The American colonies were a full quarter of the population of Britain at a time, and Lord North had provoked the war with his heavy-handed tactics. That's why he had to resign. If Scotland goes, it will be much more akin to Ireland, a smaller share of the country something that was long in the making before the current PM entered office.
The truth is most people vote AGAINST parties rather than for them and much of that is based on personal experience.
While the Conservative domination among older voters is well established (who remembers the 60s and 70s ?), look at the next generation which is much less Tory-inclined (Thatcher's children ?) while mid-20 to mid-40 somethings are much more Conservative (the heirs to Blair ?).
"Every generation blames the one before" as someone once opined. For parties forced into long spells of Opposition, the future is all around them as those who experience the dominance of one party often turn against it in later times.
IF the Conservatives win next year, they may create a stronger economy and a more prosperous Britain - they will also create the next cohort of Opposition activists.
The American colonies were a full quarter of the population of Britain at a time, and Lord North had provoked the war with his heavy-handed tactics. That's why he had to resign. If Scotland goes, it will be much more akin to Ireland, a smaller share of the country something that was long in the making before the current PM entered office.
Yup, and, especially with the power of the internet, you would have thought that someone might had done it. The haven't though. I thought Eve on Line was going to get close but it didn't have the spark and was actually dreadfully dull. Maybe what we are looking for is impossible.
Maybe Elite is remembered so fondly because it was so ground-breakingly new, nothing had been seen like it before. The same with the original Civilisation and divers others I could name. Nowadays games are so often retreads of past ventures, just like the cinema and probably for the same reason. Production costs are now so huge very few people are prepared to risk money on a new thought or a new story.
A swell of Indie successes in a specific genre leading to bigger studios venturing back into other genres the only hope I suppose.
On voting systems, as unwelcome to revisit the topic as many in politics are, if UKIP do so well that receiving no representation seems bloody ridiculous, and/or that rise impacts the others to an absurd degree as seems likely, perhaps electoral reform will finally gain some traction, which would be a positive outcome for many even if those people are not UKIP supporters.
The government is planning to opt out of justice and home affairs en bloc, but subsequently to opt back in to 35 measures (for details see the 21st report of the European Scrutiny Committee: The UK's block opt-out of pre-Lisbon criminal law and policing measuresHC 683) At present, none of the measures we have opted in to are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, and cannot be the subject of infraction proceedings instituted by the European Commission. The government is clear that that will no longer be the case when the United Kingdom opts back in to the measures. For instance, on 7 April 2014, the Secretary of State for the Home Department said: "It is true that the measures that we opt back into will be subject to the European Court of Justice" (HC Deb 7 April 2014, col. 29). One of the areas the government wants to opt back into is the European Arrest Warrant. That means that where the Supreme Court (or in Scotland, the High Court) has held that a British subject is not liable to extradition to another member state, it will be open to the Court of Justice to reverse the judgment, and order extradition. This grand cession of power to the European Union will neither require an Act of Parliament or a referendum.
Losing America is popularly considered to have been one of the things that cost King George III his sanity. David Cameron, by contrast, appears to think that losing Scotland would not even cost him his job.
Asked on BBC radio whether a vote for Scottish independence at the referendum due in September—in which he was instrumental—would be a resignation matter, the Conservative prime minister blustered: “My name is not appearing on the ballot paper, I don’t even have a vote in this Scottish referendum.
... In other words, Mr Cameron thinks if Scotland goes, he’ll stay put. This invites two thoughts.
First, the decision might not be Mr Cameron’s.
... If Scotland does go, it will be a tragedy for all Britons. And just this sort of small-mindedness—on both sides of the newly-meaningful border—will have been partly to blame.
It might not cost his job, even if it should. Even horrible Euros and Local elections can cost a leader their job through internal party pressures, but apparently presiding over the break up of the Union is not seen as something Cameron should be pushed out over in the view of some Tories, but instead something to celebrate, remarkably
Yup, and, especially with the power of the internet, you would have thought that someone might had done it. The haven't though. I thought Eve on Line was going to get close but it didn't have the spark and was actually dreadfully dull. Maybe what we are looking for is impossible.
