The National Security Agency (NSA) is collecting millions of images a day for facial-recognition purposes, according to classified documents obtained from Edward Snowden by the New York Times.
Wow. That's a big deal. It means also, of course, that when the Sindy vote is a NO that all independent minded Scots should vote Tory in May! This is worth a thread on its own.
I wonder what has caused Ms Davidson's turnaround from her bitter opposition to any such change?
BBC is being extremely misleading in headlining and first-sentencing it 'full income tax powers', I see. Nothing of the sort.
(Devomax is, to be pedantic, the wrong term - that would be all taxes and spending retained in Scotland, with a sub sent down to Westminster for defence and foreign policy.)
First impression is that what the Tories offer is a bit more than the present powers, though rather more than what Ms Lamont and Labour cobbled together, and without key elements (e.g. income tax allowances, oil, corporation tax [already devolved to NI, NB]).
However, quite apart the fact that promises in manfestos are not worth hard legislation passed before September, the flaw in this rhetoric is that to believe that the Tories will deliver this, it is necessary to believe that the Tories win the next UKGE. And that has a significant effect on indyref VI.
Without a monarchy, our system of honours and privilege would dissolve. There are far to many at the top who would stop such a narrative becoming mainstream.
Without a monarchy, our system of honours and privilege would dissolve. There are far to many at the top who would stop such a narrative becoming mainstream.
The likes of Kinnock and Prescott who leapt at the chance to be ennobled, and clamber aboard the ermine gravy train.
Apologies for confusion. Richard's "chattels" comment does get to the root justification of the current system even if he disagrees with it. My personal preference would be for taxation to be on as individual level as possible and the benefits system to take household level into account where necessary. It seems to me that the ever-closer interconnection of the benefits and taxation systems is a policy mistake that will become very hard to reverse, for similar reasons to the illogical persistence of NI.
Why on Earth does it make sense for the divorce laws and the benefits system to be judged on household income/assets, yet taxation be based on an individual basis?
The answer to this one is simple. Expediency.
If you did taxation on a household basis the government would raise less tax, because all of the one-income households would pay less tax.
If you did benefits on an individual basis then you would have to pay out more benefits, because the government takes account of the savings people can make by sharing accommodation, meals, etc, when setting benefit rates for couples and individuals, and you'd end up paying out benefits to some of the non-working adults in one-income households.
In some respects it is a terrible reason, and in others it is quite a good one. I would prefer more consistency, but the status quo is judged by most people to be the pragmatic and realistic choice.
Without a monarchy, our system of honours and privilege would dissolve. There are far to many at the top who would stop such a narrative becoming mainstream.
It's at times like this when I think Aurelio Lippo Brandolini's magnificent De Comparatione Reipublicae et Regni should be compulsory reading. A translation by the great James Hankins was published by Harvard University Press in 2009, and is available in most good bookshops.
If you did taxation on a household basis the government would raise less tax, because all of the one-income households would pay less tax.
I dont think that's true. I doubt Government would adjust its tax / spending / borrowing policies to fit whether it taxes on an individual or household basis. Surely moving from one to another would be accompanied by adjustments to bands / rates to keep tax take constant? The main implication being transfers between different types of taxpayers (eg from singles to partnered people).
If you did taxation on a household basis the government would raise less tax, because all of the one-income households would pay less tax.
I dont think that's true. I doubt Government would adjust its tax / spending / borrowing policies to fit whether it taxes on an individual or household basis. Surely moving from one to another would be accompanied by adjustments to bands / rates to keep tax take constant? The main implication being transfers between different types of taxpayers (eg from singles to partnered people).
Right. This is what the US does - different bands for registered couples and individuals.
Supporters of the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland have expressed growing optimism that the power will be in place by 2017. Stormont wants to be able to match the 12.5% tax rate in the Republic of Ireland. The optimism comes despite an assertion by the Conservative Party in Scotland that corporation tax was "the least suitable of all taxes for devolution". That conclusion is contained in the party's Scottish devolution commission. The commission is chaired by Lord Strathclyde, former leader of the House of Lords. It said that corporation tax was "not economical to collect on a small scale" and "does not generate a reliable yield". It also asserts that "devolution would be complex in law".
