She is a pathetic brown noser then. If she had any principles or morals she would have told him where to get off and where to stick his career. Too many of these yes sir no sir ar** lickers about nowadays.
Without judging the specific case, I don't agree at all - you're not in the real world where people worry about their jobs and the availability of alternatives. I'm a confident bloke with at least three career options but in the unimaginable event that my boss suggested visiting somewhere I'd never heard of that might conceivably be dodgy, I would be very unlikely to take the line that you suggest. To expect it of a young woman assistant is ridiculous.
I am in a job , a senior position and I can guarantee you I would not be doing anything that had nothing to do with my job if I did not want to , or did not like it. If you are like her and have no principles or confidence enough to say "No Thanks" then pity you. That is not having a career, that is prostituting yourself and no real employer would expect or tolerate it.
Would you like to make a prediction for the local elections result?
Not really because local factors are so important. I guess UKIP will increase their numbers of seats, if results from recent local by elections are anything to go by.
The tories might do better than expected in the locals because they tend to collect bins more often and keep council tax down.
Since I am still in a jolly mood after last night's Eurovision here is my 1st prediction for the General Election next year: Tories 38 Labour 32 LibDem 15 UKIP 10
David Cameron will in effect form a majority government as he will be promised support by the DUP/UUP.
What's your latest predix for the indyref? I have recovered my composure, somewhat, and I now think NO will win, maybe 56/44. This latest poll is pretty hard evidence that YES has a long way to go. But who knows.
However I am interested in an insider's viewpoint (i.e. a Scot like yourself, but not a Nat).
What's yr hunch right now?
Unless he has had a knock on the head since yesterday he will be of the same opinion as he has been stating for the last year at least , YES will win. Read his posts from yesterday or Friday and hear what is really the position in Scotland, not the wet dreams of some London hack after a liquid lunch.
Latest indyref poll:
YES 34% NO 54%
20 points behind. I think this calls for a modest...
CHORTLE.
They have always been the lowest of the low and do very few polls. As Prof Curtice , that great unionist , said , it shows the trend to YES continues. Every poll this year has had an increase for YES. I note you are also emulating Mick Pork by stealing his trade marked "CHORTLE". It is not the YES camp that are panicking. Where is Alastair Darling , not seen for months, where are labour in Scotland , again nowhere to be seen. All is not well.
Oi. I think you'll find that Mick Pork stole his CHORTLEs from me, indeed I believe he first used them to ape and satirise me (the sincerest form of flattery).
On a less important note, Professor Curtice agrees that this poll further confirms the narrowing NO gap, however I see you leave out the rest of his conclusion. Here it is in full:
"Progressive: Big Swing to Yes but YES STILL FAR BEHIND."
I think you will see I added the link , given the site policy of not posting full articles. As polls are only useful to see where things are going , I am happy that YES once again are on the up, same as with every other pollster.
Regarding the democratic mandate question: I support the Tories. Their policy is to support a system which is likely to deliver a majority Labour government.
She is a pathetic brown noser then. If she had any principles or morals she would have told him where to get off and where to stick his career. Too many of these yes sir no sir ar** lickers about nowadays.
That's a little harsh. She's young and at the beginning of her career (in politics). She'd already burnt her bridges with the Tories, so she was talking about a complete change of direction in her life. While your recommendation would have been admirable, I can understand why she didn't take that route!
Sean if your English chums are fed up being treated like evil Tory colonialists, how do you think it feels for those of us who are at the sharp end. I deeply resent being called "anti-Scottish" by people whose families weren't even in Scotland a couple of generations ago when I count at least 10 signatories of the Declaration of Arbroath among my direct male ancestors.
I agree the referendum is getting nasty. It is also stirring up significant anti-Scottish feeling in England; I have heard growling remarks about Scotland, from usually mild mannered English people, that I have never encountered before. The English are tired of being abused by Salmond and his ilk (evil Tory colonialists, London as a "dark star" etc etc) even as Salmond insists England must bend to Scotland's will - e.g. with the currency - after a YES vote.
My fear is that we will see a fairly narrow NO vote, but with increased bitterness all round as the legacy.
However I do not fear a neverendum. This exhausting plebiscite will be the last for a generation, whoever wins, no one will tolerate going through it all again for at least 15-20 years.
Scotland will vote no. Indepence votes are overwhelming, like Crimea, not close run. A close run vote that was yes has sad consequences and questionable legitimacy.
The interesting element will be the reaction to no, devo-max with the neutering of labour in England? Don't count on it with Osbourne, the master strategist, determining affairs.
Quebec? proves you are talking bollocks and just trolling
Quebec voted no, was always 50 50. Afraid the anti English element in Scotland has always been only a third of the population.
Of course now Canada is run by a hard right, of sorts, party that gets no votes in Quebec and has a pro Anglo outlook. Peter Brimelow is very good on Canada.
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
She is a pathetic brown noser then. If she had any principles or morals she would have told him where to get off and where to stick his career. Too many of these yes sir no sir ar** lickers about nowadays.
Without judging the specific case, I don't agree at all - you're not in the real world where people worry about their jobs and the availability of alternatives. I'm a confident bloke with at least three career options but in the unimaginable event that my boss suggested visiting somewhere I'd never heard of that might conceivably be dodgy, I would be very unlikely to take the line that you suggest. To expect it of a young woman assistant is ridiculous.
I am in a job , a senior position and I can guarantee you I would not be doing anything that had nothing to do with my job if I did not want to , or did not like it. If you are like her and have no principles or confidence enough to say "No Thanks" then pity you. That is not having a career, that is prostituting yourself and no real employer would expect or tolerate it.
If you don't have significant savings, the choice between principled poverty and prostitution is not an easy one - and suggesting it is and the people facing it lack moral fibre is crass in the extreme.
That we are once again having this discussion demonstrates that punters fundamentally misunderstand how elections work.
There is no national election We do not elect a government or a prime minister National shares of the vote are irrelevant Total votes cast nationally are irrelevant
It only appears unfair when you try and apply irrelevancies - such as above - to results and complain that they are not proportional. I would much prefer a proportional system as most people are under the deluded impression that all 4 of my points are the other way round - national election, elect the PM, divvy up the seats etc. But as that's not the system thanks to the protectionism of Tory and Labour high commands, we are where we are.
If UKIPs notional vote share delivers them no seats at all it in no way calls into question the legitimacy of a result which does not take into account national vote share. You want to win, you need a majority of at least 1 in 326 seats. If you can't get that, you can't win. However, if this GE finally forces change to a reasonable proportional democratical system then good. But the politicians and establishment hate democracy, so don't expect change soon.
What does an optout from the CAP look like? I mean, if we're in a free trade area of agricultural goods, whose French production in being subsidised, then aren't we inextricably linked with it anyway?
I haven't thought through the practicalities. However someone mentioned it on here & I thought it sounded a good idea.
Basically they were saying that the UK takes over responsibilities for the level of subsidies (if any) paid to UK farmers and, in return, we no longer pay the 42% of our current contribution to the EU which is used for agricultural subsidies
Would you like to make a prediction for the local elections result?
Not really because local factors are so important. I guess UKIP will increase their numbers of seats, if results from recent local by elections are anything to go by.
The tories might do better than expected in the locals because they tend to collect bins more often and keep council tax down.
What's your view??
UKIP up, everyone else down a touch.
2013 was: Con 26%, Lab 29%, LD 13%, UKIP 22%
I'm hoping/expecting to see the Conservatives and UKIP switch places. Lab 28%, Con 23%, UKIP 26%, LD 12% ?
Just a point of clarification, Malcolm is incorrect. In the past week alone I have seen more than 50 photos on Twitter of Tory, Labour or LibDem politicians and activists out promoting Better Together. Indeed Murdo Fraser has shared a platform with Labour and LibDem MSPs in 3 or 4 hustings in the past week alone. There is some cross-party shared campaigning but there is no doubt Gordon Brown seriously holed the Better Together campaign below the waterline because of his pathological hatred of all things Tory.
