Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After last month’s IndyRef scare the May ICM Scottish poll

24

Comments

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    JohnO said:

    I hope Mike won't delete this post but James Kelly's blog (Scot goes pop) is seeking financial donations to allow him to continue with his poll of polls analysis on Independence.

    Could I suggest he contacts

    Mr and Mrs C Weir
    Largs
    Ayrshire

    should keep him going til well after September ;-)
    Alan, good morning , as I said he broke his target in a day , so fair play to him. He must be doing something right, not sure many on here would be so successful.
    malc, good luck to him if he can do it. Presumably it was all those rich scottish tories sent him money as nobody else has any ? ;-)
    No Borders grassroot people
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    SNP targets from Labour include Falkirk, Dundee West, Kilmarnock, Aberdeen North.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Smarmeron, never heard of Bunyon. And why inverted commas for classics? You can't get much more classical than the works of Rome (and Greece).
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    rcs1000 said:

    I said it wouldn't be close.

    It won't.

    Between 60:40 and 66:33 to no.

    Robert, yes but you were not up to betting on those figures. You up for resetting the numbers on our bet to what you really think.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578

    I suspect Separatist Scots will cling to Panelbase and expect another poll along from them shortly - whether this will provide succour, time will tell.

    Of course we won't know until September 19 how well any of the pollsters have been able to measure this and have read plausible explanations for why either side may be under-reported - from "shy no" to "unreached yes" voters.

    What is undeniable is thet the YESNP's "momentum with Yes" story has hit the buffers.

    And as The SNP consider "dollarisation" - using the pound with no currency Union, like Panama does with the $, the BBC helpfully reminds us how Panamanian adventures ended last time Scotland tried it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27405350

    There is a PanelBase poll today . It shows No up 2 on 47% and Yes unchanged on 40%. So momentum with No confirmed.
    The Times (£) has an interesting take:

    English votes may kill off independence

    ENGLISH voters living in Scotland could swing the result of the independence referendum in favour of the United Kingdom, according to a new poll.......

    The poll suggests slightly more Scots support than oppose independence (44% versus 42%, with 14% undecided) ahead of September’s vote.

    But it indicates that English voters, who account for 10% of Scotland’s electorate, are 66% against independence, with 27% in favour — which could make the difference between success or failure for the Yes campaign.


    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/ScottishReferendum/article1412162.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_05_18

    Won't that be perfect! The Separatists lose - and they get to blame the English!
    It would also probably give support to re-running the referendum in a few years, with a more prescriptive, Scottish, definition, rather than in a generation. Sadly, I still don't think it will come to that, but it's nice to see No holding onto its lead for the time being at least.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    It is far too early to call the Scottish vote.

    This poll, which is better news for no, works out at 57.5% no, 42.5% yes excluding the don't knows. If anyone in Scotland does not know by now I somewhat suspect that they will not be troubling the scorers come the day so excluding them is probably realistic.



    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-27406616

    It ain't particularly broke, so why try and fix it, especially when fixing it might REALLY break it? I imagine that thought must be prominent in Scottish minds right now.
    I am not sure I buy the better economy story. A thriving Scottish economy is going to be more confident about striking out on their own, not less. The argument for hanging on to nurse was much greater when our banks needed rescued and it was obvious that a major industry in Scotland had just gone pop (to coin a phrase).

    It is also important to look at this from the perspective of the key demographic which is Scottish Labour. Never a ray of sunshine on a good day giving credit to Osborne is almost more than they can bear. I am sure their perception of the economy will be vastly more pessimistic than average polling.

    David, I do not see any improving economy at the bottom end of the market where most of the votes are. People at the top may be doing well but it is for from universal.
    Sean sees things through his London , pockets full of money viewpoint. Most Tories in Scotland seem to be the same, it is very different in the trenches.
    Given the Times shows it as 53% to 47% it would seem to be far from over.
    The economy clearly is improving. House sales are increasing in volume and this is driving consumption generally, employment is going up, investment is increasing and there is a better tone to the wages market which probably presages modest increases in real wages.

    But it is undoubtedly the case that there is a significant strand of our population who are getting very little out of the recovery so far. We are not having a London style property boom in Scotland so people do not feel any better off. The casualisation of our workforce is an issue that Ed Miliband should be focussing on instead of all that producer/predator rubbish that no one understands.

    Labour voters focus on these inequalities and ask if Scotland would do things differently. Which is why the ABCs are so determined to vote no of course. They fear the high tax Scotland that would almost certainly come to pass, at least until the economy collapsed.

    Only some of them David, I am for YES and sure others are as well, high tax risk or not.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Morris_Dancer
    Probably misspelled the name, but Middle English, was the gist of my point.
    Latin "classics" signifies that much of what I have read is only classical in the sense that it inflates the egos of those who hanker for dictatorships, and wars that they themselves don't have to fight.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    SeanT said:

    I fear, as I’ve family in the Kingdom, that you may be right. I don’t think the King’s decided on the succession, either, has he?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Smarmeron, perhaps, but my knowledge of lots of recent stuff is pretty poor so you may well have spelled it right.

    Ironically, Rome started to decline when it stopped expanding militarily and started fighting itself instead of others. The shift from republic to empire was also a critical problem, but, given what the republic had become, perhaps inevitable.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    edited May 2014
    Disappointing ICM. I'd have been surprised if it hadn't gone down from its previous high water mark, but didn't expect such a dip. Still, the Panelbase and an Express Survation (whose figures they seem rather coy about) seem to imply steady as she goes rather than holed below the waterline.

    Nice to see so many PBers hanging on James Kelly's every word.

    Of course the Libdems are always on hand to provide electoral balm:

    Tom Gordon ‏@ScottishPol 16 mins
    "The LibDems are stuffed" - Prof John Curtice sums up the Euro elections in @newsundayherald http://tinyurl.com/ly25bh9

    'SNP is on course to win third euro seat, polls suggest

    Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University said recent polling evidence pointed to the SNP winning three of the country's six places at the European elections on Thursday.
    As at the last election in 2009, Labour would have two and the Conservatives one, he said. Ukip, tipped for success in England, are unlikely to secure a seat in Scotland. The clear loser would be LibDem MEP George Lyon, who is seeking re-election after a single term. "The LibDems are stuffed," Curtice said.'
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Morris_Dancer
    We should have listened to history, and expanded the British Empire in a never ending series of wars.
    War is profitable, and cleanses the country of poor people (and any overstock of the aristocracy)
    Peasants dying in obscene agony is a price worth paying, and lends a certain "frisson" of excitement to a wet Sunday afternoon.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Smarmeron, I made no comment on the British Empire, only the Roman Empire.

    The shift from external to civil war was of no benefit to the poor, who suffered increasing financial hardship due to the extortion of donatives and ensuing inflation (and devaluation of currency), as well as getting killed, of course.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Last Wednesday, the insider magazine Private Eye also claimed that the Leftist daily The Guardian had made a secret deal with the Tory Party, which claims to be conservative.

    The Tories, it was alleged, had promised the favourite newspaper of the liberal elite a steady supply of damaging stories about UKIP candidates saying daft things (Tories, of course, never say daft things). In return, the newspaper had promised to avoid identifying the source.

    Such stories are immediately picked up by BBC radio and TV news channels, which view The Guardian as sacred text.


    If that's true, my contempt for the Conservative party has reached new lows.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Farage arse-licker upset that Clegg tells the truth about his idol - shock horror
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    edited May 2014
    I've always enjoyed these questionnaires that try to figure out which party you should vote for (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-eu-27414639), mostly because of how each different one tends to show different outcomes for someone, but I must say I particular ly enjoyed one of the three included in the BBC link, as it tries to show by European political group and individual MEP/candidate, which one best suits your views.