Maybe Elite is remembered so fondly because it was so ground-breakingly new, nothing had been seen like it before. The same with the original Civilisation and divers others I could name. Nowadays games are so often retreads of past ventures, just like the cinema and probably for the same reason. Production costs are now so huge very few people are prepared to risk money on a new thought or a new story.
And although it's not (yet) a game, it's worth looking at Space Engine, which is all the work of one programmer. Spectacular work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceEngine
I got on the Kickstarter with Elite because, well, because it's Elite. After years with no decent space sims (and I don't class Eve as good), we are about to have a glut ...
Stodge It seems Cameron has actually won back most of the 'Blue Liberals', according to today's yougov 16% of 2010 LDs are now going to vote Tory. If Dave then wins back the 17% of 2010 Tories now voting UKIP the Tories will almost certainly increase their voteshare from the 36% they won in 2010 to at least 38-40%, be the largest party and close to an overall majority
By my calculations, IF they can get back all the vote share lost to UKIP, they would be in the low to mid 40s and would win an overall majority.
That looks the only route to a Conservative majority - if they only got half the vote back, the maximum vote share looks to be 37-38%.
The Conservatives therefore need to a) retain the Blue Liberal voters and b) get back as many as possible of the Purple Tories.
None of that may matter as it seems the Conservatives are piling up votes where they don't need them (the south outside London). We may see more evidence of that in the Ashcroft marginal poll study - I suspect it will confirm that Labour are getting the votes where they need them such as the Midlands marginals while the Tories are sweeping the south as strongly as in the 1980s.
Many of the 2010 Tories now saying they will vote UKIP were initially, particularly post omnishambles budget, going towards Labour when it was in the low to mid 40s. Many of those voters are now very hostile to the Tories, so any drop in the 2010 Tory UKIP defectors will also likely see some benefit to Labour. I'd imagine a bigger proportion could be minded to come back to the Tories but that would still cut the potential maximum vote percentage for them, whilst making their task to get ahead of Labour in seats harder.
Mr Jones Indeed, in 2015 the LDs will get roughly the vote David Steel got before the SDP in 1979
Yeah, amazing what they threw away really.
They only threw away a part of it. Some of it was inevitable as they expanded outwards without developing a large enough core vote, which was bound to be a bubble which burst eventually.
Until recently I thought 16% might still be possible for the LDs at the general election, but the problem is they're still at 9% with the UKPR polling average with less than 12 months to go. Probably not enough time to get up to 16%, so around 14% might be the best they can manage now.
The American colonies were a full quarter of the population of Britain at a time, and Lord North had provoked the war with his heavy-handed tactics. That's why he had to resign. If Scotland goes, it will be much more akin to Ireland, a smaller share of the country something that was long in the making before the current PM entered office.
I like your tone. You sound resigned.
I'm not resigned at all - merely indulging in intellectual what-ifs. I feel confident Scotland will vote to stay part of something greater, and I think the unionists have been hand-wringing far too much to slight changes in the polls.
Yup, and, especially with the power of the internet, you would have thought that someone might had done it. The haven't though. I thought Eve on Line was going to get close but it didn't have the spark and was actually dreadfully dull. Maybe what we are looking for is impossible.
Maybe Elite is remembered so fondly because it was so ground-breakingly new, nothing had been seen like it before. The same with the original Civilisation and divers others I could name. Nowadays games are so often retreads of past ventures, just like the cinema and probably for the same reason. Production costs are now so huge very few people are prepared to risk money on a new thought or a new story.
And although it's not (yet) a game, it's worth looking at Space Engine, which is all the work of one programmer. Spectacular work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceEngine
I got on the Kickstarter with Elite .
Ditto. I think I've backed a dozen or so games on there, at small amounts. Little downside really - if the projects are crap, or unacceptably delayed, then the next time the same people want money for a project, they won't do as well, and if they do well, you get good games perhaps sparking under used genres as well.