Easterross, One swallow does not a summer make. You must admit that Better Together have little ground support and are not campaigning effectively given what should be the overwhelming advantage of the 3 major unionist parties. Name any labour big hitter that has been campaigning on the ground. Darling is AWOL, Westminster MP's missing, Lamont is missing. There may be a few duff back benchers or list MSP's but that is just about it. Most will not be seen dead on a platform with Tories and Lib Dems. So what they have is conflicting stories being presented to disparate groups. A few photos on Twitter does not mean any decent campaign is being waged.
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
'Campaign Early polls indicated that 67% of Quebecers would vote "No", and for the first few weeks, the sovereignist campaign led by Parizeau made little headway Jean Chrétien mostly stayed out of the debate leaving Daniel Johnson to be the main federalist representative. But early federalist gaffes included Paul Martin arguing Quebec would lose a million jobs if it separated, and when a federalist speaker at a rally declared that federalists should not only defeat, but "crush" the sovereignists. These well-publicized, over-zealous remarks helped to motivate and encourage the separatist movement.'
At some stage I can see many Tories wanting to change to PR. If they lose in 2015, they could have a period of 23 years (97-20), where they have only been in government for 5 years and that was in coalition. They would have had 28 years of not winning an election.
Yes Labour will have to have a boundary review and seats will be changed. Scotland could vote for independence. But these may not be enough under FPTP for the Tories to regularly form the government. The average age of a Tory party member is apparently over 60 and they are not attracting enough support from non white British. If they keep trying to deal with UKIP, by looking anti immigrants, they risk loosing votes. The Tories do quite well gaining some Indian and Pakistani origin votes, but not so much from black ethnic groups. They therefore have to be extremely careful when they talk about immigration, to say that they value contribution from hard working immigrants, but that immigration will need to be controlled, to ensure that the UK has enough capacity to support them.
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Any idea what the jist of the letter is?
sorry no its a really crap paper but their website may say something or Malcolm will post it later.
Malcolm both Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy have been out campaigning for Better Together in the past week and I have seen pics on Twitter of them doing so.
So I see that none of the Conservative cheerleaders are able to explain what 'For real change in Europe' actually means.
Nor why the present Conservative MEPs haven't already achieved this 'real change in Europe'.
Real change in Europe = (a) renegotiation of the terms of our relationship followed by an in/out referendum and (b) fighting for the UK's interests rather than rolling over as Labour too often does or not engaging as UKIP does
Why haven't they achieved it yet? On (a) because it is a project for the next parliament and (b) because they are in a minority int he European Parliament, but they can and do make plenty of incremental changes that are a positive
The usual meaninglessly vague crap and mealy-mouthed excuses.
Perhaps you might like to be more specific as to what 'renegotiation of the terms of our membership' actually means.
No. Because that would be a crap negotiating strategy.
Cameron has to get in a room and see what he can deliver. And then take it to the principals (the voters) for their decision.
Personally, I'd like to see (a) an opt-out from CAP (b) competence on financial services returned to the UK government (c) restrictions on welfare benefits for EU migrants for a period of time (say 3 years). I'm sure there will be others, but that's just off the top of my head.
Bollox. Those who negotiate from a position of strength aren't afraid to announce what they're going to negotiate because they know they're going to win.
Cameron can't deliver anything, that's the reason he wont announce what he's going to renegotiate.
Contrast that with Thatcher who did announce beforehand and achieved things.
All Cameron is planning is the facade of renegotiation after which he will claim 'victory' even if he's given away even more powers.
Cameron deals in facades - the facade of EU renegotiation, the facade of 'cast iron guarantees' and fake flounces, the facade of austerity, the facade of "paying down Britain's debts", the facade of 'economic rebalancing', the facade of immigration control.
He's not alone in this, its a mentality prevalent throughout the political establishment.
And its why the people planning to vote UKIP despise it.
She is a pathetic brown noser then. If she had any principles or morals she would have told him where to get off and where to stick his career. Too many of these yes sir no sir ar** lickers about nowadays.
That's a little harsh. She's young and at the beginning of her career (in politics). She'd already burnt her bridges with the Tories, so she was talking about a complete change of direction in her life. While your recommendation would have been admirable, I can understand why she didn't take that route!
Charles, still shows she did not have a career , if her only choice was to go against her principles and personal morals then she was in the wrong job, you can only sell your soul to the devil once.
PS, you are correct it was a bit blunt or even harsh.
I agree the referendum is getting nasty. It is also stirring up significant anti-Scottish feeling in England; I have heard growling remarks about Scotland, from usually mild mannered English people, that I have never encountered before. The English are tired of being abused by Salmond and his ilk (evil Tory colonialists, London as a "dark star" etc etc) even as Salmond insists England must bend to Scotland's will - e.g. with the currency - after a YES vote.
My fear is that we will see a fairly narrow NO vote, but with increased bitterness all round as the legacy.
Without question, although apparently the Nats can't see it...
Scotland will vote no. Indepence votes are overwhelming, like Crimea, not close run. A close run vote that was yes has sad consequences and questionable legitimacy.
The interesting element will be the reaction to no, devo-max with the neutering of labour in England? Don't count on it with Osbourne, the master strategist, determining affairs.
Quebec? proves you are talking bollocks and just trolling
Quebec voted no, was always 50 50. Afraid the anti English element in Scotland has always been only a third of the population.
Of course now Canada is run by a hard right, of sorts, party that gets no votes in Quebec and has a pro Anglo outlook. Peter Brimelow is very good on Canada.
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Was rumoured last week, Better Together poll it said.
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Any idea what the jist of the letter is?
sorry no its a really crap paper but their website may say something or Malcolm will post it later.
I'm actually an idiot, I thought the letter was being buried, not the poll!
Bollox. Those who negotiate from a position of strength aren't afraid to announce what they're going to negotiate because they know they're going to win.
Cameron can't deliver anything, that's the reason he wont announce what he's going to renegotiate.
Contrast that with Thatcher who did announce beforehand and achieved things.
All Cameron is planning is the facade of renegotiation after which he will claim 'victory' even if he's given away even more powers.
Cameron deals in facades - the facade of EU renegotiation, the facade of 'cast iron guarantees' and fake flounces, the facade of austerity, the facade of "paying down Britain's debts", the facade of 'economic rebalancing', the facade of immigration control.
He's not alone in this, its a mentality prevalent throughout the political establishment.
And its why the people planning to vote UKIP despise it.
Would love to negotiate against you! Anything you want to sell?
You need to prepare the ground for a negotiation first. That's what they seem to be doing behind the scenes. There's no point in taking some grand position if you can't get any support for it.
You should also remember that a good negotiation is not about "winning" or "losing". It's about achieving a mutually acceptable outcome for both sides.
She is a pathetic brown noser then. If she had any principles or morals she would have told him where to get off and where to stick his career. Too many of these yes sir no sir ar** lickers about nowadays.
Without judging the specific case, I don't agree at all - you're not in the real world where people worry about their jobs and the availability of alternatives. I'm a confident bloke with at least three career options but in the unimaginable event that my boss suggested visiting somewhere I'd never heard of that might conceivably be dodgy, I would be very unlikely to take the line that you suggest. To expect it of a young woman assistant is ridiculous.
I am in a job , a senior position and I can guarantee you I would not be doing anything that had nothing to do with my job if I did not want to , or did not like it. If you are like her and have no principles or confidence enough to say "No Thanks" then pity you. That is not having a career, that is prostituting yourself and no real employer would expect or tolerate it.
If you don't have significant savings, the choice between principled poverty and prostitution is not an easy one - and suggesting it is and the people facing it lack moral fibre is crass in the extreme.
Is that your pathetic excuse for brown nosing then, guilty consciense. It is a choice and to suggest it is crass suggests you are just not principled and happy to sell yourself for money. You are entitled to your view , just as I am mine.
She is a pathetic brown noser then. If she had any principles or morals she would have told him where to get off and where to stick his career. Too many of these yes sir no sir ar** lickers about nowadays.