    Apparently the best person to represent my views is Jozef Kollár of Slovakia and the ECR grouping.

    I also apparently have a 50% match with the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group, the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe group. The European Peoples Party are way back on 48% match with my views.

    Helpful stuff. Variously depending on which one I use, I have Greens top(!) or dead last, Conservatives (with a sprinkling of UKIP/AIFE and We demand a referendum now party), and Lib Dems. Sorry Labour, none of them show me aligned in that direction.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Socrates said:

    Last Wednesday, the insider magazine Private Eye also claimed that the Leftist daily The Guardian had made a secret deal with the Tory Party, which claims to be conservative.

    The Tories, it was alleged, had promised the favourite newspaper of the liberal elite a steady supply of damaging stories about UKIP candidates saying daft things (Tories, of course, never say daft things). In return, the newspaper had promised to avoid identifying the source.

    Such stories are immediately picked up by BBC radio and TV news channels, which view The Guardian as sacred text.


    If that's true, my contempt for the Conservative party has reached new lows.

    Political party engages in politics? Well strike me pink.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    @Mike Smithson
    ........... 'What all this demonstrates is the power of polling to set the political weather.'
    ---------------------------
    More and more I see polls companies wanting to MAKE the political weather for political line that they secretly support, and that is damned dangerous.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited May 2014

    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Farage arse-licker upset that Clegg tells the truth about his idol - shock horror
    It's about as truthful as the idea that three million jobs are dependent on the EU, or that 1 in 7 UK firms are started by an immigrant. Lies that Clegg trots out regularly. The guy is a particular sycophant to the EU who doesn't ever dare criticise the thing. A pathetic toadie of a man. I'm sure his MEP pension gives him vested interests here, which is why he's willing to lie and smear at new levels in this debate. Personal finances over national interest. What a scumbag.

    Anyway, you're just upset that the Lib Dems are yesterday's party. Why don't you just merge with the Greens and be done with it?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    antifrank said:

    Socrates said:

    Last Wednesday, the insider magazine Private Eye also claimed that the Leftist daily The Guardian had made a secret deal with the Tory Party, which claims to be conservative.

    The Tories, it was alleged, had promised the favourite newspaper of the liberal elite a steady supply of damaging stories about UKIP candidates saying daft things (Tories, of course, never say daft things). In return, the newspaper had promised to avoid identifying the source.

    Such stories are immediately picked up by BBC radio and TV news channels, which view The Guardian as sacred text.


    If that's true, my contempt for the Conservative party has reached new lows.

    Political party engages in politics? Well strike me pink.
    No no, you're wrong - when it happens against UKIP it is a heinous and unprecedented crime, for some reason.

    UKIPers calm down, I will concede there has been a concerted effort against your party of choice, mostly because they are a threat, for various reasons in different circumstances, to all the established three.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Scott_P said:

    @MrHarryCole: Right wing back lash against Farage comments begins. Here is Bill Cash on those Farage comments: http://t.co/JK0Q5wB5qi

    Farage: the EU's Useful Idiot. If he becomes seen to represent all there is for the Out side, then any 2017 referendum is bound to be a stroll for In. You can see why the BOOers have their head in their hands.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    antifrank said:

    Socrates said:

    Last Wednesday, the insider magazine Private Eye also claimed that the Leftist daily The Guardian had made a secret deal with the Tory Party, which claims to be conservative.

    The Tories, it was alleged, had promised the favourite newspaper of the liberal elite a steady supply of damaging stories about UKIP candidates saying daft things (Tories, of course, never say daft things). In return, the newspaper had promised to avoid identifying the source.

    Such stories are immediately picked up by BBC radio and TV news channels, which view The Guardian as sacred text.


    If that's true, my contempt for the Conservative party has reached new lows.

    Political party engages in politics? Well strike me pink.
    An alliance with a left-wing paper to discredit those on the right? The Tories have made clear that UKIP are exactly right when they say the mainstream media and political elite are all the same crowd with the same views. An alliance between the Guardian and the Conservative party should be as unthinkable as an alliance between the Lib Dems and the Mail. But then, David Cameron's not a conservative any more, if he ever was.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173

    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Farage arse-licker upset that Clegg tells the truth about his idol - shock horror
    As I've said repeatedly as a non-UKIP supporter the tactic of smearing and screeching racist is totally counter-productive - you'd think Clegg would be bright enough to have got this by now.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Today I find myself reeling with the revelation that political parties feed stories to newspapers designed to discredit their opponents. Whoever would have believed this possible?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    MikeK said:

    @Mike Smithson
    ........... 'What all this demonstrates is the power of polling to set the political weather.'
    ---------------------------
    More and more I see polls companies wanting to MAKE the political weather for political line that they secretly support, and that is damned dangerous.

    Evidence??
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    Socrates said:

    antifrank said:

    Socrates said:

    Last Wednesday, the insider magazine Private Eye also claimed that the Leftist daily The Guardian had made a secret deal with the Tory Party, which claims to be conservative.

    The Tories, it was alleged, had promised the favourite newspaper of the liberal elite a steady supply of damaging stories about UKIP candidates saying daft things (Tories, of course, never say daft things). In return, the newspaper had promised to avoid identifying the source.

    Such stories are immediately picked up by BBC radio and TV news channels, which view The Guardian as sacred text.


    If that's true, my contempt for the Conservative party has reached new lows.

    Political party engages in politics? Well strike me pink.
    An alliance between the Guardian and the Conservative party should be as unthinkable as an alliance between the Lib Dems and the Mail..
    Interestingly, the LD leaflet for the Euros I received last week included a DailyMailOnline quote. I've since binned it and cannot recall what it was exactly, but it was a neutral 'Polls say x' or something on those lines, but I found it curious that such a statement, which was literally just a media outlet reporting the views of something else, not pushing its own line, should be specifically quoted from the Mail.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Expressing an opinion is not a smear.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    kle4 said:

    antifrank said:

    Socrates said:

    Last Wednesday, the insider magazine Private Eye also claimed that the Leftist daily The Guardian had made a secret deal with the Tory Party, which claims to be conservative.

    The Tories, it was alleged, had promised the favourite newspaper of the liberal elite a steady supply of damaging stories about UKIP candidates saying daft things (Tories, of course, never say daft things). In return, the newspaper had promised to avoid identifying the source.

    Such stories are immediately picked up by BBC radio and TV news channels, which view The Guardian as sacred text.


    If that's true, my contempt for the Conservative party has reached new lows.

    Political party engages in politics? Well strike me pink.
    No no, you're wrong - when it happens against UKIP it is a heinous and unprecedented crime, for some reason.

    UKIPers calm down, I will concede there has been a concerted effort against your party of choice, mostly because they are a threat, for various reasons in different circumstances, to all the established three.
    When was the last time the Conservative struck a deal with a socialist paper?

    The fact that this is all seen as just a political game is exactly the problem. Back when we used to be a self-governing nation politics was actually a debate about big ideas. Now all the established parties have the same views, along with the Guardian, BBC etc, it's all just an exercise in smearing in the up and down electoral game. There's no worry at all about the long term damage they'll do to the conservative cause by discrediting another conservative party, and boosting a socialist paper. Can you see Thatcher having done this?

