Totally off topic but need a quickish answer as the diplomacy turn phase for the PB game is up in three hours
Reading this "The number of pieces that a player has on the board is determined by the number of "supply centers" which he controls. The supply centers are marked by black dots on the board. Control of the supply centers is determined by which piece last occupied the supply center in the Fall move of the game. The moves of the game are figured as 2 moves each year beginning in the year 1901. There is a Spring move and a Fall move. "
My interpretation is if I have a unit in say Rumania at the beginning of the fall movement phase but then move that unit to another territory I still have that supply centre count towards my total for the build phase as long as no other country moves into Rumania in the fall.
Correct or incorrect?
Incorrect. If you take a supply centre in the spring and then move out and leave it unoccupied in the autumn the you don't control that supply centre. To take a supply centre fro the first time, be it from a minor or another player, you have to have a unit occupying it at the end of the autumn turn. Once it is yours then you do not need to keep it garrisoned.
For example. in spring 1901 France moves from Marseilles to Spain and in the autumn that same unit moves to Portugal. Assuming no other unit interferes, at the end of year adjudications Spain would be neutral and Portugal would belong to France.
Yes, which is what I've done in another game without realising I'd only get Portugal!!
@MrJones - Nah, it's easy. The political class say supply and demand doesn't apply to immigration but everyone directly effected knows it's a lie. All Ukip need to do is talk about supply and demand and when a LibLabCon comes back with the "official statistics say blah" reply with "let people trust their own eyes."
I'll have to see that in action as I am not sure I understand a word of it. What we do know is that UKIP believe themselves to be the true inheritors of Mrs Thatcher's legacy. In many white working class communities - in particular the further north from London you go - that is not going to win votes. I guess that's one reason why UKIP is so focused on immigration. If they talked about the other stuff they believe in they would very quickly put a lot of current sympathisers off. The next UKIP manifesto will be an interesting read.
Totally off topic but need a quickish answer as the diplomacy turn phase for the PB game is up in three hours
Reading this "The number of pieces that a player has on the board is determined by the number of "supply centers" which he controls. The supply centers are marked by black dots on the board. Control of the supply centers is determined by which piece last occupied the supply center in the Fall move of the game. The moves of the game are figured as 2 moves each year beginning in the year 1901. There is a Spring move and a Fall move. "
My interpretation is if I have a unit in say Rumania at the beginning of the fall movement phase but then move that unit to another territory I still have that supply centre count towards my total for the build phase as long as no other country moves into Rumania in the fall.
Correct or incorrect?
Incorrect. If you take a supply centre in the spring and then move out and leave it unoccupied in the autumn the you don't control that supply centre. To take a supply centre fro the first time, be it from a minor or another player, you have to have a unit occupying it at the end of the autumn turn. Once it is yours then you do not need to keep it garrisoned.
For example. in spring 1901 France moves from Marseilles to Spain and in the autumn that same unit moves to Portugal. Assuming no other unit interferes, at the end of year adjudications Spain would be neutral and Portugal would belong to France.
Thanks for the answer Hurst and glad I checked in which case I have to say the explanation is badly worded. All they needed to say is during the build phase whoever occupies the supply centre gets the credit.
There can be no circumstances in which there is not someone currently occupying the supply centre under your explanation whereas the bit I quoted implies that the supply centre could indeed be unoccupied
You see I struggle with this kind of thing isam. You are saying this has been a huge issue for 45 years that hasn't been dealt with. What I therefore find bizarre is that in all that time nobody set up a political party to deal with it, or that parties that purported to deal with it or listen to this concern attracted such little support. Because ultimately you tend to come to the conclusion that when given the option to act voters don't bother and that there is little more to this than the opportunity for a good British whinge.
Before 1997 immigration was ~50,000 a year. Since then it's been a very different picture.
Arsenal will win the game in the last five minutes after Hull have had a perfectly good goal ruled out for offside and have had a clear-cut penalty shout turned down. Arsenal's winning goal will be scored by someone who should have been sent off.
Totally off topic but need a quickish answer as the diplomacy turn phase for the PB game is up in three hours
Reading this "The number of pieces that a player has on the board is determined by the number of "supply centers" which he controls. The supply centers are marked by black dots on the board. Control of the supply centers is determined by which piece last occupied the supply center in the Fall move of the game. The moves of the game are figured as 2 moves each year beginning in the year 1901. There is a Spring move and a Fall move. "
My interpretation is if I have a unit in say Rumania at the beginning of the fall movement phase but then move that unit to another territory I still have that supply centre count towards my total for the build phase as long as no other country moves into Rumania in the fall.
Correct or incorrect?