That's a little harsh. She's young and at the beginning of her career (in politics). She'd already burnt her bridges with the Tories, so she was talking about a complete change of direction in her life. While your recommendation would have been admirable, I can understand why she didn't take that route!
Charles, still shows she did not have a career , if her only choice was to go against her principles and personal morals then she was in the wrong job, you can only sell your soul to the devil once.
PS, you are correct it was a bit blunt or even harsh.
That's probably right, but it's would take a very brave and percipient 26 year old in their first job to realise that.
Looks like its going to be a battle of whose guru has the most baggage. Sure Labour will keep banging on about Crosby's past, but looks like they have picked a guy (who unsurprisingly if any good a their job) has lobbied / done PR for just as many firms who don't fit Ed's agenda.
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Any idea what the jist of the letter is?
It was rumoured last week that Better Together had a poll which got buried, unlikely that it showed NO doing well or we would have seen it.
'Campaign Early polls indicated that 67% of Quebecers would vote "No", and for the first few weeks, the sovereignist campaign led by Parizeau made little headway Jean Chrétien mostly stayed out of the debate leaving Daniel Johnson to be the main federalist representative. But early federalist gaffes included Paul Martin arguing Quebec would lose a million jobs if it separated, and when a federalist speaker at a rally declared that federalists should not only defeat, but "crush" the sovereignists. These well-publicized, over-zealous remarks helped to motivate and encourage the separatist movement.'
'Campaign Early polls indicated that 67% of Quebecers would vote "No", and for the first few weeks, the sovereignist campaign led by Parizeau made little headway Jean Chrétien mostly stayed out of the debate leaving Daniel Johnson to be the main federalist representative. But early federalist gaffes included Paul Martin arguing Quebec would lose a million jobs if it separated, and when a federalist speaker at a rally declared that federalists should not only defeat, but "crush" the sovereignists. These well-publicized, over-zealous remarks helped to motivate and encourage the separatist movement.'
Err exactly my point. Successful Indepence campaigns tend to be done deals before they start. Salmon only hope is to have Scotland expelled by annoying us English, as when the Czechs expelled the Slovaks or Russia dissolved the Soviet Union.
She is a pathetic brown noser then. If she had any principles or morals she would have told him where to get off and where to stick his career. Too many of these yes sir no sir ar** lickers about nowadays.
That's a little harsh. She's young and at the beginning of her career (in politics). She'd already burnt her bridges with the Tories, so she was talking about a complete change of direction in her life. While your recommendation would have been admirable, I can understand why she didn't take that route!
Charles, still shows she did not have a career , if her only choice was to go against her principles and personal morals then she was in the wrong job, you can only sell your soul to the devil once.
PS, you are correct it was a bit blunt or even harsh.
She is a pathetic brown noser then. If she had any principles or morals she would have told him where to get off and where to stick his career. Too many of these yes sir no sir ar** lickers about nowadays.
That's a little harsh. She's young and at the beginning of her career (in politics). She'd already burnt her bridges with the Tories, so she was talking about a complete change of direction in her life. While your recommendation would have been admirable, I can understand why she didn't take that route!
Charles, still shows she did not have a career , if her only choice was to go against her principles and personal morals then she was in the wrong job, you can only sell your soul to the devil once.
PS, you are correct it was a bit blunt or even harsh.
Wonder why he sacked her - article doesn't say !
This is NOT on the same level as abuse. Tbh if I had a female boss and she insisted I went and saw the Chippendales with her I'd find it more amusing than anything else, but I'm a good employee and secure in myself. Others are far less secure or aren't liking to be seen brown nosing at work.
FPT: Mr. Llama, worth also pointing out the idiocy of a needless war in Iraq, wich had a similar impact on Afghanistan efforts as the Sicilian expedition did upon the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War.
Apologies in the delay in replying, Mr. D., commands of a higher authority tookk be away from PB for a while.
I can't agree with your analysis. By 2003 the military job we had set out to do in Afghanistan was just about done and dusted. It should have been time go go home for tea and medals.
The Iraq war was just plain wrong from the outset - we had no business attacking a sovereign country that had not attacked us, or any of our vital interests, or those of a ally and was not even threatening do so. It was a wrong headed, wicked war and, predictably has led the world to be a more unstable place because of the lessons it taught to, say, Putin. Furthermore, the damage it caused to the interests of global peace and good order were compounded by the fact that we lost because we had not the stomach for finishing the job.
I might argue that from the point of view of our potential enemies we then re-enforced the lessons with our conduct in Afghanistan and with the dreadful campaign in Libya.
What the opening years of this century and our three wars have showed Moscow and Peking is that the West is prepared to ignore international law (such as it exists) and the UN and that if you have the might you can do what you like. Furthermore that, if you resist hard enough, the West will run away rather than really fight to win. Maybe the current events in Ukraine and the China Seas are not unrelated to those lessons
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Any idea what the jist of the letter is?
It was rumoured last week that Better Together had a poll which got buried, unlikely that it showed NO doing well or we would have seen it.
Thanks, either I'm an idiot, or it's still too early on a Sunday morning.
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Any idea what the jist of the letter is?
Congratulations to the Sunday Herald for coming out and announcing your support for a YES vote. Extremely timely too, given that a recent poll commissioned bu the Cabinet Office was "buried"as it returned a result which showed the YES vote was soaring. The poll was held by my employer Ipsos Mori, and I can say with some confidencethat all the scare stories and smears have virtually no influence~ indeed, it appears it sways the undecideds towards the YES side.
Scotland will vote no. Indepence votes are overwhelming, like Crimea, not close run. A close run vote that was yes has sad consequences and questionable legitimacy.
The interesting element will be the reaction to no, devo-max with the neutering of labour in England? Don't count on it with Osbourne, the master strategist, determining affairs.
Not true. In 1979 Scotland voted YES to the devolution on offer but as Callaghan had inserted an artificial threshold of 40%, it was ruled to have failed. This time YES just needs to win by a single vote. The worst possible result is a NO vote with a majority under 5%. That would just result in 5 more years of uncertainty until the next vote.
Sean T has asked my view on how things are going? In the past couple of days I posted a couple of detailed thoughts as to why I believe the pollsters are not reaching most of the YES voters. My greatest worry is that it is getting really nasty and over the summer it is only going to get worse.
No the worse possible result is a Yes at 51%.
This will then be followed by a huge feeling of let down as lots of the Nats promises fail to materialise. The Nats will then blame the English since its all they know and the rest of these islands will have to listen to a century mindless whingeing.
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Any idea what the jist of the letter is?
sorry no its a really crap paper but their website may say something or Malcolm will post it later.
LOL, it is a great paper just not a Tory one. I have posted the letter in another post to ROBD.
She is a pathetic brown noser then. If she had any principles or morals she would have told him where to get off and where to stick his career. Too many of these yes sir no sir ar** lickers about nowadays.
Without judging the specific case, I don't agree at all - you're not in the real world where people worry about their jobs and the availability of alternatives. I'm a confident bloke with at least three career options but in the unimaginable event that my boss suggested visiting somewhere I'd never heard of that might conceivably be dodgy, I would be very unlikely to take the line that you suggest. To expect it of a young woman assistant is ridiculous.
I am in a job , a senior position and I can guarantee you I would not be doing anything that had nothing to do with my job if I did not want to , or did not like it. If you are like her and have no principles or confidence enough to say "No Thanks" then pity you. That is not having a career, that is prostituting yourself and no real employer would expect or tolerate it.
If you don't have significant savings, the choice between principled poverty and prostitution is not an easy one - and suggesting it is and the people facing it lack moral fibre is crass in the extreme.
Is that your pathetic excuse for brown nosing then, guilty consciense. It is a choice and to suggest it is crass suggests you are just not principled and happy to sell yourself for money. You are entitled to your view , just as I am mine.
I'm unemployed, because I recently quit my first job due to being treated like this. I have friends still working at the company because they moved from Greece or Italy to the UK looking for work, and if they went so much as a fortnight without work they'd be out on the street. I find your view that they lack principles distasteful in the extreme.