    Although that may be a moot question, because Thatcher would never have split conservatives down the middle, because she had conviction, rather than being an incompetent PR man with no values, like Cameron.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Morris_Dancer

    Rome had expanded as far as it could, once the expansion had to stop because of natural constraints, it was left with a society based on conquest.
    It had no place left to turn, except inward.
    This lesson of history may be slowly dawning on one of our own authors and bloggists.
    N.B. this new dawning of awareness may change rapidly after said author has checked the latest price of his domicile.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    felix said:

    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Farage arse-licker upset that Clegg tells the truth about his idol - shock horror
    As I've said repeatedly as a non-UKIP supporter the tactic of smearing and screeching racist is totally counter-productive - you'd think Clegg would be bright enough to have got this by now.
    Perhaps he has - he's already conceded the LDs are likely to be wiped out in the Euros, but a resurgent UKIP could actually be a good thing for the party in defending many of its Westminster seats, so keep the UKIP ball rolling along its bitter and angry way, and split the Tory vote come 2015?

    Seems unlikely, but even if not intended, that could happen I guess, and nothing riles up UKIP like pro-Euers like Clegg stirring them up.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Farage arse-licker upset that Clegg tells the truth about his idol - shock horror
    It's about as truthful as the idea that three million jobs are dependent on the EU, or that 1 in 7 UK firms are started by an immigrant. Lies that Clegg trots out regularly. The guy is a particular sycophant to the EU who doesn't ever dare criticise the thing. A pathetic toadie of a man. I'm sure his MEP pension gives him vested interests here, which is why he's willing to lie and smear at new levels in this debate. Personal finances over national interest. What a scumbag.

    Anyway, you're just upset that the Lib Dems are yesterday's party. Why don't you just merge with the Greens and be done with it?
    Face the truth , your hatred of the EU is so high that you would see any number of jobs however large to leave .
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    felix said:

    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Farage arse-licker upset that Clegg tells the truth about his idol - shock horror
    As I've said repeatedly as a non-UKIP supporter the tactic of smearing and screeching racist is totally counter-productive - you'd think Clegg would be bright enough to have got this by now.
    There's quite an interesting parallel between the UK and Ireland.

    Non-stick Nigel and Teflon Gerry Adams are both seeing their parties gaining support in the Euro elections. Set aside that 50% of the Irish electorate believe GA had something to do with the McConville tragedy, his party is on course to top the poll in Dublin. And that's despite a hostile media as with UKIP in the UK.

    Very much the same pattern of voters being fed up with the traditional parties and wanting to give them all a good kicking.


    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/elections/adams-set-for-biggest-act-of-escapology-since-haughey-30282710.html
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Expressing an opinion is not a smear.

    Nick Clegg believes that Farage is a nasty BNP type as much as he believes three million jobs are actually dependent on the EU. I used to respect him more than the other two big leaders, but not any more. Farage genuinely is the only one who isn't the same. The fact he sat through that abusive interview the other day, giving his honest views to every question just brings him more credit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    Socrates said:

    kle4 said:

    antifrank said:

    Socrates said:

    Last Wednesday, the insider magazine Private Eye also claimed that the Leftist daily The Guardian had made a secret deal with the Tory Party, which claims to be conservative.

    The Tories, it was alleged, had promised the favourite newspaper of the liberal elite a steady supply of damaging stories about UKIP candidates saying daft things (Tories, of course, never say daft things). In return, the newspaper had promised to avoid identifying the source.

    Such stories are immediately picked up by BBC radio and TV news channels, which view The Guardian as sacred text.


    If that's true, my contempt for the Conservative party has reached new lows.

    Political party engages in politics? Well strike me pink.
    No no, you're wrong - when it happens against UKIP it is a heinous and unprecedented crime, for some reason.

    UKIPers calm down, I will concede there has been a concerted effort against your party of choice, mostly because they are a threat, for various reasons in different circumstances, to all the established three.
    Now all the established parties have the same views
    I don't think that's true. They spend far too much time fighting over the 'centre ground' and so use the same vague, bland language to do so, but as much as simplification is necessary, saying they are the same or have the same views is a little too much simplification, a fiction designed to make one's party of choice more the outsider and the other than perhaps they are.

    On the EU they certainly are very similar, and there is not a great range on some other policy areas, but that is not the same as having the same view.

  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    As an observation many keep complaining that ukip is not for anything and has no policies except to be against things. It is a party of negativity they screech.

    The same people then turn around and tell us you should therefore vote for Cameron else Milibrand gets in. Possibly the ultimate vote from a negativity standpoint.

    While I was planning on simply abstaining as none of the big three have any policy worth voting for (plenty worth voting against though) for the first time since I got the vote I find myself now more and more tempted to vote UKIP just to annoy the three main parties.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Smarmeron, that's a fair comment (largely, there was scope for conquests against Parthia/Persia and Germania, perhaps), but agrees with my point: that during external wars Rome and its people were better off than during the civil wars.

    It was also better for the world as a whole. Rome brought stability, prosperity, ingenuity and a willingness to adopt new ideas (half the 'Roman' armaments were blatantly stolen, from the Spanish sword to the Samnite shield).

    Augustus bears some responsibility as he never formalised the role of emperor and the 'might is right' ethos remained. Worked fine when you have a superstar like Trajan in command, but once the rot set in it was hard to stop.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,899
    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Apparently that photo above is "contorted into a provocative, mocking sneer" and English people living in Scotland are now the problem (tbf also according to the ST).

    They've excluded non-resident Scots.
    They've done the English.
    They've done the "anti-Scottish" Scots who don't agree with the SNP.
    They are now doing the English living in Scotland.

    I think we've passed Peak Scapegoat.

    Aha. Polling error margins have become very important.

    :-o

    Only people wittering on about it are English. Seems a bit odd that it is not a concern in Scotland, but the glee from down south on a very small subsample is risable.
    My quote is from Wings Over Scotland. Obviously it is a highly successful English infiltration simulation-of-xenophobia, which raised whatever-it-was from gullible Gnats.

    Lol.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Farage arse-licker upset that Clegg tells the truth about his idol - shock horror
    It's about as truthful as the idea that three million jobs are dependent on the EU, or that 1 in 7 UK firms are started by an immigrant. Lies that Clegg trots out regularly. The guy is a particular sycophant to the EU who doesn't ever dare criticise the thing. A pathetic toadie of a man. I'm sure his MEP pension gives him vested interests here, which is why he's willing to lie and smear at new levels in this debate. Personal finances over national interest. What a scumbag.

    Anyway, you're just upset that the Lib Dems are yesterday's party. Why don't you just merge with the Greens and be done with it?
    Face the truth , your hatred of the EU is so high that you would see any number of jobs however large to leave .
    Not at all, the EU costs us jobs. Only an imbecile would think that the economic effects of European integration have been a positive, when two thirds of young Spaniards are out of work, Portugal will take twenty years to return to pre-crisis income levels, Greece has had years and years of contraction, and the overall Eurozone is barely growing at all. But then the 8-9% of the population still voting for the Lib Dems shows how much imbecility is about.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    ZenPagan said:

    As an observation many keep complaining that ukip is not for anything and has no policies except to be against things. It is a party of negativity they screech.

    The same people then turn around and tell us you should therefore vote for Cameron else Milibrand gets in. Possibly the ultimate vote from a negativity standpoint.

    While I was planning on simply abstaining as none of the big three have any policy worth voting for (plenty worth voting against though) for the first time since I got the vote I find myself now more and more tempted to vote UKIP just to annoy the three main parties.

    that's not quite true ZP there are also some people who will tell you to vote to stop a tory getting in.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    SeanT said:
    Very good piece. For Thailand read much of Asia. In Hong Kong there are more Louis Vuitton shops than there are in New York, Paris, Milan and London combined. The wealth is astounding, yet tens of thousands of people - literally - live in cages. But it's not just Asia. Today we find that the 1,000 richest people in the UK are enjoying some of the finest times they have ever seen:

    http://news.sky.com/story/1263770/britains-richest-1000-people-now-worth-519bn

    At the same time, most normal people are seeing no discernible increase in living standards, many are going backwards.