Incorrect. If you take a supply centre in the spring and then move out and leave it unoccupied in the autumn the you don't control that supply centre. To take a supply centre fro the first time, be it from a minor or another player, you have to have a unit occupying it at the end of the autumn turn. Once it is yours then you do not need to keep it garrisoned.
For example. in spring 1901 France moves from Marseilles to Spain and in the autumn that same unit moves to Portugal. Assuming no other unit interferes, at the end of year adjudications Spain would be neutral and Portugal would belong to France.
Thanks for the answer Hurst and glad I checked in which case I have to say the explanation is badly worded. All they needed to say is during the build phase whoever occupies the supply centre gets the credit.
*edit* now the light strikes home.
I hold Rumania at the end of fall I get the supply centre, next spring I move out the supply centre remains mine until someone takes it.
ok next question
spring I take rumania, fall I hold rumania, spring I move from rumania and austria takes rumania fall austria moves out of rumania and rumania stays empty
who now gets the supply centre. Technically I was the last to occupy it in the fall
"Patrick shouldn't have done it, that shouldn't have happened. But we're working in a very small team under extreme pressure- there's six or seven of us- and the little odd thing will happen here or there. We're all human after all.
James O'Brien hates Ukip - he's very open about it - so I went into 20 minutes of abuse thrown at me. But there's nothing he said that he hasn't said before or hasn't been said by others in the last few week"
Isn't O'Flynn the former Daily Express bloke whose appointment was initially hailed as a UKIP triumph? Sounds as if he's out of his depth. I suppose it's one thing peddling bizarre conspiracy theories on behalf of dodgy Egyptian moguls, quite another minding a tired Farage whose every utterance is now a potential bombshell. I wouldn't want his job.
Arsenal will win the game in the last five minutes after Hull have had a perfectly good goal ruled out for offside and have had a clear-cut penalty shout turned down. Arsenal's winning goal will be scored by someone who should have been sent off.
What we do know is that UKIP believe themselves to be the true inheritors of Mrs Thatcher's legacy. In many white working class communities - in particular the further north from London you go - that is not going to win votes. I guess that's one reason why UKIP is so focused on immigration. If they talked about the other stuff they believe in they would very quickly put a lot of current sympathisers off. The next UKIP manifesto will be an interesting read.
UKIP's goal is for Britain to leave the EU, not to debate the excellence of Mrs Thatcher's government.
I'd expect their manifesto to highlight some of the aspects of EU membership that have a negative effect on peoples pockets. During this campaign they've already highlighted immigration, energy, and food.
What we do know is that UKIP believe themselves to be the true inheritors of Mrs Thatcher's legacy. In many white working class communities - in particular the further north from London you go - that is not going to win votes. I guess that's one reason why UKIP is so focused on immigration. If they talked about the other stuff they believe in they would very quickly put a lot of current sympathisers off. The next UKIP manifesto will be an interesting read.
UKIP's goal is for Britain to leave the EU, not to debate the excellence of Mrs Thatcher's government.
I'd expect their manifesto to highlight some of the aspects of EU membership that have a negative effect on peoples pockets. During this campaign they've already highlighted immigration, energy, and food.
So UKIP is a pressure group not a political party. Not sure I buy that. But if that is the case it's not going to have a lasting impact.
What we do know is that UKIP believe themselves to be the true inheritors of Mrs Thatcher's legacy. In many white working class communities - in particular the further north from London you go - that is not going to win votes. I guess that's one reason why UKIP is so focused on immigration. If they talked about the other stuff they believe in they would very quickly put a lot of current sympathisers off. The next UKIP manifesto will be an interesting read.
UKIP's goal is for Britain to leave the EU, not to debate the excellence of Mrs Thatcher's government.
I'd expect their manifesto to highlight some of the aspects of EU membership that have a negative effect on peoples pockets. During this campaign they've already highlighted immigration, energy, and food.
So UKIP is a pressure group not a political party. Not sure I buy that. But if that is the case it's not going to have a lasting impact.
They'll be they only party advocating change on those policies. I think they'll be popular with voters.
Labour and the Conservatives are already scrabbling around trying to respond to voters unhappiness with high energy prices that government/EU policy have deliberately driven higher. Only UKIP will actually be offering to change government policy, and pursue cheaper energy.
What we do know is that UKIP believe themselves to be the true inheritors of Mrs Thatcher's legacy. In many white working class communities - in particular the further north from London you go - that is not going to win votes. I guess that's one reason why UKIP is so focused on immigration. If they talked about the other stuff they believe in they would very quickly put a lot of current sympathisers off. The next UKIP manifesto will be an interesting read.
UKIP's goal is for Britain to leave the EU, not to debate the excellence of Mrs Thatcher's government.