FPT: Mr. Llama, worth also pointing out the idiocy of a needless war in Iraq, wich had a similar impact on Afghanistan efforts as the Sicilian expedition did upon the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War.
Apologies in the delay in replying, Mr. D., commands of a higher authority tookk be away from PB for a while.
I can't agree with your analysis. By 2003 the military job we had set out to do in Afghanistan was just about done and dusted. It should have been time go go home for tea and medals.
The Iraq war was just plain wrong from the outset - we had no business attacking a sovereign country that had not attacked us, or any of our vital interests, or those of a ally and was not even threatening do so. It was a wrong headed, wicked war and, predictably has led the world to be a more unstable place because of the lessons it taught to, say, Putin. Furthermore, the damage it caused to the interests of global peace and good order were compounded by the fact that we lost because we had not the stomach for finishing the job.
I might argue that from the point of view of our potential enemies we then re-enforced the lessons with our conduct in Afghanistan and with the dreadful campaign in Libya.
What the opening years of this century and our three wars have showed Moscow and Peking is that the West is prepared to ignore international law (such as it exists) and the UN and that if you have the might you can do what you like. Furthermore that, if you resist hard enough, the West will run away rather than really fight to win. Maybe the current events in Ukraine and the China Seas are not unrelated to those lessons
The irony of all this is [ even from a basic narrow self-interest points of view ]:
Saddam was anti Al-Qaeda to the core. So is Assad. Even the Iranians. Our PM shook hands with Gaddafi. The US acquised to Blair's Libya flirtation.
We now support a murderer in Egypt who deposed a democratically elected President. We cannot have a policy which says that we like democracy only if it delivers our kind of results. The Army in Egypt controls half of that country's GDP. Of course, they would want any democratically elected government out.
The naive ex-colonialists think winning the initial military battle is everything. It ain't . It is barely the start. The old experts at the Foreign Office are now dead. They would never have allowed that.
She is a pathetic brown noser then. If she had any principles or morals she would have told him where to get off and where to stick his career. Too many of these yes sir no sir ar** lickers about nowadays.
That's a little harsh. She's young and at the beginning of her career (in politics). She'd already burnt her bridges with the Tories, so she was talking about a complete change of direction in her life. While your recommendation would have been admirable, I can understand why she didn't take that route!
Charles, still shows she did not have a career , if her only choice was to go against her principles and personal morals then she was in the wrong job, you can only sell your soul to the devil once.
PS, you are correct it was a bit blunt or even harsh.
She is a pathetic brown noser then. If she had any principles or morals she would have told him where to get off and where to stick his career. Too many of these yes sir no sir ar** lickers about nowadays.
That's a little harsh. She's young and at the beginning of her career (in politics). She'd already burnt her bridges with the Tories, so she was talking about a complete change of direction in her life. While your recommendation would have been admirable, I can understand why she didn't take that route!
Charles, still shows she did not have a career , if her only choice was to go against her principles and personal morals then she was in the wrong job, you can only sell your soul to the devil once.
PS, you are correct it was a bit blunt or even harsh.
Wonder why he sacked her - article doesn't say !
This is NOT on the same level as abuse. Tbh if I had a female boss and she insisted I went and saw the Chippendales with her I'd find it more amusing than anything else, but I'm a good employee and secure in myself. Others are far less secure or aren't liking to be seen brown nosing at work.
Pulpstar , If it was for a few beers I would be fine , but not really desperate to see some muscly blokes , of no interest and also would mean sitting all night holding stomach in etc.
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Any idea what the jist of the letter is?
sorry no its a really crap paper but their website may say something or Malcolm will post it later.
LOL, it is a great paper just not a Tory one. I have posted the letter in another post to ROBD.
Thanks again, I looked on the website and couldn't see it.
Anyone having issue with being logged out of PB? I keep having to log in and its a bit frustrating.
Scotland will vote no. Indepence votes are overwhelming, like Crimea, not close run. A close run vote that was yes has sad consequences and questionable legitimacy.
The interesting element will be the reaction to no, devo-max with the neutering of labour in England? Don't count on it with Osbourne, the master strategist, determining affairs.
Not true. In 1979 Scotland voted YES to the devolution on offer but as Callaghan had inserted an artificial threshold of 40%, it was ruled to have failed. This time YES just needs to win by a single vote. The worst possible result is a NO vote with a majority under 5%. That would just result in 5 more years of uncertainty until the next vote.
Sean T has asked my view on how things are going? In the past couple of days I posted a couple of detailed thoughts as to why I believe the pollsters are not reaching most of the YES voters. My greatest worry is that it is getting really nasty and over the summer it is only going to get worse.
No the worse possible result is a Yes at 51%.
This will then be followed by a huge feeling of let down as lots of the Nats promises fail to materialise. The Nats will then blame the English since its all they know and the rest of these islands will have to listen to a century mindless whingeing.
Alan, Not at all , it just means we are independent. I do not see anyone blaming the English at the moment so fail to see how they would do so after independence. Being 8% of a population in a big union means that you cannot have your democratic viewpoint supported. The government will always make policies to suit the majority so that they get back in , so an unequal union can never be good for the smaller party. Common sense should show that to anyone.
She is a pathetic brown noser then. If she had any principles or morals she would have told him where to get off and where to stick his career. Too many of these yes sir no sir ar** lickers about nowadays.
Without judging the specific case, I don't agree at all - you're not in the real world where people worry about their jobs and the availability of alternatives. I'm a confident bloke with at least three career options but in the unimaginable event that my boss suggested visiting somewhere I'd never heard of that might conceivably be dodgy, I would be very unlikely to take the line that you suggest. To expect it of a young woman assistant is ridiculous.
I am in a job , a senior position and I can guarantee you I would not be doing anything that had nothing to do with my job if I did not want to , or did not like it. If you are like her and have no principles or confidence enough to say "No Thanks" then pity you. That is not having a career, that is prostituting yourself and no real employer would expect or tolerate it.
If you don't have significant savings, the choice between principled poverty and prostitution is not an easy one - and suggesting it is and the people facing it lack moral fibre is crass in the extreme.
Is that your pathetic excuse for brown nosing then, guilty consciense. It is a choice and to suggest it is crass suggests you are just not principled and happy to sell yourself for money. You are entitled to your view , just as I am mine.
I'm unemployed, because I recently quit my first job due to being treated like this. I have friends still working at the company because they moved from Greece or Italy to the UK looking for work, and if they went so much as a fortnight without work they'd be out on the street. I find your view that they lack principles distasteful in the extreme.
They are making a choice , be treated like sh** and take the money or have some self worth and go and find another job. How you think that makes them principled I fail to see. Just means they are happy to be treated like crap.
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Any idea what the jist of the letter is?
sorry no its a really crap paper but their website may say something or Malcolm will post it later.
LOL, it is a great paper just not a Tory one. I have posted the letter in another post to ROBD.
Thanks again, I looked on the website and couldn't see it.
Anyone having issue with being logged out of PB? I keep having to log in and its a bit frustrating.
Have been logged out about 4 times today. Very irritating.
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Any idea what the jist of the letter is?
sorry no its a really crap paper but their website may say something or Malcolm will post it later.
LOL, it is a great paper just not a Tory one. I have posted the letter in another post to ROBD.
Thanks again, I looked on the website and couldn't see it.
Anyone having issue with being logged out of PB? I keep having to log in and its a bit frustrating.
Yup, been happening at random intervals for a few days now. I get logged out every few minutes for a while, then its fine for hours and then the cycle repeats. Just part of life's rich tapestry.
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Any idea what the jist of the letter is?
sorry no its a really crap paper but their website may say something or Malcolm will post it later.
LOL, it is a great paper just not a Tory one. I have posted the letter in another post to ROBD.
Thanks again, I looked on the website and couldn't see it.
Anyone having issue with being logged out of PB? I keep having to log in and its a bit frustrating.