Until recently I thought 16% might still be possible for the LDs at the general election, but the problem is they're still at 9% with the UKPR polling average with less than 12 months to go. Probably not enough time to get up to 16%, so around 14% might be the best they can manage now.
Seems plausible. I'm all for late movement and tactical voting meaning Lab returners or whatever, but they've been so consistently at 9-10 for years, with bad stories and good stories barely shifting it, that a GE bump of more than 3-4 seems like it will be hard to achieve. The weird thing about them of course is that depending on how well they hold out in their stronger areas, versus the wipeouts in Lab areas and Scotland, could well mean that they get the same number of seats on 14 as they would on 17 ot so, it's possible.
The American colonies were a full quarter of the population of Britain at a time, and Lord North had provoked the war with his heavy-handed tactics. That's why he had to resign. If Scotland goes, it will be much more akin to Ireland, a smaller share of the country something that was long in the making before the current PM entered office.
I like your tone. You sound resigned.
I'm not resigned at all - merely indulging in intellectual what-ifs. I feel confident Scotland will vote to stay part of something greater, and I think the unionists have been hand-wringing far too much to slight changes in the polls.
Our system is now a joke, the worst in the developed world, and barely within the set of the 'democratic world.'
A good UKIP result, delivering no seats, should give FPTP the coup de grace in 2015...
UKIP winning 12% and no seats while the Lib Dems take 11% and 40 seats would be difficult to justify.
On the other hand, the winners set the rules and the winners are usually loathe to change the system that has made them winners.
Which poses the question. Is it in the LDs strategic interest for UKIP to do well?
i) more likely to deliver an absurd result.
ii) two 'major' parties on opposing sides of the spectrum united in calling for FPTP to be scrapped.
I suspect PR would be a disaster for the Lib Dems. Minor parties would erode their vote, larger constituencies would make it harder to play the local card, and coalition would upset such tactical voters as remained.
Mr Jones Indeed, in 2015 the LDs will get roughly the vote David Steel got before the SDP in 1979
Yeah, amazing what they threw away really.
They only threw away a part of it. Some of it was inevitable as they expanded outwards without developing a large enough core vote, which was bound to be a bubble which burst eventually.
The post-1983 numbers reflect the Labour schism in 1981-82 so the party only polled 17% in 1992 and has never re-visited the 1983 high numbers. The vagaries of the electoral system allowed the party to profit in seats from relatively poor vote shares.
Charles Kennedy is eulogised by many outside the party but he had the good fortune to lead the Party throughout a record of prolonged Conservative weakness after 1999. His actual record as leader is much less inspiring for all the Iraq goodwill.
The one opportunity the Party had to make a breakthrough was in 2003 when the Conservatives walked to the edge of the abyss under IDS - unfortunately for the LDs (and fortunately for the Tories), the Party didn't like what they saw and ousted their own leader.
My view is that had IDS led the Conservatives into the 2005 election they would have won fewer seats than Major or Hague and that might have triggered a serious internal debate.
Until recently I thought 16% might still be possible for the LDs at the general election, but the problem is they're still at 9% with the UKPR polling average with less than 12 months to go. Probably not enough time to get up to 16%, so around 14% might be the best they can manage now.
The only potential hope I can see for the LD vote share is the findings of the Ashcroft poll when it make a constituency specific prompting question, which increased their vote significantly in marginal and to a much smaller extent even in seats where they had no chance. Even so, 14% would be absolutely devastating for them - to lose 40% of your vote across the country would really test the claims that their vote is holding up disproportionately well in seats they hold. Because their vote is disproportionately in the seats where they say it is holding up, it would mean some massive drops in seats that they nearly won or were in a strong second. I can see that happening in seats like Merthyr Tydfil, Newcastle seats, Hull North etc but there are only so many places like this and the low turnouts mean even massive proportional drops don't translate to that many votes lost.