I'd expect their manifesto to highlight some of the aspects of EU membership that have a negative effect on peoples pockets. During this campaign they've already highlighted immigration, energy, and food.
So UKIP is a pressure group not a political party. Not sure I buy that. But if that is the case it's not going to have a lasting impact.
They'll be they only party advocating change on those policies. I think they'll be popular with voters.
Labour and the Conservatives are already scrabbling around trying to respond to voters unhappiness with high energy prices that government/EU policy have deliberately driven higher. Only UKIP will actually be offering to change government policy, and pursue cheaper energy.
It'll be interesting to see whether that is the case and what they'll be saying about things such as public spending and tax rates.
"Patrick shouldn't have done it, that shouldn't have happened. But we're working in a very small team under extreme pressure- there's six or seven of us- and the little odd thing will happen here or there. We're all human after all.
James O'Brien hates Ukip - he's very open about it - so I went into 20 minutes of abuse thrown at me. But there's nothing he said that he hasn't said before or hasn't been said by others in the last few week"
Farage's apology on behalf of an underling is as pompous as it is patronizing. Farage was the one doing the 'Want a Romanian for your neighbour...' bit. Every utterance a UKIP official now makes is testing the 'We're not racist we're just saying what everyone thinks' line to destruction. O'Flynn realizes this and saw that Farage was about to explode it further. Yes, he panicked but you can scarcely blame him. He was just trying to save Farage from himself.
"Patrick shouldn't have done it, that shouldn't have happened. But we're working in a very small team under extreme pressure- there's six or seven of us- and the little odd thing will happen here or there. We're all human after all.
James O'Brien hates Ukip - he's very open about it - so I went into 20 minutes of abuse thrown at me. But there's nothing he said that he hasn't said before or hasn't been said by others in the last few week"
Isn't O'Flynn the former Daily Express bloke whose appointment was initially hailed as a UKIP triumph? Sounds as if he's out of his depth. I suppose it's one thing peddling bizarre conspiracy theories on behalf of dodgy Egyptian moguls, quite another minding a tired Farage whose every utterance is now a potential bombshell. I wouldn't want his job.
It proves once again that journalists and commentators who think they know absolutely everything about everything, are generally a complete shambles when outside their comfort zone.
I would love to see the likes of Richard Littlejohn, Simon Heffer, Peter Hitchens, Owen Jones, Medhi Hasan and Polly Toynbee actually putting their odd views and weird personalities up to the public vote to see just how "popular" these loudmouths really are...
Mr. B, I cannot help you on this, but I am mid way through the first book and it is excellent. Well written and reflects much Medieval history (Wars of the Roses, etc.)
Sorry David, A Game of thrones is nothing to do with the Wars of the Roses or Medieval history. It's a Fantasy, damn it! It take place on an imaginary world that is blessed or plagued with Magic. The fact that G R R uses a pre cannon and gunpowder background has nothing to do with Earth history.
Well I agree that it is pure fantasy and we'll leave magic out of it, but the Lord of the North coming to the unfriendly capital and the Queen and her family remind me of the tensions between Edward IV, the Woodvilles and Richard of Gloucester. But I have only read half of the first book! (Nicked it off my son...)
I hope you enjoy all the 6 books that have been published, so far. I wish that George R R Martin would find a suitable end to the story, and quickly.
Mr. B, I cannot help you on this, but I am mid way through the first book and it is excellent. Well written and reflects much Medieval history (Wars of the Roses, etc.)
Sorry David, A Game of thrones is nothing to do with the Wars of the Roses or Medieval history. It's a Fantasy, damn it! It take place on an imaginary world that is blessed or plagued with Magic. The fact that G R R uses a pre cannon and gunpowder background has nothing to do with Earth history.
Well I agree that it is pure fantasy and we'll leave magic out of it, but the Lord of the North coming to the unfriendly capital and the Queen and her family remind me of the tensions between Edward IV, the Woodvilles and Richard of Gloucester. But I have only read half of the first book! (Nicked it off my son...)
I hope you enjoy all the 6 books that have been published, so far. I wish that George R R Martin would find a suitable end to the story, and quickly.
I think it was jolly inconsiderate of Mr Martin not to have finished writing the next book, before I finished reading the last one. Poor form.
I've just started the Iron King, (Mr Martin recommends it) so far it's OK. But there is no Arya Stark!
What we do know is that UKIP believe themselves to be the true inheritors of Mrs Thatcher's legacy. In many white working class communities - in particular the further north from London you go - that is not going to win votes. I guess that's one reason why UKIP is so focused on immigration. If they talked about the other stuff they believe in they would very quickly put a lot of current sympathisers off. The next UKIP manifesto will be an interesting read.