    This is not a crisis of capitalism - Piketty makes clear he is a strong believer in the market economy - but it is a crisis of a certain kind of unfettered wealth accumulation. Trickle down is not working. And in the end the super rich - corporate or individual - are either going to have to learn that hoarding money they do not need and cannot ever spend is entirely counter-productive, or they are going to find themselves at the mercy of forces they cannot control. It will not end well for them.

  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    Farage is clearly a racist. What is his pro-German, anti-Romanian screed about, if not race-baiting? Isn't pro-German, anti-southern European racial positioning a classic stance among racialists dating back over 100 years?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    SeanT said:

    Disappointing ICM. I'd have been surprised if it hadn't gone down from its previous high water mark, but didn't expect such a dip. Still, the Panelbase and an Express Survation (whose figures they seem rather coy about) seem to imply steady as she goes rather than holed below the waterline.

    Nice to see so many PBers hanging on James Kelly's every word.

    Of course the Libdems are always on hand to provide electoral balm:

    Tom Gordon ‏@ScottishPol 16 mins
    "The LibDems are stuffed" - Prof John Curtice sums up the Euro elections in @newsundayherald http://tinyurl.com/ly25bh9

    'SNP is on course to win third euro seat, polls suggest

    Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University said recent polling evidence pointed to the SNP winning three of the country's six places at the European elections on Thursday.
    As at the last election in 2009, Labour would have two and the Conservatives one, he said. Ukip, tipped for success in England, are unlikely to secure a seat in Scotland. The clear loser would be LibDem MEP George Lyon, who is seeking re-election after a single term. "The LibDems are stuffed," Curtice said.'

    Panelbase shows an increased NO lead of 2 points. You may say this is just MoE but if the reverse were the case, a 2 point narrowing, you'd not hesitate to trumpet the fact.
    Yes I would.
    SeanT said:

    ICM is horrible for Nats. At least you have the grace to admit it. Kudos.

    Any word on what new info you've had on ICM methodolgy over the last 12 hours?
    SeanT said:

    'Indeed. I wonder if ICM have lost the plot along the way. Their indyref polling is also a little suspect, and they admit they have problems doing the modelling.'

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited May 2014
    kle4 said:

    I don't think that's true. They spend far too much time fighting over the 'centre ground' and so use the same vague, bland language to do so, but as much as simplification is necessary, saying they are the same or have the same views is a little too much simplification, a fiction designed to make one's party of choice more the outsider and the other than perhaps they are.

    On the EU they certainly are very similar, and there is not a great range on some other policy areas, but that is not the same as having the same view.

    It's all the narcissism of small differences, like Cantabrigians and Oxonians arguing about the boat race.

    Strange that, given they all went to Cambridge or Oxford.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    Apparently that photo above is "contorted into a provocative, mocking sneer" and English people living in Scotland are now the problem (tbf also according to the ST).

    They've excluded non-resident Scots.
    They've done the English.
    They've done the "anti-Scottish" Scots who don't agree with the SNP.
    They are now doing the English living in Scotland.

    I think we've passed Peak Scapegoat.

    Aha. Polling error margins have become very important.

    :-o

    Only people wittering on about it are English. Seems a bit odd that it is not a concern in Scotland, but the glee from down south on a very small subsample is risable.
    My quote is from Wings Over Scotland. Obviously it is a highly successful English infiltration simulation-of-xenophobia, which raised whatever-it-was from gullible Gnats.

    Lol.
    technically malc's right, WOS is based in Somerset. :-)
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    EPG said:

    Farage is clearly a racist. What is his pro-German, anti-Romanian screed about, if not race-baiting? Isn't pro-German, anti-southern European racial positioning a classic stance among racialists dating back over 100 years?

    Romania isn't in southern Europe, you numpty.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564
    Impressive impact of the return of Gordon Brown!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    edited May 2014
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Expressing an opinion is not a smear.

    The fact he sat through that abusive interview the other day, giving his honest views to every question just brings him more credit.
    Yes, noone else has ever sat through a hostile interview before, he truly is breaking new ground all the time.

    I must say I really am turning against UKIP lately. I like Farage, and I want UKIP to do well, I also want an EU referendum as soon as possible (as much as I know we will not get one), and I acknolwedge they are facing a concerted series of attacks which they personally find harder to fight off as, despite many many supporters among the media, the controlling powers of those media are currently opposed to them.

    But too often they are just coming off like cry babies to me at the moment, whinging about how hard and unfair they have it and, more, that no-one else has ever suffered like they have (in tone if not overt words)

    I don't want to think that, I recognize they have a case in much the same way as how the big two trash the LDs for behaviours they themselves engage in without self awareness in their eagerness to destroy what they see as an upstart party taking votes which belong to them, only magnified because the LDs are also fearful of them, but it's getting unbearable how every dirty trick is apparently not just not right, but the gravest most disgusting thing to evar happen evar you guys, like seriously, you know.

    It's a case of a genuine series of griveances I can get behind, overblown to absurdity of language all the time, meaning I no longer really get angry on their behalf, as they overreact to everything anyway.

    Granted UKIP are not chasing my vote very hard, much as I have always wished them electoral success, but still.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    Socrates said:

    EPG said:

    Farage is clearly a racist. What is his pro-German, anti-Romanian screed about, if not race-baiting? Isn't pro-German, anti-southern European racial positioning a classic stance among racialists dating back over 100 years?

    Romania isn't in southern Europe, you numpty.
    Really? I missed the bit where they towed it up beside Iceland.

    If UKIP want fewer stories about how they say racist, sectarian and idiotic things, they should shelter fewer racists, sectarians and idiots. If they want more stories about how other parties are nasty, they should take a bit of initiative and research them, rather than having hissy fits about how the world doesn't exist to serve them.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Farage arse-licker upset that Clegg tells the truth about his idol - shock horror
    It's about as truthful as the idea that three million jobs are dependent on the EU, or that 1 in 7 UK firms are started by an immigrant. Lies that Clegg trots out regularly. The guy is a particular sycophant to the EU who doesn't ever dare criticise the thing. A pathetic toadie of a man. I'm sure his MEP pension gives him vested interests here, which is why he's willing to lie and smear at new levels in this debate. Personal finances over national interest. What a scumbag.

    Anyway, you're just upset that the Lib Dems are yesterday's party. Why don't you just merge with the Greens and be done with it?
    Face the truth , your hatred of the EU is so high that you would see any number of jobs however large to leave .
    Face the truth, your blind fanatical Europhilia is so high that you would see any damage to the economy, however large, in order to stay in the EU.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Morris_Dancer
    Not sure about the "east" but in Germania (as in Scotland) the Return on Investment made no sense and was unsustainable, from there on in the decline was inevitable.
    Completely off topic, would anyone like to offer an opinion about the returns on industrial investment, as against land, property, and other "commodities"? (excluding industrial tax breaks)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Expressing an opinion is not a smear.

    Nick Clegg believes that Farage is a nasty BNP type as much as he believes three million jobs are actually dependent on the EU. I used to respect him more than the other two big leaders, but not any more. Farage genuinely is the only one who isn't the same. The fact he sat through that abusive interview the other day, giving his honest views to every question just brings him more credit.