However, the BBC understands that HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) have almost completed detailed technical work on corporation tax devolution for Northern Ireland. HMRC is preparing advice for government lawyers who will draft the legislation which can then be brought before parliament before the end of 2014. The most likely time for an announcement from the Westminster government is around the time of the Chancellor's autumn statement.'
I rather suspect that this proposal will be closely linked to the West Lothian Question, for the reasons we were discussing earlier; as a package, Holyrood taxation powers combined with some mechanism for alleviating the WLQ makes good political sense.
Without a monarchy, our system of honours and privilege would dissolve. There are far to many at the top who would stop such a narrative becoming mainstream.
What's interesting is how many Republics do keep systems of honours and titles, and heredity.
I rather suspect that this proposal will be closely linked to the West Lothian Question, for the reasons we were discussing earlier; as a package, Holyrood taxation powers combined with some mechanism for alleviating the WLQ makes good political sense.
Thanks for that - he's usually worth reading. Though it would seem slightly odd to link the WLQ and Tory proposals for devolution. From our earlier discussion, what struck me was that the WLQ seems to be only a problem when Labour are in charge (it was a bit of an issue with the LDs too, from the student fees, but that seems much less of an issue now).
Without a monarchy, our system of honours and privilege would dissolve. There are far to many at the top who would stop such a narrative becoming mainstream.
What's interesting is how many Republics do keep systems of honours and titles, and heredity.
Monarchy is, essentially, a lefty socialist construct.
Consider:
* The hereditary principle - a feature of so many socialist party dynasties, eg. the Benns in the UK, the Nehru-Gandhis in India, and not to mention the Kims in North Korea!
* Pomp and circumstance - parades and what-not, so utterly North Korean in their nature!
* And of course monarchs (usually) have a guaranteed job for life - another quintessentially socialist ideal!
o/t Paddy Power is offering 8/11 on the next Italian general election being 6 months or more from now. Given Renzi's impressive euro election win and his determination to carry on rather than call an election to give himself a mandate that must be quite good value?
There are some good points mixed up with some rubbish points. It's hardly a surprise that the public consider politicians less corrupt than at the height of the expenses scandal, nor that they are more optimistic about the economy than during the depths of the deepest recession for over 90 years.
I rather suspect that this proposal will be closely linked to the West Lothian Question, for the reasons we were discussing earlier; as a package, Holyrood taxation powers combined with some mechanism for alleviating the WLQ makes good political sense.
Thanks for that - he's usually worth reading. Though it would seem slightly odd to link the WLQ and Tory proposals for devolution. From our earlier discussion, what struck me was that the WLQ seems to be only a problem when Labour are in charge (it was a bit of an issue with the LDs too, from the student fees, but that seems much less of an issue now).
I wonder if Scottish Devomax / WLQ resolution is potentially just the warm-up act for EV4EL in the Tory manifesto? Giving a political voice to England would IMHO be a game changing political move for 2015.
I suspect a more federal UK is coming one way or another as the obvious ennui of many outside England can't be addressed any other way than through full independence - which is not what I believe most Scots want most (but rather to keep the good bits of union and otherwise self rule). The mainstream party that embraces federalism first will reap the reward.
Mr. Observer, why do you say he'll be the last king?
The popularity of the monarchy is at an all time low. I suspect that at some there'll be a referendum and people will vote for it to be abolished. Felipe has a hell of a job on his hands to prevent that happening.
He's young, fairly popular in comparison to the rest of the family. His wife is glamorous and he has two young daughters. All this together with some careful reforms could put the monarchy in Spain back on track. That said I think of any nation likely to ditch monarchy Spain has to be top of the list.
@Sean_F Yes it is fascinating, America causes me no end of amusement with it's system of "royalty".