UKIP's goal is for Britain to leave the EU, not to debate the excellence of Mrs Thatcher's government.
I'd expect their manifesto to highlight some of the aspects of EU membership that have a negative effect on peoples pockets. During this campaign they've already highlighted immigration, energy, and food.
So UKIP is a pressure group not a political party. Not sure I buy that. But if that is the case it's not going to have a lasting impact.
They'll be they only party advocating change on those policies. I think they'll be popular with voters.
Labour and the Conservatives are already scrabbling around trying to respond to voters unhappiness with high energy prices that government/EU policy have deliberately driven higher. Only UKIP will actually be offering to change government policy, and pursue cheaper energy.
It'll be interesting to see whether that is the case and what they'll be saying about things such as public spending and tax rates.
Well they usually make loads of spending commitments coupled with masses of tax cuts that would cost vastly more than the reduction in net contributions to the EU etc
Returning to leaflets. If I win my council seat on Thursday it will be because our Focus leaflet has been delivered to every household every two months for twenty+ years with five extras during the campaign, plus dealing with casework and knocking on doors. I don't tweet and know as a Lib Dem I need to win if I can by local efforts rather than on our national party.
What we do know is that UKIP believe themselves to be the true inheritors of Mrs Thatcher's legacy. In many white working class communities - in particular the further north from London you go - that is not going to win votes. I guess that's one reason why UKIP is so focused on immigration. If they talked about the other stuff they believe in they would very quickly put a lot of current sympathisers off. The next UKIP manifesto will be an interesting read.
UKIP's goal is for Britain to leave the EU, not to debate the excellence of Mrs Thatcher's government.
I'd expect their manifesto to highlight some of the aspects of EU membership that have a negative effect on peoples pockets. During this campaign they've already highlighted immigration, energy, and food.
So UKIP is a pressure group not a political party. Not sure I buy that. But if that is the case it's not going to have a lasting impact.
They'll be they only party advocating change on those policies. I think they'll be popular with voters.
Labour and the Conservatives are already scrabbling around trying to respond to voters unhappiness with high energy prices that government/EU policy have deliberately driven higher. Only UKIP will actually be offering to change government policy, and pursue cheaper energy.
It'll be interesting to see whether that is the case and what they'll be saying about things such as public spending and tax rates.
Well they usually make loads of spending commitments coupled with masses of tax cuts that would cost vastly more than the reduction in net contributions to the EU etc
How do you think the Conservatives are going to explain their record in government: doubling the national debt in five years?
"I'm mad as he'll, and I'm not going to take this any more" could almost be tailor made for the mindset of most Ukip voters."
Correct. It's the classic Clint Eastwood character writ large. "Those pen pushers from City Hall just don't get it."
Unfortunately, for the mainstream politicians, they don't. When presented with something unpalatable, they either disbelieve or insult the messenger. Perhaps they never will accept it.
SO,
I'm not sure the spectre of Maggie is likely to worry Ukip. I was always against selling off council houses but it was very popular. Nowadays, "populist" is an insulting favoured by the elite. You sometimes wonder if they'll ever get the hang of this democracy lark.
Totally off topic but need a quickish answer as the diplomacy turn phase for the PB game is up in three hours
Reading this "The number of pieces that a player has on the board is determined by the number of "supply centers" which he controls. The supply centers are marked by black dots on the board. Control of the supply centers is determined by which piece last occupied the supply center in the Fall move of the game. The moves of the game are figured as 2 moves each year beginning in the year 1901. There is a Spring move and a Fall move. "
My interpretation is if I have a unit in say Rumania at the beginning of the fall movement phase but then move that unit to another territory I still have that supply centre count towards my total for the build phase as long as no other country moves into Rumania in the fall.
Correct or incorrect?
Incorrect. If you take a supply centre in the spring and then move out and leave it unoccupied in the autumn the you don't control that supply centre. To take a supply centre fro the first time, be it from a minor or another player, you have to have a unit occupying it at the end of the autumn turn. Once it is yours then you do not need to keep it garrisoned.
For example. in spring 1901 France moves from Marseilles to Spain and in the autumn that same unit moves to Portugal. Assuming no other unit interferes, at the end of year adjudications Spain would be neutral and Portugal would belong to France.
Thanks for the answer Hurst and glad I checked in which case I have to say the explanation is badly worded. All they needed to say is during the build phase whoever occupies the supply centre gets the credit.
*edit* now the light strikes home.