Mr Jones Indeed, in 2015 the LDs will get roughly the vote David Steel got before the SDP in 1979
Yeah, amazing what they threw away really.
They only threw away a part of it. Some of it was inevitable as they expanded outwards without developing a large enough core vote, which was bound to be a bubble which burst eventually.
The post-1983 numbers reflect the Labour schism in 1981-82 so the party only polled 17% in 1992 and has never re-visited the 1983 high numbers. The vagaries of the electoral system allowed the party to profit in seats from relatively poor vote shares.
Charles Kennedy is eulogised by many outside the party but he had the good fortune to lead the Party throughout a record of prolonged Conservative weakness after 1999. His actual record as leader is much less inspiring for all the Iraq goodwill.
The one opportunity the Party had to make a breakthrough was in 2003 when the Conservatives walked to the edge of the abyss under IDS - unfortunately for the LDs (and fortunately for the Tories), the Party didn't like what they saw and ousted their own leader.
My view is that had IDS led the Conservatives into the 2005 election they would have won fewer seats than Major or Hague and that might have triggered a serious internal debate.
"The one opportunity the Party had to make a breakthrough was in 2003 when the Conservatives walked to the edge of the abyss under IDS"
Sums up where they went wrong. They thought they could replace the Tories instead of Labour. This only ever made sense if you believed the telly media's spin of what made the Tories toxic. It wasn't social conservatism that made the Tories toxic it was spivvery. There was never any chance of the Libs replacing the Tories.
Comments
Additionally, if they are "red" they are very unlikely to be "Liberals" anyway - more likely SDP
The American colonies were a full quarter of the population of Britain at a time, and Lord North had provoked the war with his heavy-handed tactics. That's why he had to resign. If Scotland goes, it will be much more akin to Ireland, a smaller share of the country something that was long in the making before the current PM entered office.
While the Conservative domination among older voters is well established (who remembers the 60s and 70s ?), look at the next generation which is much less Tory-inclined (Thatcher's children ?) while mid-20 to mid-40 somethings are much more Conservative (the heirs to Blair ?).
"Every generation blames the one before" as someone once opined. For parties forced into long spells of Opposition, the future is all around them as those who experience the dominance of one party often turn against it in later times.
IF the Conservatives win next year, they may create a stronger economy and a more prosperous Britain - they will also create the next cohort of Opposition activists.
On voting systems, as unwelcome to revisit the topic as many in politics are, if UKIP do so well that receiving no representation seems bloody ridiculous, and/or that rise impacts the others to an absurd degree as seems likely, perhaps electoral reform will finally gain some traction, which would be a positive outcome for many even if those people are not UKIP supporters.
Star Citizen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Citizen
X: Universe
Limit Theory: http://ltheory.com/
And although it's not (yet) a game, it's worth looking at Space Engine, which is all the work of one programmer. Spectacular work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceEngine
I got on the Kickstarter with Elite because, well, because it's Elite. After years with no decent space sims (and I don't class Eve as good), we are about to have a glut ...
Charles Kennedy is eulogised by many outside the party but he had the good fortune to lead the Party throughout a record of prolonged Conservative weakness after 1999. His actual record as leader is much less inspiring for all the Iraq goodwill.
The one opportunity the Party had to make a breakthrough was in 2003 when the Conservatives walked to the edge of the abyss under IDS - unfortunately for the LDs (and fortunately for the Tories), the Party didn't like what they saw and ousted their own leader.
My view is that had IDS led the Conservatives into the 2005 election they would have won fewer seats than Major or Hague and that might have triggered a serious internal debate.
Everyone seems to have forgotten about Erasure, so here they are with their 1990 hit Blue Savannah:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEb1XePerwg&
Sums up where they went wrong. They thought they could replace the Tories instead of Labour. This only ever made sense if you believed the telly media's spin of what made the Tories toxic. It wasn't social conservatism that made the Tories toxic it was spivvery. There was never any chance of the Libs replacing the Tories.