    Your opinion is certainly as valid as Clegg's. But opinion is all that it is. How do you know that Clegg does not believe that Farage is a racist or that three million jobs will not be lost if the UK leaves the EU? Isn't it more the case that he sees the world in a very different way to you and to other UKIP supporters? What you think is OK to say, he sees as racist; what you believe about the EU, he does not. He may be wrong. But that is altogether different.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    It is Gordon wot did it !
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    Socrates said:

    kle4 said:

    I don't think that's true. They spend far too much time fighting over the 'centre ground' and so use the same vague, bland language to do so, but as much as simplification is necessary, saying they are the same or have the same views is a little too much simplification, a fiction designed to make one's party of choice more the outsider and the other than perhaps they are.

    On the EU they certainly are very similar, and there is not a great range on some other policy areas, but that is not the same as having the same view.

    It's all the narcissism of small differences, like Cantabrigians and Oxonians arguing about the boat race.

    I can accept there is truth in that. Also, I never knew Cantabrigian refers to things/people pertaining to Cambridge. Also good to learn something new, interesting term.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    @Socrates - The idea that The Guardian is a socialist newspaper is just ridiculous. Making such claims does rather negate other points you make.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Good poll for NO, although there should be no complacency, confirms my view the result will be 60-40 NO
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689

    ZenPagan said:

    As an observation many keep complaining that ukip is not for anything and has no policies except to be against things. It is a party of negativity they screech.

    The same people then turn around and tell us you should therefore vote for Cameron else Milibrand gets in. Possibly the ultimate vote from a negativity standpoint.

    While I was planning on simply abstaining as none of the big three have any policy worth voting for (plenty worth voting against though) for the first time since I got the vote I find myself now more and more tempted to vote UKIP just to annoy the three main parties.

    that's not quite true ZP there are also some people who will tell you to vote to stop a tory getting in.
    The ones who believe ukip votes belong to them by right however are mainly tories. Labour and lib dems will also make the vote for us or the other lot get in noises as well. However as I was referring specifically referring to ukip there I chose to focus on the tory side.

    My fervent apologies to the Conservatives for singling you out, to even the balance let me say to the other parties you are equally crap and indulge in absolutely the same negative tactics.

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited May 2014

    @Socrates - The idea that The Guardian is a socialist newspaper is just ridiculous. Making such claims does rather negate other points you make.

    It is certainly left wing, its editor is a communist, if not a 'socialist' newspaper then how would you describe it?

    [edit] Oops, that sounded ruder than intended SO, but would be intrigued by your opinion.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    My prediction still stays:

    YES 40, NO 60.

    Last year I did say, 33 - 67 but that is probably unlikely.

  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042

    @Socrates - The idea that The Guardian is a socialist newspaper is just ridiculous. Making such claims does rather negate other points you make.

    It is certainly left wing, its editor is a communist, if not a 'socialist' newspaper then how would you describe it?
    I'd describe it as just left-wing. It doesn't (that I've noticed) advocate wholesale nationalisation of multiple major industries.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Expressing an opinion is not a smear.

    Nick Clegg believes that Farage is a nasty BNP type as much as he believes three million jobs are actually dependent on the EU. I used to respect him more than the other two big leaders, but not any more. Farage genuinely is the only one who isn't the same. The fact he sat through that abusive interview the other day, giving his honest views to every question just brings him more credit.

    Your opinion is certainly as valid as Clegg's. But opinion is all that it is. How do you know that Clegg does not believe that Farage is a racist or that three million jobs will not be lost if the UK leaves the EU? Isn't it more the case that he sees the world in a very different way to you and to other UKIP supporters? What you think is OK to say, he sees as racist; what you believe about the EU, he does not. He may be wrong. But that is altogether different.
    The academic author of the three million jobs numbers said it was a "false perspective" and that "there is no a priori reason to suppose that many of these [jobs], if any, would be lost permanently if Britain were to leave the EU.”

    There's no way Clegg does not know this. And if the media was doing its job it would question him on this sort of bullshit. But it doesn't. Instead it concentrates on whether the UKIP candidate for school director in Mugby-on-Sea said something mean about Bulgarians.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337

    I suspect Separatist Scots will cling to Panelbase and expect another poll along from them shortly - whether this will provide succour, time will tell.

    Of course we won't know until September 19 how well any of the pollsters have been able to measure this and have read plausible explanations for why either side may be under-reported - from "shy no" to "unreached yes" voters.

    What is undeniable is thet the YESNP's "momentum with Yes" story has hit the buffers.

    And as The SNP consider "dollarisation" - using the pound with no currency Union, like Panama does with the $, the BBC helpfully reminds us how Panamanian adventures ended last time Scotland tried it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27405350

    There is a PanelBase poll today . It shows No up 2 on 47% and Yes unchanged on 40%. So momentum with No confirmed.
    The Times (£) has an interesting take:

    English votes may kill off independence

    ENGLISH voters living in Scotland could swing the result of the independence referendum in favour of the United Kingdom, according to a new poll.......

    The poll suggests slightly more Scots support than oppose independence (44% versus 42%, with 14% undecided) ahead of September’s vote.

    But it indicates that English voters, who account for 10% of Scotland’s electorate, are 66% against independence, with 27% in favour — which could make the difference between success or failure for the Yes campaign.


    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/ScottishReferendum/article1412162.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_05_18

    Won't that be perfect! The Separatists lose - and they get to blame the English!
    I see nobody on the thread seems to have noted that there is no formal definition of English versus Scottish (in terms of passport and nationality). So it's presumably self-declared. But those who feel assimilated are far more likely to declare themselves Scottish (in that context) and, which is not quite the same thing, less likely to vote No. So there would seem to be an immediate bias and you'd need only about 1.5X to get pretty much the figures shown here. I have to go out for a ramble now, so don't have time to dig into the report, but certainly I would want to look hard at the structure of the questionnaire before relying too much on that headline result one way or another.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    SeanT said:

    BETTING ALERT

    Unsurprisingly, some biggish moves in the indyref market today.

    NO has gone from 1/3 to 1/4 with Ladbrokes. YES odds are drifting elsewhere, etc etc

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome

    Stuart should have told us this but where is he ?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668

    @Socrates - The idea that The Guardian is a socialist newspaper is just ridiculous. Making such claims does rather negate other points you make.

    It is certainly left wing, its editor is a communist, if not a 'socialist' newspaper then how would you describe it?

    Its editor is not a Communist. I would describe The Guardian as being on the smug, urban, centre left. It supported the LibDems at the last election and continues to provide the most coverage of them. The idea that it supports mass nationalisation of the means of production and the abolition of private property is laughable.

  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173

    Impressive impact of the return of Gordon Brown!

    Wrong - its the instant result of Cameron visiting Scotland this week!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Southam Observer Capitalism is not perfect, but in China, for example, before the Communist Party undertook reforms, in 1981 84% lived below $1.25 per day, by 2005 that had fallen to 16% and by some estimates by 2050 China will have the same GDP per capita as the wealthiest nations in the West. In Brazil, the poverty rate fell from 17% to 8% from 1981 to 2005. In India, the total fell from 60% in 1981 to 42% by 2005.
    http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5080
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Expressing an opinion is not a smear.

    Nick Clegg believes that Farage is a nasty BNP type as much as he believes three million jobs are actually dependent on the EU. I used to respect him more than the other two big leaders, but not any more. Farage genuinely is the only one who isn't the same. The fact he sat through that abusive interview the other day, giving his honest views to every question just brings him more credit.

    Your opinion is certainly as valid as Clegg's. But opinion is all that it is. How do you know that Clegg does not believe that Farage is a racist or that three million jobs will not be lost if the UK leaves the EU? Isn't it more the case that he sees the world in a very different way to you and to other UKIP supporters? What you think is OK to say, he sees as racist; what you believe about the EU, he does not. He may be wrong. But that is altogether different.
    The academic author of the three million jobs numbers said it was a "false perspective" and that "there is no a priori reason to suppose that many of these [jobs], if any, would be lost permanently if Britain were to leave the EU.”