I hold Rumania at the end of fall I get the supply centre, next spring I move out the supply centre remains mine until someone takes it.
ok next question
spring I take rumania, fall I hold rumania, spring I move from rumania and austria takes rumania fall austria moves out of rumania and rumania stays empty
who now gets the supply centre. Technically I was the last to occupy it in the fall
Mr Pagan, in the circumstances you cite Austria has just moved through so the centre remains yours.
There are a couple of good apps for trying out Diplomacy situations to see "what would happen if". The one I use is RealPolitik, but I understand that there are web based alternatives that might be simpler to use.
Mr. Dave, that's an unfair criticism. To even keep the debt at an unchanged level would've required monumental cuts (either immediate to a flat fiscal policy or so that we'd now be running a surplus of tens of billions). That was never, ever going to happen.
There's plenty of legitimate grounds to attack the Government (or Labour) on without suggesting the debt could realistically have been kept level or even reduced.
Mr. Dave, that's an unfair criticism. To even keep the debt at an unchanged level would've required monumental cuts (either immediate to a flat fiscal policy or so that we'd now be running a surplus of tens of billions). That was never, ever going to happen.
There's plenty of legitimate grounds to attack the Government (or Labour) on without suggesting the debt could realistically have been kept level or even reduced.
They increased taxation on day one. They could just as easily have cut government spending. They chose not to, wasted five years, and left a bigger problem for the next government.
Mr. Dave, I agree. Reducing the deficit should've been done more quickly. But even if it had been, debt would have increased significantly. The eurozone sovereign debt crisis didn't help matters either.
There's no realistic scenario which sees debt falling this Parliament.
"Patrick shouldn't have done it, that shouldn't have happened. But we're working in a very small team under extreme pressure- there's six or seven of us- and the little odd thing will happen here or there. We're all human after all.
James O'Brien hates Ukip - he's very open about it - so I went into 20 minutes of abuse thrown at me. But there's nothing he said that he hasn't said before or hasn't been said by others in the last few week"
Isn't O'Flynn the former Daily Express bloke whose appointment was initially hailed as a UKIP triumph? Sounds as if he's out of his depth. I suppose it's one thing peddling bizarre conspiracy theories on behalf of dodgy Egyptian moguls, quite another minding a tired Farage whose every utterance is now a potential bombshell. I wouldn't want his job.
It proves once again that journalists and commentators who think they know absolutely everything about everything, are generally a complete shambles when outside their comfort zone.
I would love to see the likes of Richard Littlejohn, Simon Heffer, Peter Hitchens, Owen Jones, Medhi Hasan and Polly Toynbee actually putting their odd views and weird personalities up to the public vote to see just how "popular" these loudmouths really are...
Good point, though I suspect they'd persuade themselves that a poisoning of the mind by The Mail/Metropolitan Elite (delete as appropriate) was the reason for the herd's unreceptiveness to their talents. Hitchens in particular regards himself as such a lone voice and unheralded genius: 'For years I've been telling you that Cameron was a socialist fraud and you didn't believe. Now bow down and worship me...' etc.
@CD13 - I'm not sure the spectre of Maggie is likely to worry Ukip. I was always against selling off council houses but it was very popular. Nowadays, "populist" is an insulting favoured by the elite. You sometimes wonder if they'll ever get the hang of this democracy lark.
You try campaigning on the back of being the true heirs to the Thatcher legacy in traditional Labour seats and see how far it gets you. I doubt the words "Maggie" and "Thatcher" pass any UKIP lips in such constituencies. UKIP's bone dry, neo-liberal economic sympathies are very handily disguised by the one area in which they do not entertain the open market. It's no wonder the party focuses so much on immigration.
Mr. Dave, I agree. Reducing the deficit should've been done more quickly. But even if it had been, debt would have increased significantly. The eurozone sovereign debt crisis didn't help matters either.
There's no realistic scenario which sees debt falling this Parliament.
Tackling the deficit more rapidly wouldn't have been politically feasible.
Mr. Dave, I agree. Reducing the deficit should've been done more quickly. But even if it had been, debt would have increased significantly. The eurozone sovereign debt crisis didn't help matters either.
There's no realistic scenario which sees debt falling this Parliament.
Tackling the deficit more rapidly wouldn't have been politically feasible.
Just back from pub after enjoying watching the cup final, some lovely 12 year old Glenlivet imbibed and all is well with the world. Look forward to a nice sirloin for dinner and later I shall linger over a nice1955 Glen grant, a wonderful day. I see there is some foreign game on at the moment a team from Hull beating some southern team.
Isn't O'Flynn the former Daily Express bloke whose appointment was initially hailed as a UKIP triumph? Sounds as if he's out of his depth. I suppose it's one thing peddling bizarre conspiracy theories on behalf of dodgy Egyptian moguls, quite another minding a tired Farage whose every utterance is now a potential bombshell. I wouldn't want his job.