Not getting logged out but keep getting errors and takes multiple attempts to get post accepted
The PBer with the best track record on Scottish politics is antifrank. He correctly predicted no seat changes in the 2010 GE when Salmond was expecting 20 SNP MPs. His 66% No 33% Yes forecast should be another feather in his cap.
Scotland will vote no. Indepence votes are overwhelming, like Crimea, not close run. A close run vote that was yes has sad consequences and questionable legitimacy.
The interesting element will be the reaction to no, devo-max with the neutering of labour in England? Don't count on it with Osbourne, the master strategist, determining affairs.
Not true. In 1979 Scotland voted YES to the devolution on offer but as Callaghan had inserted an artificial threshold of 40%, it was ruled to have failed. This time YES just needs to win by a single vote. The worst possible result is a NO vote with a majority under 5%. That would just result in 5 more years of uncertainty until the next vote.
Sean T has asked my view on how things are going? In the past couple of days I posted a couple of detailed thoughts as to why I believe the pollsters are not reaching most of the YES voters. My greatest worry is that it is getting really nasty and over the summer it is only going to get worse.
No the worse possible result is a Yes at 51%.
This will then be followed by a huge feeling of let down as lots of the Nats promises fail to materialise. The Nats will then blame the English since its all they know and the rest of these islands will have to listen to a century mindless whingeing.
Alan, Not at all , it just means we are independent. I do not see anyone blaming the English at the moment so fail to see how they would do so after independence. Being 8% of a population in a big union means that you cannot have your democratic viewpoint supported. The government will always make policies to suit the majority so that they get back in , so an unequal union can never be good for the smaller party. Common sense should show that to anyone.
In your dreams malc.
while you will happily take life's ups and downs the politicos in the SNP have got where they are by moaning and grievances. When there's no currency union school snitch Wishart won't be on TV telling Scots the SNP screwed up, he'll be blaming the Tories\English and claiming there's a conspiracy to do down Scotland. The man's an arse and he's apparently one of your better ones.
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Any idea what the jist of the letter is?
sorry no its a really crap paper but their website may say something or Malcolm will post it later.
LOL, it is a great paper just not a Tory one. I have posted the letter in another post to ROBD.
Thanks again, I looked on the website and couldn't see it.
Anyone having issue with being logged out of PB? I keep having to log in and its a bit frustrating.
NP, so from that I am not sure if same as one rumoured last week as being for Better Together. There was some discussion last week I think re it being Ipsos More when Better Together use Yougov , that was explained by it being paid by a union. So may have been same one but not Better Together, though little different if Cabinet Office.
Bollox. Those who negotiate from a position of strength aren't afraid to announce what they're going to negotiate because they know they're going to win.
Cameron can't deliver anything, that's the reason he wont announce what he's going to renegotiate.
Contrast that with Thatcher who did announce beforehand and achieved things.
All Cameron is planning is the facade of renegotiation after which he will claim 'victory' even if he's given away even more powers.
Cameron deals in facades - the facade of EU renegotiation, the facade of 'cast iron guarantees' and fake flounces, the facade of austerity, the facade of "paying down Britain's debts", the facade of 'economic rebalancing', the facade of immigration control.
He's not alone in this, its a mentality prevalent throughout the political establishment.
And its why the people planning to vote UKIP despise it.
Would love to negotiate against you! ....
... You should also remember that a good negotiation is not about "winning" or "losing". It's about achieving a mutually acceptable outcome for both sides.
Mr. Charles, you don't see anything contradictory between those two statements?
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Any idea what the jist of the letter is?
Congratulations to the Sunday Herald for coming out and announcing your support for a YES vote. Extremely timely too, given that a recent poll commissioned bu the Cabinet Office was "buried"as it returned a result which showed the YES vote was soaring. The poll was held by my employer Ipsos Mori, and I can say with some confidencethat all the scare stories and smears have virtually no influence~ indeed, it appears it sways the undecideds towards the YES side.
I've google searched Kelly Brown, from Edinburgh, who works for IPSOS MORI. No such person seems to exist. I call this cybernat bullshit.
Perhaps given they are not a stupid Better Together plank , they worked out that printing their real name would not enhance their career.
The PBer with the best track record on Scottish politics is antifrank. He correctly predicted no seat changes in the 2010 GE when Salmond was expecting 20 SNP MPs. His 66% No 33% Yes forecast should be another feather in his cap.
The thing that would almost guarantee to Scots voting NO would be for their to be a campaign in England indicating how many of us would dearly love to get shot of our whining Northern neighbours. Out of perversity they would vote not to leave. I am reminded of the PG Wodehouse quotation " it is not hard to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance"
It is worth reminding people of the history of the SNP. Founded in 1934 on the coat-tails of German nationalism, in the war they campaigned against Scots joining the British Army
It is worth reminding people of the history of the SNP. Founded in 1934 on the coat-tails of German nationalism, in the war they campaigned against Scots joining the British Army
The thing that would almost guarantee to Scots voting NO would be for their to be a campaign in England indicating how many of us would dearly love to get shot of our whining Northern neighbours. Out of perversity they would vote not to leave. I am reminded of the PG Wodehouse quotation " it is not hard to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance"
You are a credit to England and unionism. Keep polishing that bowler.
The thing that would almost guarantee to Scots voting NO would be for their to be a campaign in England indicating how many of us would dearly love to get shot of our whining Northern neighbours. Out of perversity they would vote not to leave. I am reminded of the PG Wodehouse quotation " it is not hard to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance"
You are a credit to England and unionism. Keep polishing that bowler.
In retrospect it is surprising how legitimate Labour's victory at the 2005 general election was treated, given that they had a lead of less than 800,000 votes across the UK, and even managed to lose the popular vote in England, but still had a comfortable majority.
In the above seat projection the Labour seat majority would be similar to 2005, and their share of the vote would only be a few percentage points lower. Additionally, in 2005, the Lib Dems had two-thirds of the Tory votes but only one-third of the seats, and this obvious unfairness did not undermine the legitimacy of the result in the eyes of the mainstream.
Were UKIP to achieve a national vote share of 20% I think it is very likely that their vote distribution would be more uneven than it was in 2010, and that they would win at least 5 seats - as we saw with the 2013 local elections.
While I certainly believe that such a result would be absurd, and an indictment of the FPTP system, I am not sure it would lack legitimacy per se, since all parties to the election knew the rules beforehand, and they were not obviously designed to benefit one party - remember, in decades gone past it is the Tories whose vote was more efficiently distributed.
Traditionally, the Conservative Party have been solidly in favour of FPTP because it leads to majority rather than Coalition government, and so from that point of view such a result would in fact be proof of the advantages of FPTP - since it would have delivered majority government to the single party with the plurality of the national vote.
While some Labour MPs have been open to electoral reform, in practice they have only implemented it when it looks likely to benefit them electorally - as one can see by the choice of electoral systems in Scotland and London. As we also saw with the AV referendum, there are enough opponents of reform among Labour MPs to make introducing reform for the House of Commons difficult. Those turkeys know their way around a calendar.
The only circumstances where legitimacy of the government could become an issue is where the size of a Labour majority was slim, when the lead in vote share would also be narrower, or non-existent.
Even then I find it unlikely that many of the supporters of the status quo would change their mind - any reform would see Labour and the Conservatives lose almost half their seats, and pretty much any chance of forming a single-party government in the future.
Unionists are getting panicked. Trolls out in force and have to make up new pseudo's as they are too lily livered to do it under their normal monikers or real names.
The thing that would almost guarantee to Scots voting NO would be for their to be a campaign in England indicating how many of us would dearly love to get shot of our whining Northern neighbours. Out of perversity they would vote not to leave. I am reminded of the PG Wodehouse quotation " it is not hard to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance"
You are a credit to England and unionism. Keep polishing that bowler.
ethnically most bowler wearers are scots.
Alan, Yes and luckily not that many left nowadays ( even if too many still ). However with online trolls they could be posting from anywhere, and sure a good few of them live in England in any case.