    There's no way Clegg does not know this. And if the media was doing its job it would question him on this sort of bullshit. But it doesn't. Instead it concentrates on whether the UKIP candidate for school director in Mugby-on-Sea said something mean about Bulgarians.

    In the same way, Nigel Farage knows that 26 million people are not after my job. That does not stop him approving posters which say that they are.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    @Socrates - The idea that The Guardian is a socialist newspaper is just ridiculous. Making such claims does rather negate other points you make.

    It is certainly left wing, its editor is a communist, if not a 'socialist' newspaper then how would you describe it?

    Its editor is not a Communist. I would describe The Guardian as being on the smug, urban, centre left. It supported the LibDems at the last election and continues to provide the most coverage of them. The idea that it supports mass nationalisation of the means of production and the abolition of private property is laughable.

    So Labour aren't a socialist party then?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    HYUFD said:

    Southam Observer Capitalism is not perfect, but in China, for example, before the Communist Party undertook reforms, in 1981 84% lived below $1.25 per day, by 2005 that had fallen to 16% and by some estimates by 2050 China will have the same GDP per capita as the wealthiest nations in the West. In Brazil, the poverty rate fell from 17% to 8% from 1981 to 2005. In India, the total fell from 60% in 1981 to 42% by 2005.
    http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5080

    And it allows me to be the co-owner of a successful business and to lead a life that my grandparents could not have dreamed of living. I am all for it. What worries me is that the super-rich could bugger it all up for the rest of us if we are not careful. As I understand it, this is Piketty's point as well.

  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Socrates said:

    @Socrates - The idea that The Guardian is a socialist newspaper is just ridiculous. Making such claims does rather negate other points you make.

    It is certainly left wing, its editor is a communist, if not a 'socialist' newspaper then how would you describe it?

    Its editor is not a Communist. I would describe The Guardian as being on the smug, urban, centre left. It supported the LibDems at the last election and continues to provide the most coverage of them. The idea that it supports mass nationalisation of the means of production and the abolition of private property is laughable.

    So Labour aren't a socialist party then?
    Wasn't the whole point of Clause IV being to end the era of Labour being a socialist party? To answer your question: Yes, Labour is not a socialist party.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    SeanT said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Expressing an opinion is not a smear.

    Nick Clegg believes that Farage is a nasty BNP type as much as he believes three million jobs are actually dependent on the EU. I used to respect him more than the other two big leaders, but not any more. Farage genuinely is the only one who isn't the same. The fact he sat through that abusive interview the other day, giving his honest views to every question just brings him more credit.

    Your opinion is certainly as valid as Clegg's. But opinion is all that it is. How do you know that Clegg does not believe that Farage is a racist or that three million jobs will not be lost if the UK leaves the EU? Isn't it more the case that he sees the world in a very different way to you and to other UKIP supporters? What you think is OK to say, he sees as racist; what you believe about the EU, he does not. He may be wrong. But that is altogether different.
    I'd far rather vote for Farage than him.
    Stop the presses.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    @Socrates - The idea that The Guardian is a socialist newspaper is just ridiculous. Making such claims does rather negate other points you make.

    It is certainly left wing, its editor is a communist, if not a 'socialist' newspaper then how would you describe it?

    Its editor is not a Communist. I would describe The Guardian as being on the smug, urban, centre left. It supported the LibDems at the last election and continues to provide the most coverage of them. The idea that it supports mass nationalisation of the means of production and the abolition of private property is laughable.

    That's a fair critique of the Guardian imho. Two points though, it only supported the LibDems at the final hour having been full square behind Labour for almost a decade and just to be clear, my question had no bearing on 'mass nationalisation'. cheers.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Quincel said:

    Socrates said:

    @Socrates - The idea that The Guardian is a socialist newspaper is just ridiculous. Making such claims does rather negate other points you make.

    It is certainly left wing, its editor is a communist, if not a 'socialist' newspaper then how would you describe it?

    Its editor is not a Communist. I would describe The Guardian as being on the smug, urban, centre left. It supported the LibDems at the last election and continues to provide the most coverage of them. The idea that it supports mass nationalisation of the means of production and the abolition of private property is laughable.

    So Labour aren't a socialist party then?
    Wasn't the whole point of Clause IV being to end the era of Labour being a socialist party? To answer your question: Yes, Labour is not a socialist party.
    I'd like to get Southam's view before I respond.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    HYUFD said:

    Southam Observer Capitalism is not perfect, but in China, for example, before the Communist Party undertook reforms, in 1981 84% lived below $1.25 per day, by 2005 that had fallen to 16% and by some estimates by 2050 China will have the same GDP per capita as the wealthiest nations in the West. In Brazil, the poverty rate fell from 17% to 8% from 1981 to 2005. In India, the total fell from 60% in 1981 to 42% by 2005.
    http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5080

    And it allows me to be the co-owner of a successful business and to lead a life that my grandparents could not have dreamed of living. I am all for it. What worries me is that the super-rich could bugger it all up for the rest of us if we are not careful. As I understand it, this is Piketty's point as well.

    The French Revolution did not take place because peasants were starving. It took place because lawyers were starving.

    Similarly, it's not the envy of the poor for the super-rich that threatens capitalism, but the envy of the rich for the super rich that threatens capitalism.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Socrates said:

    @Socrates - The idea that The Guardian is a socialist newspaper is just ridiculous. Making such claims does rather negate other points you make.

    It is certainly left wing, its editor is a communist, if not a 'socialist' newspaper then how would you describe it?

    Its editor is not a Communist. I would describe The Guardian as being on the smug, urban, centre left. It supported the LibDems at the last election and continues to provide the most coverage of them. The idea that it supports mass nationalisation of the means of production and the abolition of private property is laughable.

    So Labour aren't a socialist party then?

    No, they are not. There are some in Labour who like to use the term - and many others that do not - but Labour had its Clause 4 moment a while back and will not be returning to it.

  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    Watching Cameron on Murnaghan you can see why he would prefer the next election to have far more focus on one-on-one interviews (which he is very good at) rather than distracted by big set piece debates where his message will be diluted
  • hamiltonacehamiltonace Posts: 664
    The last comment from John Curtice on the polls was that Yes are running out of time. There are still 4 months left but the Yes campaign needs a game changer. Their previous plan was to wait for the No campaign to disintegrate but this has not happened. As John Curtice also said on the accusation that the No campaign has run a negative campaign "they don't need positive ideas, their idea is in the name".

    We have over the next 3 months, the World Cup, the Commonwealth Games and summer holidays. The only thing that could make an impact is England winning the World Cup!!

    Sat at home with my son and watched the Blethering Referendum recently. I think this took debate to a new low but it also pretty much summed up the mood of Scotland. Hard debate has gone and we are just left with name calling and stupid point scoring.



  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited May 2014

    Socrates said:

    @Socrates - The idea that The Guardian is a socialist newspaper is just ridiculous. Making such claims does rather negate other points you make.

    It is certainly left wing, its editor is a communist, if not a 'socialist' newspaper then how would you describe it?

    Its editor is not a Communist. I would describe The Guardian as being on the smug, urban, centre left. It supported the LibDems at the last election and continues to provide the most coverage of them. The idea that it supports mass nationalisation of the means of production and the abolition of private property is laughable.

    So Labour aren't a socialist party then?

    No, they are not. There are some in Labour who like to use the term - and many others that do not - but Labour had its Clause 4 moment a while back and will not be returning to it.