The USA was consciously and deliberately modelled on the Roman Republic of Cato and Cicero. It was to be led by landowners. The lower classes would have some input into the system, but the Founding Fathers never intended it to be a democracy, which they associated with anarchy and mob rule. Although the USA now has universal suffrage (felons excepted) it's striking how political power passes down from generation to generation among the same families; and of course, access to great wealth is essential for a successful political career.
If you did taxation on a household basis the government would raise less tax, because all of the one-income households would pay less tax.
I dont think that's true. I doubt Government would adjust its tax / spending / borrowing policies to fit whether it taxes on an individual or household basis. Surely moving from one to another would be accompanied by adjustments to bands / rates to keep tax take constant? The main implication being transfers between different types of taxpayers (eg from singles to partnered people).
Right, but it's making that adjustment that is the whole problem, since it creates winners and losers, and the winners aren't grateful and the losers complain.
If you made the changes without any adjustment there would only be winners.
From our earlier discussion, what struck me was that the WLQ seems to be only a problem when Labour are in charge.
Yes, but the Conservatives will, not unreasonably, want to put in place a structure which won't be immediately reversed if Labour get back into power.
In fact that very point was made to me some months ago when I attended a dinner where the main speaker was a cabinet minister. I was able to chat to the minister during drinks before the dinner, and I asked what was being done about the WLQ. The response was quite interesting: I don't want to go into too much detail, but the gist of it was that the mechanism for dealing with it wasn't in itself too hard, but making the solution durable in the event of a Labour majority was very hard.
What amazed me about the poll results in the OP was how consistent they are across such a large number of seats, albeit they are all Lab-Con marginals.
Right, but it's making that adjustment that is the whole problem, since it creates winners and losers, and the winners aren't grateful and the losers complain.
Indeed, which is the reason I've long argued that no Government will ever abolish NI or merge it into IT unless they had enough money to do it without there being significant losers as a result (ie as part of a huge tax cut).
You are conflating socialism (and indeed the proper meaning of communism) with the retention of power by those who have achieved it. In such cases, those people are no longer socialists.
I know the SNP say they would like the Queen to remain the monarch but otherwise who would you think should be King or Queen of Scotland?
Ideas might include - Sean Connery - Princess Anne - Descendant of Rabbie Burns or Robert the Bruce - Billy Connolly - Annie Lennox - Andy Murray - Sir Chris Hoy
I believe our Queen is more popular than any politician in the USA or Eire.
Do you want to back that up with any polling? Ireland's most recent Presidents have been very popular. The following article states that Mary McAleese left office with an approval rating of 92% which I dont think the Queen has matched in recent decades and she has often been below that:
The USA was consciously and deliberately modelled on the Roman Republic of Cato and Cicero. It was to be led by landowners. The lower classes would have some input into the system, but the Founding Fathers never intended it to be a democracy, which they associated with anarchy and mob rule. Although the USA now has universal suffrage (felons excepted) it's striking how political power passes down from generation to generation among the same families; and of course, access to great wealth is essential for a successful political career.
Exactly right. The United States is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy, and was intended to have a mixed constitution. The Senators, for example, were originally appointed by the State Legislatures, and the Senate was intended to be aristocratic. There is a strong argument that America has ceased to be a republic, and degenerated into a democracy, which all the founding fathers rightly considered a perverted constitution.
Do the LDs still maintain their principled support for PR? Yes.
If Lib Dems have 10% of the votes and 10% of the MPs at Westminster they would have 62 MPs, more than the current 56.
Indeed, the Party supports the much more proportional STV rather than the appalling AV which was rightly rejected in the 2011 Referendum and FPTP which works very well for two parties and rather less well for all the others.
Given that turkeys generally don't vote for Christmas, I don't expect either the Conservatives or Labour to give up FPTP for Westminster soon though they happily concede forms of PR for elections that don't count such as the London Mayoral and European Parliamentary contests.