The thing that would almost guarantee to Scots voting NO would be for their to be a campaign in England indicating how many of us would dearly love to get shot of our whining Northern neighbours. Out of perversity they would vote not to leave. I am reminded of the PG Wodehouse quotation " it is not hard to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance"
You are a credit to England and unionism. Keep polishing that bowler.
ethnically most bowler wearers are scots.
Alan, Yes and luckily not that many left nowadays ( even if too many still ). However with online trolls they could be posting from anywhere, and sure a good few of them live in England in any case.
Unionists are getting panicked. Trolls out in force and have to make up new pseudo's as they are too lily livered to do it under their normal monikers or real names.
Careful malcolm, they'll be scouring the internet for your comments so they can grass you up.
No. Because that would be a crap negotiating strategy.
Cameron has to get in a room and see what he can deliver. And then take it to the principals (the voters) for their decision.
Personally, I'd like to see (a) an opt-out from CAP (b) competence on financial services returned to the UK government (c) restrictions on welfare benefits for EU migrants for a period of time (say 3 years). I'm sure there will be others, but that's just off the top of my head.
Would you mind providing a quote from any negotiating expert that announcing your demands beforehand is a crap negotiating strategy? Because it's absurd. Have we ever seen Bob Crow refuse to issue demands before a strike? What about in football transfers? Did Harry Redknapp ever go into a discussion with another club to purchase a player, but not saying who he wanted to buy? Or maybe in business - have we ever had a CEO enter M&A negotiations not saying which unit of the other business they wish to buy?
This, "I can't say what I want because that's bad negotiation" is just a made up thing by loyalist Tories. They can't provide any theoretical argument for it, they can't provide any evidence of anyone else doing it in any other field, and they can't even logically deconstruct it. Because the real reason David Cameron won't say what he wants is not because it helps him with Brussels. It's because it helps him cover up the fact it'll be a massive let down with the British public.
She is a pathetic brown noser then. If she had any principles or morals she would have told him where to get off and where to stick his career. Too many of these yes sir no sir ar** lickers about nowadays.
That's a little harsh. She's young and at the beginning of her career (in politics). She'd already burnt her bridges with the Tories, so she was talking about a complete change of direction in her life. While your recommendation would have been admirable, I can understand why she didn't take that route!
Charles, still shows she did not have a career , if her only choice was to go against her principles and personal morals then she was in the wrong job, you can only sell your soul to the devil once.
PS, you are correct it was a bit blunt or even harsh.
Wonder why he sacked her - article doesn't say !
This is NOT on the same level as abuse. Tbh if I had a female boss and she insisted I went and saw the Chippendales with her I'd find it more amusing than anything else, but I'm a good employee and secure in myself. Others are far less secure or aren't liking to be seen brown nosing at work.
There is of course a difference between the Chippendales or for that matter the equivalent Calendar Girls play, say - theatrical performance, safely up on the stage, nothing exposed (as far as I know!) you wouldn't see on the beach any day in the summer - and a strip club where the male/female relationship of power. and the entire atmosphere, I gather, is very different. A young woman could well find the latter very threatening.
Many, perhaps all, women I know would take it as a serious insult to be asked to go to a strip club. And a manager of any sensitivity would take that likely reaction into account. I asked my partner what she'd do if in that position and she said at once (a) say no (b)| report to higher management and HR (c) look for another job if need be.
Having said that, I wouldn't even risk suggesting something as innocuous as Calendar Girls if I were a manager - that would have been disastrous with some people with whom I have worked.
The core issue seems to be the one which has been well aired of late: that politicians are above the rest of us in the degree to which they have to follow decent employment and management methods.
Fully agree OGH the Tories were idiots to oppose AV and I no sympathy whatsoever. Had they had AV they would have got second preferences from a plurality of UKIP and Cleggite LDs and probably got an overall majority in 2015. As it is, under FPTP, the best they can probably hope for is largest party and another Tory-LD coalition. After all the NO to AV campaigns talk of AV's 'perpetual coalitions' it would be ironic if opposing it forced the Tories into a second coalition!
Rod So under PR2 the Tories plus UKIP are on 318, Labour plus the LDs and Nats are on 314. Even if you add a couple of Greens to the centre left total it is clear the rise of UKIP has meant PR now would help the right and not the left
Unionists are getting panicked. Trolls out in force and have to make up new pseudo's as they are too lily livered to do it under their normal monikers or real names.
Malcolmg moments earlier " Perhaps given they are not a stupid Better Together plank , they worked out that printing their real name would not enhance their career."
The thing that would almost guarantee to Scots voting NO would be for their to be a campaign in England indicating how many of us would dearly love to get shot of our whining Northern neighbours. Out of perversity they would vote not to leave. I am reminded of the PG Wodehouse quotation " it is not hard to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance"
You are a credit to England and unionism. Keep polishing that bowler.
ethnically most bowler wearers are scots.
Alan, Yes and luckily not that many left nowadays ( even if too many still ). However with online trolls they could be posting from anywhere, and sure a good few of them live in England in any case.
so like cybernats ? :-)
LOL, we know most unionists are from outside Scotland , donations wise as well. Yes have some support outside Scotland but majority are local and all donations are from Scotland. Yet unionists whinge that YES have more money and that is why they are CRAP.
We could be heading for a perfect storm of political chaos over the next year. UKIP win the Euros. Labour or Conservatives come third in the Euros. Doesn't matter which, it's all good. LDs get slaughtered in the Euros. The locals might throw up some interesting results. Newark goes purple. Scotland votes yes. The GE conforms to the thread header.
Cameron, Clegg and Milliband won't know what's hit them.
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Any idea what the jist of the letter is?
a recent poll commissioned bu the Cabinet Office was "buried"as it returned a result which showed the YES vote was soaring. The poll was held by my employer Ipsos Mori
As the Cabinet Office has not published any polls, presumably this was a private poll and both Ipsos Mori and their alleged employee are in breach of contract - I expect Ipsos Mori will wish to clarify things promptly.
Further, since the Cabinet Office does not publish its polls, how was this one "buried"?
Terrible movement backwards for the Tories in this weekends polling, and a surprisingly high Lab vote share from YouEd, unless Populus reverses the trend in the morning, the Dyed Woolie monitor will be moving to Lab a handful short. I fancy a period of buckling in and weathering the storm for the Reds and Blues after the Euros as Farage enjoys his high summer, but will his support start to erode? If it does, theoretically better news for the blues as more of them have jumped the shark, although it's always possible it will be the anti-gov Kippers that move back to Lab if any movement happens at all.
It looks very likely that whoever is in No 10 in May 2015 will have derisory public support and the 15-?? Parliament may see a decisive shift away from the two party stranglehold. Epochal times.
Unionists are getting panicked. Trolls out in force and have to make up new pseudo's as they are too lily livered to do it under their normal monikers or real names.
Malcolmg moments earlier " Perhaps given they are not a stupid Better Together plank , they worked out that printing their real name would not enhance their career."
As incoherent as his master Eck.
Monica I know you are not very bright and unable to spot the difference between the two, but that is poor even from you.
Mike - if UKIP get 20% it will break all the seat calculators. The reason is that these take 2010's figures and apply a uniform swing. The problem is that UKIP did poorly across the country in 2010 and the calculators don't reflect the hotbeds of UKIP support shown by the locals. For example, if you enter the figures above into Baxter, you get the following UKIP shares:
Boston and Skegness - 25% Great Yarmouth 20% Dwyfor Meirionnydd - 17% Banff and Buchan - 13%
In reality, if UKIP get 20% nationwide they'll be on +30% in Boston and Gt Yarmouth and still less than 10% in Banff and Dwyfor
The thing that would almost guarantee to Scots voting NO would be for their to be a campaign in England indicating how many of us would dearly love to get shot of our whining Northern neighbours. Out of perversity they would vote not to leave. I am reminded of the PG Wodehouse quotation " it is not hard to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance"
You are a credit to England and unionism. Keep polishing that bowler.
ethnically most bowler wearers are scots.
Alan, Yes and luckily not that many left nowadays ( even if too many still ). However with online trolls they could be posting from anywhere, and sure a good few of them live in England in any case.
so like cybernats ? :-)
LOL, we know most unionists are from outside Scotland .