I agree that O'Flynn is slightly out of his depth, but it's interesting that he didn't stop Nigel's "I can't be racist cos I like Germans, but not Romanians" bilge, but only stepped in when Nige was challenged on backing out of his commitment to have his finances audited.
Mr. Dave, I agree. Reducing the deficit should've been done more quickly. But even if it had been, debt would have increased significantly. The eurozone sovereign debt crisis didn't help matters either.
There's no realistic scenario which sees debt falling this Parliament.
Tackling the deficit more rapidly wouldn't have been politically feasible.
Is that going to be the party line?
Really don't know but it has the virtue of being true.
The Thatcher name brings out the reflex dislike but one or two of her policies didn't. Ukip and are policy-light anyway. I doubt if voters will think ... this policy = Thatcher, unless they have studied her policies. That's restricted to die-hard lefties,
Mr. Briskin, we got one from An Independence From Europe, or whatever the PFJ is called.
I had one from a shady outfit called No2EU which seems to be a bunch of crypto-communists.
I'm sure they sent out a leaflet at the last euros to my address. Haven't had anything for them this time. In fact the only leaflets I've had were from UKIP and the Conservatives. Are Labour that skint? I've seen nothing from them, or Plaid Cymru...the boredom of living in a constituency that is taken for granted.
I've had most of the major ones, except Lib Dem. Labour's was odd in the way it presented itself it's plethora of hashtags seemed to me silly given those most likely to understand their import are least likely to vote and vice versa. The BNP one was recycled without contaminating my eyes, I had a peruse of the Green leaflet which for a party that seems always to advocate living in a commune of yurts eating bean stew and worshiping Gaia was actually a half decent effort. I had a look at UKIP's effort
Does anyone have any evidence that these leaflets make any noticeable difference to a party's chance of winning an election? Any that come through my door go straight into the recycling bin and I guess I am not in a minority.
Some people on here are fond of talking about the Ground War, of which these leaflets make up a part, perhaps a significant part of the effort, but is there any evidence that they work? Could it be that this leafleting is obsolete and is actually just some sort of macho game played by the parties ("We had 36 people out leafleting", "Really we had 52") that makes bugger all difference.
As for GOTV, how does this work? Telephone calls? How many people actually take cold calls these days? As soon as I hear, "Can I, please, speak to Mr. Hurst Llama?" I put the phone down or, if they are using one of those auto diallers (where you always get the pause before he caller speaks) the phone goes down*. If if I speak to the person I will have made up my mind when or if I am going to vote and having some party hack ring me up is not going to make me change my mind.
*I always hang up on cold calls unless I am in a playful mood in which case I ask them to hang on for a moment and go off and make a cup of tea, groom the cat, gossip with the neighbours, read a good book or whatever - if I feel like it I might play them some awful music (think TSE specials) while I do this.
The GOTV is a complex process. It all depends on having accurate data and keeping it up to date. That involves a lot of door knocking or telep
Hey, Sunil would seem to be back from his sojourn in parts foreign!
Avast, Cap'n Doc. By the powers, ye missed some good threads. Never before was there so many discussions on or about railways on this site, belike. And your expertise was sorely missed, so 'twas.
Na'er mind 'tis grand to see you back, Sunil lad, and right glad we are t'see ye safe, sound and at harbour once more.
P.S. Hope the ceremonies went OK and your mum is well.
Doncaster EngDem members had a mass defection to UKIP last year. Happened when Peter Davies left them to become an independent in early 2013. The blues have managed one nationally delivered leaflet for the Euros here, but nothing local. LDs have apparently collapsed. I've seen one small lab poster in the surrounding mile. Ed's 2015 oppo is going to be UKIP from the beginning. He could get quite a shock..
Mr. Dave, I agree. Reducing the deficit should've been done more quickly. But even if it had been, debt would have increased significantly. The eurozone sovereign debt crisis didn't help matters either.
There's no realistic scenario which sees debt falling this Parliament.
Tackling the deficit more rapidly wouldn't have been politically feasible.
Is that going to be the party line?
Really don't know but it has the virtue of being true.
"Politically feasible" translates as 'gutless'. So I agree. Ignore the problem, leave it for a responsible adult.
Mr. Dave, I agree. Reducing the deficit should've been done more quickly. But even if it had been, debt would have increased significantly. The eurozone sovereign debt crisis didn't help matters either.
There's no realistic scenario which sees debt falling this Parliament.
Tackling the deficit more rapidly wouldn't have been politically feasible.
Is that going to be the party line?
Really don't know but it has the virtue of being true.