Something of a disconnect between those 2 polls and even allowing for the distorting effect of UKIP in both I suspect neither poll is an accurate picture of the current situation.
In fact the Ashcroft polls have generally been a bit 'bi-polar' so far which makes me wonder why so much importance is attached to his marginal polling.
Surely putting EV4EL or indeed a full English Parliament on the statute books would be effectively irreversible by Labour? Technically they could in the same way that Scottish devolution is technically reversible too - but it would cost them the subsequent election and probably trigger an early election. I don't think becoming the 'anti-English party' is something Labour would sensibly aspire to.
Blimey the Ashcroft National Poll is, erm, an outlier perhaps.... looks a little silly to me.
UKIP trounce the Tories in the C2 section in this poll, and nearly outpoll Labour as well, helping to make the Conservative to UKIP switchers the largest group of swing voters in the poll.
However, the C2 group has been consistently under-represented in most opinion polls, including Ashcroft's, and so the large variations in voting intention found in this group are particularly subject to sampling error, as we are seeing with large variations in the Ashcroft poll from week-to-week.
The question I am pondering is not so much "Why is there so much variation in the Ashcroft Polls?", but "[Why] is there less variation in the other polls?"
So far the Ashcroft national polls have been all over the shop. We have supposedly gone from a tory lead of 2 to a Labour lead of 9 in 15 days. I mean, really?
The Newark numbers look fairly predictable and reflect the unprecedented Conservative effort - can you believe a sitting Prime Minister campaigning in a by-election in a seat with a 16,000 majority ? IF the Conservatives lose this, it will be a huge slap in the face for both David Cameron and the much-vaunted Conservative machine.
The main poll numbers - wow. 14% for parties other than the main four. The LDs at 6% - well, possible after the far from positive week's media but the real shock number (if it's correct) is the 25% for the Conservatives.
I find that hard to believe but if so, it would be an unprecedented low for the party in this Parliament and would suggest, I would think, at least half the current Conservative Parliamentary Party losing their seats.
So far the Ashcroft national polls have been all over the shop. We have supposedly gone from a tory lead of 2 to a Labour lead of 9 in 15 days. I mean, really?
The sample size, after adjusting for certainty to vote, is quite small: just over 500. So we should expect quite a lot of volatility purely on statistical variance. As Oblitus points out, it's even worse when you allow for the corrections made to get a representative sample.
You are conflating socialism (and indeed the proper meaning of communism) with the retention of power by those who have achieved it. In such cases, those people are no longer socialists.
I know the SNP say they would like the Queen to remain the monarch but otherwise who would you think should be King or Queen of Scotland?
Ideas might include - Sean Connery - Princess Anne - Descendant of Rabbie Burns or Robert the Bruce - Billy Connolly - Annie Lennox - Andy Murray - Sir Chris Hoy
As one of many 22x great grandsons of Robert the Bruce, very kind of you to offer. However I would settle for the restoration of one of the many Baronial titles linked to our ruined castles dotted all over the north of Scotland.
The USA was consciously and deliberately modelled on the Roman Republic of Cato and Cicero. It was to be led by landowners. The lower classes would have some input into the system, but the Founding Fathers never intended it to be a democracy, which they associated with anarchy and mob rule. Although the USA now has universal suffrage (felons excepted) it's striking how political power passes down from generation to generation among the same families; and of course, access to great wealth is essential for a successful political career.
Exactly right. The United States is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy, and was intended to have a mixed constitution. The Senators, for example, were originally appointed by the State Legislatures, and the Senate was intended to be aristocratic. There is a strong argument that America has ceased to be a republic, and degenerated into a democracy, which all the founding fathers rightly considered a perverted constitution.
There's not a strong argument for this at all. The latest research shows the USA to be an oligarchy, where popular opinion matters not at all for policy decisions:
The perversion that has happened to the US political system is that it has become corrupted by special interest, which the Founding Fathers designed the entire system to avoid.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the Founding Fathers had varied views, with men like Jefferson being far more democratic than men like Hamilton. Indeed, the US system had a far broader franchise than any other nation in the world at the time. Any hostility to "democracy" was not to be solved by aristocracy, but by a written constitution and a bill of rights.