We could be heading for a perfect storm of political chaos over the next year. UKIP win the Euros. Labour or Conservatives come third in the Euros. Doesn't matter which, it's all good. LDs get slaughtered in the Euros. The locals might throw up some interesting results. Newark goes purple. Scotland votes yes. The GE conforms to the thread header.
Cameron, Clegg and Milliband won't know what's hit them.
I pray it happens. The country needs shaking up.
It does need shaking up, but not until the stubborn Labour client vote has been shattered, there is too much risk of a damaging Labour majority a la 2005 against the public desire causing immeasurable damage. Kill Labour and #revolutionnow
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Any idea what the jist of the letter is?
a recent poll commissioned bu the Cabinet Office was "buried"as it returned a result which showed the YES vote was soaring. The poll was held by my employer Ipsos Mori
As the Cabinet Office has not published any polls, presumably this was a private poll and both Ipsos Mori and their alleged employee are in breach of contract - I expect Ipsos Mori will wish to clarify things promptly.
Further, since the Cabinet Office does not publish its polls, how was this one "buried"?
Yes if true I am sure they will be out shortly giving us the numbers. Re the Cabinet Office , burying the truth is their stock in trade.
Scott Harrison @Harri159 Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
Any idea what the jist of the letter is?
a recent poll commissioned bu the Cabinet Office was "buried"as it returned a result which showed the YES vote was soaring. The poll was held by my employer Ipsos Mori
As the Cabinet Office has not published any polls, presumably this was a private poll and both Ipsos Mori and their alleged employee are in breach of contract - I expect Ipsos Mori will wish to clarify things promptly.
Further, since the Cabinet Office does not publish its polls, how was this one "buried"?
Yes if true I am sure they will be out shortly giving us the numbers. Re the Cabinet Office , burying the truth is their stock in trade.
Much like governments suppressing legal advice. .*innocent face*
SeanT TUD Indeed, Quebec has actually had 2 referendums, one in 1980 was 60-40 NO, another in 1995 was 51-49 NO, almost exactly mirroring the potential range of the Yes-NO polls in Scotland. Despite the close 1995 result, the BQ, Quebec's SNP, were crushed in elections earlier this year after pushing too hard for another independence vote if they were reelected
The thing that would almost guarantee to Scots voting NO would be for their to be a campaign in England indicating how many of us would dearly love to get shot of our whining Northern neighbours. Out of perversity they would vote not to leave. I am reminded of the PG Wodehouse quotation " it is not hard to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance"
You are a credit to England and unionism. Keep polishing that bowler.
ethnically most bowler wearers are scots.
Alan, Yes and luckily not that many left nowadays ( even if too many still ). However with online trolls they could be posting from anywhere, and sure a good few of them live in England in any case.
so like cybernats ? :-)
LOL, we know most unionists are from outside Scotland , donations wise as well. Yes have some support outside Scotland but majority are local and all donations are from Scotland. Yet unionists whinge that YES have more money and that is why they are CRAP.
LOL malc I'm pretty sure about 80% of Yes funding comes from two people in Largs.
FalseFlag Of course the present Canadian Government is run by the Conservative Party, which was formed from the merger of the centre-right, Cameron like Progressive Conservative Party and the traditional right Reform Party, rather like UKIP, so the Canadian example is even more pertinent
Comments
If you are like her and have no principles or confidence enough to say "No Thanks" then pity you. That is not having a career, that is prostituting yourself and no real employer would expect or tolerate it.
Not really because local factors are so important. I guess UKIP will increase their numbers of seats, if results from recent local by elections are anything to go by.
The tories might do better than expected in the locals because they tend to collect bins more often and keep council tax down.
What's your view??
Broken, sleazy YES and Tories on the slide.
Labour bang average - but that's all they'll need to be
It is Gordon wot did it !
As polls are only useful to see where things are going , I am happy that YES once again are on the up, same as with every other pollster.
I agree the referendum is getting nasty. It is also stirring up significant anti-Scottish feeling in England; I have heard growling remarks about Scotland, from usually mild mannered English people, that I have never encountered before. The English are tired of being abused by Salmond and his ilk (evil Tory colonialists, London as a "dark star" etc etc) even as Salmond insists England must bend to Scotland's will - e.g. with the currency - after a YES vote.
My fear is that we will see a fairly narrow NO vote, but with increased bitterness all round as the legacy.
However I do not fear a neverendum. This exhausting plebiscite will be the last for a generation, whoever wins, no one will tolerate going through it all again for at least 15-20 years.
Broken, sleazy YES and Tories on the slide.
I was going to ask some Scot nats on the site how the rise of UKIP might affect YES/NO. doesn;t seem to be having an effect either way.
Of course now Canada is run by a hard right, of sorts, party that gets no votes in Quebec and has a pro Anglo outlook. Peter Brimelow is very good on Canada.
Scott Harrison @Harri159
Interesting letter in Sunday Herald about an #indyref poll being buried due to high Yes vote - from an employee of Ipsos Mori!
There is no national election
We do not elect a government or a prime minister
National shares of the vote are irrelevant
Total votes cast nationally are irrelevant
It only appears unfair when you try and apply irrelevancies - such as above - to results and complain that they are not proportional. I would much prefer a proportional system as most people are under the deluded impression that all 4 of my points are the other way round - national election, elect the PM, divvy up the seats etc. But as that's not the system thanks to the protectionism of Tory and Labour high commands, we are where we are.
If UKIPs notional vote share delivers them no seats at all it in no way calls into question the legitimacy of a result which does not take into account national vote share. You want to win, you need a majority of at least 1 in 326 seats. If you can't get that, you can't win. However, if this GE finally forces change to a reasonable proportional democratical system then good. But the politicians and establishment hate democracy, so don't expect change soon.
Basically they were saying that the UK takes over responsibilities for the level of subsidies (if any) paid to UK farmers and, in return, we no longer pay the 42% of our current contribution to the EU which is used for agricultural subsidies
2013 was: Con 26%, Lab 29%, LD 13%, UKIP 22%
I'm hoping/expecting to see the Conservatives and UKIP switch places. Lab 28%, Con 23%, UKIP 26%, LD 12% ?
A few photos on Twitter does not mean any decent campaign is being waged.
'Campaign
Early polls indicated that 67% of Quebecers would vote "No", and for the first few weeks, the sovereignist campaign led by Parizeau made little headway Jean Chrétien mostly stayed out of the debate leaving Daniel Johnson to be the main federalist representative. But early federalist gaffes included Paul Martin arguing Quebec would lose a million jobs if it separated, and when a federalist speaker at a rally declared that federalists should not only defeat, but "crush" the sovereignists. These well-publicized, over-zealous remarks helped to motivate and encourage the separatist movement.'
http://tinyurl.com/px7zhx9
Yes Labour will have to have a boundary review and seats will be changed. Scotland could vote for independence. But these may not be enough under FPTP for the Tories to regularly form the government. The average age of a Tory party member is apparently over 60 and they are not attracting enough support from non white British. If they keep trying to deal with UKIP, by looking anti immigrants, they risk loosing votes. The Tories do quite well gaining some Indian and Pakistani origin votes, but not so much from black ethnic groups. They therefore have to be extremely careful when they talk about immigration, to say that they value contribution from hard working immigrants, but that immigration will need to be controlled, to ensure that the UK has enough capacity to support them.
Cameron can't deliver anything, that's the reason he wont announce what he's going to renegotiate.
Contrast that with Thatcher who did announce beforehand and achieved things.
All Cameron is planning is the facade of renegotiation after which he will claim 'victory' even if he's given away even more powers.
Cameron deals in facades - the facade of EU renegotiation, the facade of 'cast iron guarantees' and fake flounces, the facade of austerity, the facade of "paying down Britain's debts", the facade of 'economic rebalancing', the facade of immigration control.
He's not alone in this, its a mentality prevalent throughout the political establishment.
And its why the people planning to vote UKIP despise it.