"Politically feasible" translates as 'gutless'. So I agree. Ignore the problem, leave it for a responsible adult.
Not much of a recommendation for re-election.
Well I'm with Bismarck when he said that politics is the art of the possible. The spending retrenchment that was made was at the limit of what the public would tolerate. Frankly if a faster trajectory had been tried it would have caused major problems. I personally far prefer a cautious approach that works than an aggressive one that fails.
the mask slipped... thoroughly nasty little man... BNP-lite... trainwreck
OK. Bertie, you clearly don't like him. But I think that calling someone a racist to shut down debate is old hat these days. We've seen it all before. It's the yawn-inducing three card trick of British politics. It tends to get greeted with "Not that one again!".
But good luck in using it if you want to take that line. Maybe it still does still work in Wales? You suggest it does so I'd be interested to see how big the Welsh welcome would be when the Romany caravans come swinging round the mountains. If you're right, and I'm sure you must be, they will be greeted with open arms and you'll all get on like a house on fire.
Have you considered setting up a Gypsies for Wales Facebook group? I think it could be really quite effective.
To be honest, until recent months I was quite ambivalent towards him. I thought UKIP was a pointless operation but was sympathetic to their stance on the EU. But the tone in recent months has definitely turned nastier. And it's not shutting down the debate when he gets called up on what he's actually said. Some people may agree with him, other's won't. But Farage deserves to be put under the same level of scrutiny as any other leader would.
And I can't say I'm worried about a procession of Romany Caravans, there hasn't been a big influx since the controls ended and I doubt there will be in the future (The thought of being greeted by Keith Vaz and Mark Pritchard on arrival would be enough to put anyone off.).
I think that the 'you are a racist' approach to immigration is dead now. I just googled Barbara Roche's 'Euracism' and see that no journalist has used that word this week. A kite that never got off the ground because people are sick to the back teeth with it. Maybe I'm counting my chickens, but I expect the leftwing commentators, academics and their devotes will regroup and find a different point of attack after Thursday.
Why should the result of the EU election change anything? Enoch received thousands of letters of support after his sacking. If anything that motivated the forces against intolerance to redouble their efforts. Of course, I accept that some UKIPs supports are ashamed of the party's antics in recent weeks - the scaremongering that EU immigrants will cause me to be made made redundant from my job etc. They're ashamed and just want everyone to quietly forget all that. But such shame - nor Richard Tyndall's contention that UKIP have always been this way, so what of it? - will silence the critics. Nor should it.
Speaking as one of UKIP's supporters, I have no regrets about leaving the Conservatives and joining them..
The Thatcher name brings out the reflex dislike but one or two of her policies didn't. Ukip and are policy-light anyway. I doubt if voters will think ... this policy = Thatcher, unless they have studied her policies. That's restricted to die-hard lefties,
My guess is that Labour will be seeking to help voters to make the connection.
I am sure those involved think it is, Mr. Slade, but cannot you drop the complexity and tell us the basics. I saw a tweet the other day which had a picture purporting to show us a Conservative GOTV operation. What the picture actually showed was a lot of rather badly dressed young men sitting in front of computer screens whilst making telephone calls. The connection betwen that scene and me walking up the road to polling station escapes me.
The tone has not changed at all. All that has changed is the way the media and the other parties are spinning what is being said. That is how effective smear campaigns work and this one is a doozy.
In the past I've said I don't support Farage because I think he's a self-publicist and vain man with poor judgement who would make a terrible PM. I've not said that he's a racist, although he is comfortable leading a party that attracts a lot of racists.
His latest comments "you know the difference" gets very close to a very unpleasant line. Yes, I'm sure Sam, you are right, that he was stating the difference between a German family and a bunch of Romanian men, but most people won't pick that up. It was a very clear dog whistle.
The man may not be a racist himself, but he's comfortable with fronting a racist message.
(as an aside, the Romanian Orthodox Church uses our family church on Saturdays - about 5 years ago there was a marked change in the community with an influx of young men who caused a lot of difficulties for the local residents)
Ed Miliband has about a one in a million chance of losing his seat. All first time leaders tend to get a bump in their majorities - see Nick Clegg or Charles Kennedy or Michael Howard for recent examples. UKIP are pretty clueless at Constituency campaigns - it's just not happening.
Comments
I'll have to see that in action as I am not sure I understand a word of it. What we do know is that UKIP believe themselves to be the true inheritors of Mrs Thatcher's legacy. In many white working class communities - in particular the further north from London you go - that is not going to win votes. I guess that's one reason why UKIP is so focused on immigration. If they talked about the other stuff they believe in they would very quickly put a lot of current sympathisers off. The next UKIP manifesto will be an interesting read.