One thing seems very clear, if the Tories score 40+% on Thursday in Newark, the real national voting numbers are nothing like Lord A's other poll today. Incidentally was it done by ComRes or Survation? Would explain a great deal.
@TomMayerEuropa !!! German Chancellor #Merkel says: if necessary vote for #juncker in EuCo against #cameron and british objections
OpenEurope have some possible blocking minorities: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpIRhvDIYAAVdAq.jpg Start with UK, Sweden, Holland and Hungary, then find another large country, the obvious ones being Italy (who are being a bit vague) and France (who want their former Socialist finance minister - not sure Cameron could sell that one as a win...)
The reason I still like Shadsy's 4/6 odds is that Juncker gets multiple shots at this. Not only is he clearly odds-on for the first vote, if the heads of government vote for somebody else the first time the parliament are likely to vote them down and tell them to try again.
You may count on my support should you offer me a small western coastal "strath". It need not be large, perhaps a few acres, and the land does not need to be fertile so long as the slope is around 55 degrees of inclination towards the south. (proximity to the gulf stream would be nice, but not essential)
Wow. That's a big deal. It means also, of course, that when the Sindy vote is a NO that all independent minded Scots should vote Tory in May! This is worth a thread on its own.
They are offering nothing as usual, it is pure bollocks. Powers all retained in Westminster and responsibility and budget cuts to Scotland.
I rather suspect that this proposal will be closely linked to the West Lothian Question, for the reasons we were discussing earlier; as a package, Holyrood taxation powers combined with some mechanism for alleviating the WLQ makes good political sense.
It is purely a PR exercise and will result in reduced budget and added responsibility , totally useless. How could Scotland increase tax and survive , utter crap.
Comments
A few thousand will be filed on the 'Dork eating a bacon sandwich' drive.
BBC is being extremely misleading in headlining and first-sentencing it 'full income tax powers', I see. Nothing of the sort.
(Devomax is, to be pedantic, the wrong term - that would be all taxes and spending retained in Scotland, with a sub sent down to Westminster for defence and foreign policy.)
First impression is that what the Tories offer is a bit more than the present powers, though rather more than what Ms Lamont and Labour cobbled together, and without key elements (e.g. income tax allowances, oil, corporation tax [already devolved to NI, NB]).
However, quite apart the fact that promises in manfestos are not worth hard legislation passed before September, the flaw in this rhetoric is that to believe that the Tories will deliver this, it is necessary to believe that the Tories win the next UKGE. And that has a significant effect on indyref VI.
Without a monarchy, our system of honours and privilege would dissolve.
There are far to many at the top who would stop such a narrative becoming mainstream.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/exclusive-eurosceptic-plotters-mull-queens-speech-revolt/
If you did taxation on a household basis the government would raise less tax, because all of the one-income households would pay less tax.
If you did benefits on an individual basis then you would have to pay out more benefits, because the government takes account of the savings people can make by sharing accommodation, meals, etc, when setting benefit rates for couples and individuals, and you'd end up paying out benefits to some of the non-working adults in one-income households.
In some respects it is a terrible reason, and in others it is quite a good one. I would prefer more consistency, but the status quo is judged by most people to be the pragmatic and realistic choice.
Yes, and many others beside,
Does your statement negate what I posted ?
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/06/02/five-myths-about-ukips-victory/
As always, dates look rather important.
Do the LDs still maintain their principled support for PR?
Yes.
If Lib Dems have 10% of the votes and 10% of the MPs at Westminster they would have 62 MPs, more than the current 56.
'Northern Ireland corporation tax: Supporters optimistic
Supporters of the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland have expressed growing optimism that the power will be in place by 2017.
Stormont wants to be able to match the 12.5% tax rate in the Republic of Ireland.
The optimism comes despite an assertion by the Conservative Party in Scotland that corporation tax was "the least suitable of all taxes for devolution".