    I'm glad you mentioned Clause 4. Let's have a look at what it currently says. Page 3, paragraph 1 here:

    http://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Rule-Book-2013.pdf

    "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party."
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    SeanT said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.

    Expressing an opinion is not a smear.

    Nick Clegg believes that Farage is a nasty BNP type as much as he believes three million jobs are actually dependent on the EU. I used to respect him more than the other two big leaders, but not any more. Farage genuinely is the only one who isn't the same. The fact he sat through that abusive interview the other day, giving his honest views to every question just brings him more credit.

    Your opinion is certainly as valid as Clegg's. But opinion is all that it is. How do you know that Clegg does not believe that Farage is a racist or that three million jobs will not be lost if the UK leaves the EU? Isn't it more the case that he sees the world in a very different way to you and to other UKIP supporters? What you think is OK to say, he sees as racist; what you believe about the EU, he does not. He may be wrong. But that is altogether different.
    Clegg is a proven liar, and morally contemptible. He has spent his entire life lying to the British people about Europe, and much else. I'd far rather vote for Farage than him.
    I don't think you would ever have contemplated a Clegg v Farage comparison.

    Cameron v Farage is more like your dilemma. Flip- flop - flip - flop. Is BNP lite in the ascendancy now ?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    surbiton said:

    I don't think you would ever have contemplated a Clegg v Farage comparison.

    Cameron v Farage is more like your dilemma. Flip- flop - flip - flop. Is BNP lite in the ascendancy now ?

    This is rich coming from someone in the bag for Labour, a party that has senior figures say other racial groups like to play divide and rule, and yet is retained in good standing.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    UKIP is the party for people who know the difference between having German neighbours and having Romanian neighbours. The rest of us regard that as net curtain racism, but I expect they will find a substantial part of the electorate nevertheless.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    antifrank said:

    HYUFD said:

    Southam Observer Capitalism is not perfect, but in China, for example, before the Communist Party undertook reforms, in 1981 84% lived below $1.25 per day, by 2005 that had fallen to 16% and by some estimates by 2050 China will have the same GDP per capita as the wealthiest nations in the West. In Brazil, the poverty rate fell from 17% to 8% from 1981 to 2005. In India, the total fell from 60% in 1981 to 42% by 2005.
    http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5080

    And it allows me to be the co-owner of a successful business and to lead a life that my grandparents could not have dreamed of living. I am all for it. What worries me is that the super-rich could bugger it all up for the rest of us if we are not careful. As I understand it, this is Piketty's point as well.

    The French Revolution did not take place because peasants were starving. It took place because lawyers were starving.

    Similarly, it's not the envy of the poor for the super-rich that threatens capitalism, but the envy of the rich for the super rich that threatens capitalism.

    If that is a little dig Antifrank, I am afraid it is misplaced. I assume that you feel no envy to the super-rich, so why should anyone else who is well off? The French revolution is an ideal example of the super rich ignoring all signs and indications of a lifestyle being unsustainable and of paying the price. If it had just been about a few pissed off lawyers, it may not have had the violent and cataclysmic consequences it did. It wasn't nice middle class advocates who stormed the Bastille or dragged the French royal family out of Versailles.
  • WelshBertieWelshBertie Posts: 124
    Financier said:

    YouGov

    DC as PM
    Well: 43 (+3) 95% of Cons VI
    Badly: 50(-2) 3% of Cons VI

    EdM as Leader of Labour
    Well: 24 (-3) 55% of LAB VI
    Badly: 66 (+7) 37% of LAB VI

    NF as leader of UKIP
    Well: 47(-6)
    Badly:39(+11)

    HMG managing the economy:
    Well 45 (+3)
    Badly 45 (-3)

    I do not know what UKIP's policy is on:
    Europe: 23
    Immigration:20
    NHS:63
    Economy: 63
    Education:68
    Crime: 62
    Defence: 64

    You are voting UKIP in the EU elections - WHY?

    Unhappy with UK's membership of the EU: 39
    Unhappy with level of immigration: 22
    Unhappy with main parties: 14
    Want to put pressure on main parties: 14
    UKIP will stand up for Uk in EU parliament: 9
    I like Nigel Farage: 1

    To be honest those are startling figures for Cameron considering he took over as PM in some of the most difficult circumstances imaginable and to be only -7 at this stage in the parliament is probably beyond CCHQ's expectations. A lot can change in 12 months but it's an excellent position to be in. The contrast with Miliband, who can barely get over half of Labour's VI is clear. Axlerod's got his work cut out.

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    a party that has senior figures say other racial groups like to play divide and rule, and yet is retained in good standing?

    Didn't you get the memo? Its impossible for black and asian people to be racist.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    @Socrates - The idea that The Guardian is a socialist newspaper is just ridiculous. Making such claims does rather negate other points you make.

    It is certainly left wing, its editor is a communist, if not a 'socialist' newspaper then how would you describe it?

    Its editor is not a Communist. I would describe The Guardian as being on the smug, urban, centre left. It supported the LibDems at the last election and continues to provide the most coverage of them. The idea that it supports mass nationalisation of the means of production and the abolition of private property is laughable.

    So Labour aren't a socialist party then?

    No, they are not. There are some in Labour who like to use the term - and many others that do not - but Labour had its Clause 4 moment a while back and will not be returning to it.

    I'm glad you mentioned Clause 4. Let's have a look at what it currently says. Page 3, paragraph 1 here:

    http://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Rule-Book-2013.pdf

    "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party."

    And North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic. People can call themselves what they like.

  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    If De Beers controls the supply and means of production of a commodity.....Does that mean it is a communist company?
    On that abstract and entirely random thought, I will take my leave while while my more learned friends discuss the superiority of the "free market"
    (quotation marks intentional)
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,591
    What a boring discussion.

    For people on the left, Socialism is a precise term defining a particular set of policy goals which they do not hold sufficient contempt for as to still consider it worthy of discussion.

    For everyone else, it's a set of policy goals so self evidently stupid that it's now become a generic term of reference to the left.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    antifrank said:

    UKIP is the party for people who know the difference between having German neighbours and having Romanian neighbours. The rest of us regard that as net curtain racism, but I expect they will find a substantial part of the electorate nevertheless.

    Putting aside the small matter of Romanians and Germans being the same race, it's actually the difference between a family with half-German kids versus a group of Romanian men. Because a group of Romanian men in the UK are much, much more likely to be involved in criminality than half-German children.

    ‘This is not to say for a moment that all or even most Romanian people living in the UK are criminals.

    ‘But it is to say that any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door.’
  • WelshBertieWelshBertie Posts: 124

    @Socrates - The idea that The Guardian is a socialist newspaper is just ridiculous. Making such claims does rather negate other points you make.

    It is certainly left wing, its editor is a communist, if not a 'socialist' newspaper then how would you describe it?

    [edit] Oops, that sounded ruder than intended SO, but would be intrigued by your opinion.
    It's not quite the Morning Star or as slavish to Labour as the Mirror is but there's no denying it's incredibly leftwing. But then again it's probably a counterbalance to the Telegraph with the Times occupying the middle ground (though leaning slightly to the right).

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    AntiFrank/Southam As long as most people, and particularly the middle classes are still reasonably well off, how well the super rich are doing will not be a major issue, particularly as most do not encounter them in their daily lives, and those that do, whether in the service industry, construction or as lawyers, accountants or bankers depend on them for their livelihood. According to the Sunday Times today in ten years time the Beckhams will be billionaires, I doubt the fact David Beckham is a billionaire will provoke a revolution!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    antifrank said:

    HYUFD said:

    Southam Observer Capitalism is not perfect, but in China, for example, before the Communist Party undertook reforms, in 1981 84% lived below $1.25 per day, by 2005 that had fallen to 16% and by some estimates by 2050 China will have the same GDP per capita as the wealthiest nations in the West. In Brazil, the poverty rate fell from 17% to 8% from 1981 to 2005. In India, the total fell from 60% in 1981 to 42% by 2005.
    http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5080

    And it allows me to be the co-owner of a successful business and to lead a life that my grandparents could not have dreamed of living. I am all for it. What worries me is that the super-rich could bugger it all up for the rest of us if we are not careful. As I understand it, this is Piketty's point as well.