There can be no circumstances in which there is not someone currently occupying the supply centre under your explanation whereas the bit I quoted implies that the supply centre could indeed be unoccupied
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/latest-immigration-statistics
*edit* now the light strikes home.
I hold Rumania at the end of fall I get the supply centre, next spring I move out the supply centre remains mine until someone takes it.
ok next question
spring I take rumania, fall I hold rumania,
spring I move from rumania and austria takes rumania
fall austria moves out of rumania and rumania stays empty
who now gets the supply centre. Technically I was the last to occupy it in the fall
I'd expect their manifesto to highlight some of the aspects of EU membership that have a negative effect on peoples pockets. During this campaign they've already highlighted immigration, energy, and food.
Labour and the Conservatives are already scrabbling around trying to respond to voters unhappiness with high energy prices that government/EU policy have deliberately driven higher. Only UKIP will actually be offering to change government policy, and pursue cheaper energy.
I would love to see the likes of Richard Littlejohn, Simon Heffer, Peter Hitchens, Owen Jones, Medhi Hasan and Polly Toynbee actually putting their odd views and weird personalities up to the public vote to see just how "popular" these loudmouths really are...
I've just started the Iron King, (Mr Martin recommends it) so far it's OK. But there is no Arya Stark!
A socialist? Moi?
"I'm mad as he'll, and I'm not going to take this any more" could almost be tailor made for the mindset of most Ukip voters."
Correct. It's the classic Clint Eastwood character writ large. "Those pen pushers from City Hall just don't get it."
Unfortunately, for the mainstream politicians, they don't. When presented with something unpalatable, they either disbelieve or insult the messenger. Perhaps they never will accept it.
SO,
I'm not sure the spectre of Maggie is likely to worry Ukip. I was always against selling off council houses but it was very popular. Nowadays, "populist" is an insulting favoured by the elite. You sometimes wonder if they'll ever get the hang of this democracy lark.
There are a couple of good apps for trying out Diplomacy situations to see "what would happen if". The one I use is RealPolitik, but I understand that there are web based alternatives that might be simpler to use.
There's plenty of legitimate grounds to attack the Government (or Labour) on without suggesting the debt could realistically have been kept level or even reduced.
There's no realistic scenario which sees debt falling this Parliament.
You try campaigning on the back of being the true heirs to the Thatcher legacy in traditional Labour seats and see how far it gets you. I doubt the words "Maggie" and "Thatcher" pass any UKIP lips in such constituencies. UKIP's bone dry, neo-liberal economic sympathies are very handily disguised by the one area in which they do not entertain the open market. It's no wonder the party focuses so much on immigration.
Does he think there is a vulnerability there?
I agree. U
SO,
The Thatcher name brings out the reflex dislike but one or two of her policies didn't. Ukip and are policy-light anyway. I doubt if voters will think ... this policy = Thatcher, unless they have studied her policies. That's restricted to die-hard lefties,
Avast, Cap'n Doc. By the powers, ye missed some good threads. Never before was there so many discussions on or about railways on this site, belike. And your expertise was sorely missed, so 'twas.
Na'er mind 'tis grand to see you back, Sunil lad, and right glad we are t'see ye safe, sound and at harbour once more.
P.S. Hope the ceremonies went OK and your mum is well.
Doncaster EngDem members had a mass defection to UKIP last year. Happened when Peter Davies left them to become an independent in early 2013. The blues have managed one nationally delivered leaflet for the Euros here, but nothing local. LDs have apparently collapsed. I've seen one small lab poster in the surrounding mile. Ed's 2015 oppo is going to be UKIP from the beginning. He could get quite a shock..
Not much of a recommendation for re-election.
Asda's 'Extra Special 85% Ivory Coast and Dominican Republic dark chocolate' bar is quite nice. :-)
(£1.29)
I am sure those involved think it is, Mr. Slade, but cannot you drop the complexity and tell us the basics. I saw a tweet the other day which had a picture purporting to show us a Conservative GOTV operation. What the picture actually showed was a lot of rather badly dressed young men sitting in front of computer screens whilst making telephone calls. The connection betwen that scene and me walking up the road to polling station escapes me.
His latest comments "you know the difference" gets very close to a very unpleasant line. Yes, I'm sure Sam, you are right, that he was stating the difference between a German family and a bunch of Romanian men, but most people won't pick that up. It was a very clear dog whistle.
The man may not be a racist himself, but he's comfortable with fronting a racist message.
(as an aside, the Romanian Orthodox Church uses our family church on Saturdays - about 5 years ago there was a marked change in the community with an influx of young men who caused a lot of difficulties for the local residents)