgotten poets are an interesting choice don't you think?
Yet one would have thought that party discipline would be brought to bear ...
that's an interesting point - these egalitarian socialists do like their titles.
The poor relations between the PM and Speaker.
PM very publicly took the piss, and Speaker snapped back.
When Dave answered Burns' question, Dave ended his answer with something along the lines of "When my right hon friend gets called during PMQs you know hard work, digging in and perseverance pay off."
And Bercow said something when calling the next Speaker "Yes, the PM is finding that out isn't he?"
On paper it doesn't seem bad, but from his voice and general demeanour Bercow was angry at Dave.
Bercow's an arse. He's meant to be an umpire not a player.
Meoooowwww
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27306525
Ladbrokes - Lib Dem Euro seats
0 7/2
1 4/1
2 4/1
3+ 11/10
Looks like exactly one, or 3+ are good bets for you
http://youtu.be/RBgxwNdJZQ8
(On a small point, I am not sure I would call Linklater and Gunn forgotten novelists - even as a student (in a completely different field) I came across and read some of their works in print in the 1970s, and that was before the modern revival in Jocklit. They are still on my bookcase. And that was with nothing more than a (then) very uninformed interest in Scots history and culture.)
And belatedly but not least: very best wishes for good results in her exams.
The value of a political statement can be gauged by how valid the opposite view is. The classic would be "I believe in low taxes so people keep more of their own money." The opposite is "I believe in high taxes, so we have more for public spending." Obviously I prefer the former, but both are legitimate views.
"I want to give people a choice" is a worthless statement, like saying you want more growth, or a fairer society.
Far worse are the people who decided that he should go to an open prison.
Anybody who is hurt by this man whilst he is on the run should be able to sue the people who made this decision for gross negligence.
The 63-year-old admitted two counts of possession of class A drugs - cocaine and methamphetamine - and one count of possession of class C drug ketamine.
The Co-op has said it is trying to recover contractual payments worth £31,000 made to Flowers, who is believed to have been the subject of an inquiry into "lavish expenses".
http://news.sky.com/story/1256831/former-co-op-boss-flowers-fined-over-drugs
1. we have big plans for this Island of ours, and you guys should benefit in one way or another. Money, fame, foreign lands etc.
2. Latterly, there are a lot of big nasty people in the world, but if you stick with us you'll be OK.
We can't say either to the Scots any more I'm afraid.
Not special pleading, just a statement of fact.
I like Jupiter's pragmatic and engaged form of ownership (they manage funds for a charity I am involved in). So subject to a few things that the charity cares about, we delegate most voting to them.
My point was simply that as an individual shareholder it is often better to find a house whose approach you like and let them handle it. Of course you could fill in a piece of paper for every investment, but (a) your knowledge of the specific sitution will be limited (b) the time and hassle involved would be significant and (c) the cost of processing bits of paper from everyone would be significant and charged to the fund. So better to centralise those costs and charge them across the entire AUM, unless there is an issue that really matters.
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Political-attitudes-poll-Mirror.pdf
One of the less successful tragedies of Aeschylus?
Is it possible to bet on them coming third? Maybe Shadsy knows.
http://www.theautomaticearth.com/first-time-in-800000-years-april-co2-levels-above-400-ppm/
Livingstone reminding people of what a loathsome toad he is with his stereotyping of people and why he was so unfit to be Mayor of London. It certainly never occurs to him that his embrace, intellectual as well as physical, of anti-Semites might be one reason why Jews - and others - would be disinclined to vote for him.
What's the margin of error? 2 or 3% I think.
Of course Labour usually rely heavily on Scotland and Wales to boost their popular vote in GB. This time that might not happen to the same extent.
Whether that makes my suggestion wanting more choice is a meaningless slogan depends on whether you think Labour's policy is valid, or bonkers.
You can combine with the 33/1 on Tory/UKIP/Lab for a combined 10/1 or so.
I've said this often, but labour has not given their supporters a reason to turn out for these euros.
He will either look like an unemployable prize pillock, or the most masterly political journalist of his generation.