    The French Revolution did not take place because peasants were starving. It took place because lawyers were starving.

    Similarly, it's not the envy of the poor for the super-rich that threatens capitalism, but the envy of the rich for the super rich that threatens capitalism.

    If that is a little dig Antifrank, I am afraid it is misplaced. I assume that you feel no envy to the super-rich, so why should anyone else who is well off? The French revolution is an ideal example of the super rich ignoring all signs and indications of a lifestyle being unsustainable and of paying the price. If it had just been about a few pissed off lawyers, it may not have had the violent and cataclysmic consequences it did. It wasn't nice middle class advocates who stormed the Bastille or dragged the French royal family out of Versailles.
    Those who write about the super rich are almost exclusively the fairly affluent.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited May 2014
    HYUFD said:

    Good poll for NO, although there should be no complacency, confirms my view the result will be 60-40 NO

    I agree - I am becoming increasingly confident that there will be a decisive "No" vote outcome. Punters sharing this view might feel that Ladbrokes' odds of 5/1 against a 35% - 40% Yes vote offers attractive value, perhaps with a stake saver at odds of 11/4 that the Yes vote will fall into the 40% - 45% band. I will be very surprised if the Yes vote exceeds 45%.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    UKIP is the party for people who know the difference between having German neighbours and having Romanian neighbours.

    I don;t think even farage himself believes that...all he is saying really is that when you grant a country free movement, especially one that's a good deal poorer than you are, it involves some risks to your own voters.

    Risks that other parties would rather you didn't think about.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,789
    SeanT said:
    Like the old PB days with you and HD2 in the comments.

    I certainly think there's been a shift in the structure of the economy in this country from one where work was the route to prosperity to one where ownership is dominant.

    Trickle down economics have been replaced by trickle out.

    Witness the end of real wages growth during the past decade, falling home ownership etc.

    What is particularly malign is that it is linked to growing wealth inequality.

    Not only do the 1% have increasing proportions of the wealth they are also protected against loss by their increasing control of the political establishment. The bank bailouts being the classic example - shareholders wiped out, workers sacked by the tens of thousands but the executive oligarchs walking away with multi-millions.

    And this links into your blog of yesturday - the establishment's hatred of UKIP. UKIP isn't a threat because of what if believes but because of what it is - a non-metropolitan working class party.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Socrates/Southam Ed Miliband did say he was doing his best to bring back socialism to a passer by in the street, but he is hardly Che Guevara. Outside of the Green Party, and a few stragglers in TUSC, RESPECT and Left Unity socialism in its purest form has few advocates in mainstream politics
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    HYUFD said:

    Southam Observer Capitalism is not perfect, but in China, for example, before the Communist Party undertook reforms, in 1981 84% lived below $1.25 per day, by 2005 that had fallen to 16% and by some estimates by 2050 China will have the same GDP per capita as the wealthiest nations in the West. In Brazil, the poverty rate fell from 17% to 8% from 1981 to 2005. In India, the total fell from 60% in 1981 to 42% by 2005.
    http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5080

    And it allows me to be the co-owner of a successful business and to lead a life that my grandparents could not have dreamed of living. I am all for it. What worries me is that the super-rich could bugger it all up for the rest of us if we are not careful. As I understand it, this is Piketty's point as well.

    The French Revolution did not take place because peasants were starving. It took place because lawyers were starving.

    Similarly, it's not the envy of the poor for the super-rich that threatens capitalism, but the envy of the rich for the super rich that threatens capitalism.

    If that is a little dig Antifrank, I am afraid it is misplaced. I assume that you feel no envy to the super-rich, so why should anyone else who is well off? The French revolution is an ideal example of the super rich ignoring all signs and indications of a lifestyle being unsustainable and of paying the price. If it had just been about a few pissed off lawyers, it may not have had the violent and cataclysmic consequences it did. It wasn't nice middle class advocates who stormed the Bastille or dragged the French royal family out of Versailles.
    Those who write about the super rich are almost exclusively the fairly affluent.

    And what about those who read about them? And why does that imply that anyone is envious?

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    And North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic. People can call themselves what they like.

    So Labour are lying about being socialists then? As are the huge

    You're scraping the barrel here Southam. Sometimes you need to realise when you're wrong. Labour are a socialist party, the Guardian is a socialist newspaper, Nick Clegg is a lying weasel, and Mitt Romney isn't going to win the presidential election.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    maaarsh said:

    What a boring discussion.

    For people on the left, Socialism is a precise term defining a particular set of policy goals which they do not hold sufficient contempt for as to still consider it worthy of discussion.

    For everyone else, it's a set of policy goals so self evidently stupid that it's now become a generic term of reference to the left.

    I don't see that as very encouraging. The left-right axis as some immutable set of values is already bullcrap without us further diluting it by associating socialism as a generic term for one half of that spectrum automatically.

    If nothing else we should keep the definition distinct so that we do not fall into the trap of pretending every issue and policy must conform to some two position state, either one or the other. We should have as many options as possible, and pretending that all people on the left are socialists does not help that any more than those equating UKIP with the BNP.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    surbiton said:

    My prediction still stays:

    YES 40, NO 60.

    Last year I did say, 33 - 67 but that is probably unlikely.

    There's still a chance of the latter. In the final analysis it'll come down to a double turnout feature - high turnout and differential turnout.

    The last McARSE turnout projection published on 17th April was 81%. If this turns out to be a few percentage points short then the differential filter would edge NO south, close to 35%.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    I do like a comment under SeanT's article today:

    ...understanding that political organisation is a spectrum, and not a binary choice between capitalism and communism.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    HYUFD said:

    Southam Observer Capitalism is not perfect, but in China, for example, before the Communist Party undertook reforms, in 1981 84% lived below $1.25 per day, by 2005 that had fallen to 16% and by some estimates by 2050 China will have the same GDP per capita as the wealthiest nations in the West. In Brazil, the poverty rate fell from 17% to 8% from 1981 to 2005. In India, the total fell from 60% in 1981 to 42% by 2005.
    http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5080

    And it allows me to be the co-owner of a successful business and to lead a life that my grandparents could not have dreamed of living. I am all for it. What worries me is that the super-rich could bugger it all up for the rest of us if we are not careful. As I understand it, this is Piketty's point as well.

    The French Revolution did not take place because peasants were starving. It took place because lawyers were starving.

    Similarly, it's not the envy of the poor for the super-rich that threatens capitalism, but the envy of the rich for the super rich that threatens capitalism.

    If that is a little dig Antifrank, I am afraid it is misplaced. I assume that you feel no envy to the super-rich, so why should anyone else who is well off? The French revolution is an ideal example of the super rich ignoring all signs and indications of a lifestyle being unsustainable and of paying the price. If it had just been about a few pissed off lawyers, it may not have had the violent and cataclysmic consequences it did. It wasn't nice middle class advocates who stormed the Bastille or dragged the French royal family out of Versailles.
    Those who write about the super rich are almost exclusively the fairly affluent.

    And what about those who read about them? And why does that imply that anyone is envious?

    The problem most people seem to have with the super rich is that they have too much money. It is hard to find any other word for that than envy.
This discussion has been closed.