PS, you are correct it was a bit blunt or even harsh.
Gawd...
Here we go. Just like AV.
It is Gordon, wot did it !
You need to prepare the ground for a negotiation first. That's what they seem to be doing behind the scenes. There's no point in taking some grand position if you can't get any support for it.
You should also remember that a good negotiation is not about "winning" or "losing". It's about achieving a mutually acceptable outcome for both sides.
I said it would be 60-66 for "Better Together".
And so it will be.
Looks like its going to be a battle of whose guru has the most baggage. Sure Labour will keep banging on about Crosby's past, but looks like they have picked a guy (who unsurprisingly if any good a their job) has lobbied / done PR for just as many firms who don't fit Ed's agenda.
But be careful, 10 years ago, it predicted a BJP win, they lost - badly.
This is NOT on the same level as abuse. Tbh if I had a female boss and she insisted I went and saw the Chippendales with her I'd find it more amusing than anything else, but I'm a good employee and secure in myself. Others are far less secure or aren't liking to be seen brown nosing at work.
I can't agree with your analysis. By 2003 the military job we had set out to do in Afghanistan was just about done and dusted. It should have been time go go home for tea and medals.
The Iraq war was just plain wrong from the outset - we had no business attacking a sovereign country that had not attacked us, or any of our vital interests, or those of a ally and was not even threatening do so. It was a wrong headed, wicked war and, predictably has led the world to be a more unstable place because of the lessons it taught to, say, Putin. Furthermore, the damage it caused to the interests of global peace and good order were compounded by the fact that we lost because we had not the stomach for finishing the job.
I might argue that from the point of view of our potential enemies we then re-enforced the lessons with our conduct in Afghanistan and with the dreadful campaign in Libya.
What the opening years of this century and our three wars have showed Moscow and Peking is that the West is prepared to ignore international law (such as it exists) and the UN and that if you have the might you can do what you like. Furthermore that, if you resist hard enough, the West will run away rather than really fight to win. Maybe the current events in Ukraine and the China Seas are not unrelated to those lessons
Most uplifting for Roger Helmer.
This will then be followed by a huge feeling of let down as lots of the Nats promises fail to materialise. The Nats will then blame the English since its all they know and the rest of these islands will have to listen to a century mindless whingeing.
Still, glad to clear up your misapprehension, no need to thank me.
Saddam was anti Al-Qaeda to the core. So is Assad. Even the Iranians. Our PM shook hands with Gaddafi. The US acquised to Blair's Libya flirtation.
We now support a murderer in Egypt who deposed a democratically elected President. We cannot have a policy which says that we like democracy only if it delivers our kind of results. The Army in Egypt controls half of that country's GDP. Of course, they would want any democratically elected government out.
The naive ex-colonialists think winning the initial military battle is everything. It ain't . It is barely the start. The old experts at the Foreign Office are now dead. They would never have allowed that.
Anyone having issue with being logged out of PB? I keep having to log in and its a bit frustrating.
Being 8% of a population in a big union means that you cannot have your democratic viewpoint supported. The government will always make policies to suit the majority so that they get back in , so an unequal union can never be good for the smaller party. Common sense should show that to anyone.
The workaround on that works for me on Chrome is to go to:
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/
...and post from there instead.
Political correctness gone utterly mad - truly this time.
while you will happily take life's ups and downs the politicos in the SNP have got where they are by moaning and grievances. When there's no currency union school snitch Wishart won't be on TV telling Scots the SNP screwed up, he'll be blaming the Tories\English and claiming there's a conspiracy to do down Scotland. The man's an arse and he's apparently one of your better ones.
I am reminded of the PG Wodehouse quotation " it is not hard to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance"
In the above seat projection the Labour seat majority would be similar to 2005, and their share of the vote would only be a few percentage points lower. Additionally, in 2005, the Lib Dems had two-thirds of the Tory votes but only one-third of the seats, and this obvious unfairness did not undermine the legitimacy of the result in the eyes of the mainstream.
Were UKIP to achieve a national vote share of 20% I think it is very likely that their vote distribution would be more uneven than it was in 2010, and that they would win at least 5 seats - as we saw with the 2013 local elections.
While I certainly believe that such a result would be absurd, and an indictment of the FPTP system, I am not sure it would lack legitimacy per se, since all parties to the election knew the rules beforehand, and they were not obviously designed to benefit one party - remember, in decades gone past it is the Tories whose vote was more efficiently distributed.
Traditionally, the Conservative Party have been solidly in favour of FPTP because it leads to majority rather than Coalition government, and so from that point of view such a result would in fact be proof of the advantages of FPTP - since it would have delivered majority government to the single party with the plurality of the national vote.
While some Labour MPs have been open to electoral reform, in practice they have only implemented it when it looks likely to benefit them electorally - as one can see by the choice of electoral systems in Scotland and London. As we also saw with the AV referendum, there are enough opponents of reform among Labour MPs to make introducing reform for the House of Commons difficult. Those turkeys know their way around a calendar.
The only circumstances where legitimacy of the government could become an issue is where the size of a Labour majority was slim, when the lead in vote share would also be narrower, or non-existent.
Even then I find it unlikely that many of the supporters of the status quo would change their mind - any reform would see Labour and the Conservatives lose almost half their seats, and pretty much any chance of forming a single-party government in the future.
Yes and luckily not that many left nowadays ( even if too many still ). However with online trolls they could be posting from anywhere, and sure a good few of them live in England in any case.
Lab 282
Con 211
UKIP 107
LD 22
Nats 10
This, "I can't say what I want because that's bad negotiation" is just a made up thing by loyalist Tories. They can't provide any theoretical argument for it, they can't provide any evidence of anyone else doing it in any other field, and they can't even logically deconstruct it. Because the real reason David Cameron won't say what he wants is not because it helps him with Brussels. It's because it helps him cover up the fact it'll be a massive let down with the British public.
This is NOT on the same level as abuse. Tbh if I had a female boss and she insisted I went and saw the Chippendales with her I'd find it more amusing than anything else, but I'm a good employee and secure in myself. Others are far less secure or aren't liking to be seen brown nosing at work.
There is of course a difference between the Chippendales or for that matter the equivalent Calendar Girls play, say - theatrical performance, safely up on the stage, nothing exposed (as far as I know!) you wouldn't see on the beach any day in the summer - and a strip club where the male/female relationship of power. and the entire atmosphere, I gather, is very different. A young woman could well find the latter very threatening.
Many, perhaps all, women I know would take it as a serious insult to be asked to go to a strip club. And a manager of any sensitivity would take that likely reaction into account. I asked my partner what she'd do if in that position and she said at once (a) say no (b)| report to higher management and HR (c) look for another job if need be.
Having said that, I wouldn't even risk suggesting something as innocuous as Calendar Girls if I were a manager - that would have been disastrous with some people with whom I have worked.
The core issue seems to be the one which has been well aired of late: that politicians are above the rest of us in the degree to which they have to follow decent employment and management methods.
As incoherent as his master Eck.
UKIP win the Euros.
Labour or Conservatives come third in the Euros. Doesn't matter which, it's all good.
LDs get slaughtered in the Euros.
The locals might throw up some interesting results.
Newark goes purple.
Scotland votes yes.
The GE conforms to the thread header.
Cameron, Clegg and Milliband won't know what's hit them.
I pray it happens. The country needs shaking up.
Further, since the Cabinet Office does not publish its polls, how was this one "buried"?
It looks very likely that whoever is in No 10 in May 2015 will have derisory public support and the 15-?? Parliament may see a decisive shift away from the two party stranglehold. Epochal times.
FPTP may not be the best electoral system available, but AV is immeasurably worse.
Boston and Skegness - 25%
Great Yarmouth 20%
Dwyfor Meirionnydd - 17%
Banff and Buchan - 13%
In reality, if UKIP get 20% nationwide they'll be on +30% in Boston and Gt Yarmouth and still less than 10% in Banff and Dwyfor
Re the Cabinet Office , burying the truth is their stock in trade.