That conclusion is contained in the party's Scottish devolution commission.
The commission is chaired by Lord Strathclyde, former leader of the House of Lords.
It said that corporation tax was "not economical to collect on a small scale" and "does not generate a reliable yield".
It also asserts that "devolution would be complex in law".
However, the BBC understands that HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) have almost completed detailed technical work on corporation tax devolution for Northern Ireland.
HMRC is preparing advice for government lawyers who will draft the legislation which can then be brought before parliament before the end of 2014.
The most likely time for an announcement from the Westminster government is around the time of the Chancellor's autumn statement.'
http://tinyurl.com/o29m4ps
It's at times like this, I understand why people cling to irrational beliefs.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/are-we-witnessing-the-strange-rebirth-of-conservative-scotland/
I rather suspect that this proposal will be closely linked to the West Lothian Question, for the reasons we were discussing earlier; as a package, Holyrood taxation powers combined with some mechanism for alleviating the WLQ makes good political sense.
UKIP 4.3 <<
Yes it is fascinating, America causes me no end of amusement with it's system of "royalty".
Consider:
* The hereditary principle - a feature of so many socialist party dynasties, eg. the Benns in the UK, the Nehru-Gandhis in India, and not to mention the Kims in North Korea!
* Pomp and circumstance - parades and what-not, so utterly North Korean in their nature!
* And of course monarchs (usually) have a guaranteed job for life - another quintessentially socialist ideal!
I suspect a more federal UK is coming one way or another as the obvious ennui of many outside England can't be addressed any other way than through full independence - which is not what I believe most Scots want most (but rather to keep the good bits of union and otherwise self rule). The mainstream party that embraces federalism first will reap the reward.
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110628/lead/lead1.html
I believe our Queen is more popular than any politician in the USA or Eire.
If you made the changes without any adjustment there would only be winners.
Of course the Royal Family's Indian!
Queen Elizabeth, descended from Victoria, Empress of India, so Indian.
All live in big family house.
All go into family business.
All have arranged marriages*
Only have sons, daughters no good!
*This is from Goodness Gracious Me, prior to the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
In fact that very point was made to me some months ago when I attended a dinner where the main speaker was a cabinet minister. I was able to chat to the minister during drinks before the dinner, and I asked what was being done about the WLQ. The response was quite interesting: I don't want to go into too much detail, but the gist of it was that the mechanism for dealing with it wasn't in itself too hard, but making the solution durable in the event of a Labour majority was very hard.
You are conflating socialism (and indeed the proper meaning of communism) with the retention of power by those who have achieved it.
In such cases, those people are no longer socialists.
EDIT - that's pretty emphatic. Plus Clegg's mob get their money back.
I know the SNP say they would like the Queen to remain the monarch but otherwise who would you think should be King or Queen of Scotland?
Ideas might include
- Sean Connery
- Princess Anne
- Descendant of Rabbie Burns or Robert the Bruce
- Billy Connolly
- Annie Lennox
- Andy Murray
- Sir Chris Hoy
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/the-mac-factor-26750160.html
UKIP 5 >>
Lab 75 >>
Glad I got on at 4/7 :-)
If Ashcroft is correct then Con would still win. But if Con lead was only say 10% then UKIP might well win.
Given that turkeys generally don't vote for Christmas, I don't expect either the Conservatives or Labour to give up FPTP for Westminster soon though they happily concede forms of PR for elections that don't count such as the London Mayoral and European Parliamentary contests.
In a PHONE POLL.
Taxi for Nick and Danny, only the appalling 25% for the Cons can save Cable !
Another one for the shredder.
Euros effect still in evidence.
The Tories hope.
Surely putting EV4EL or indeed a full English Parliament on the statute books would be effectively irreversible by Labour? Technically they could in the same way that Scottish devolution is technically reversible too - but it would cost them the subsequent election and probably trigger an early election. I don't think becoming the 'anti-English party' is something Labour would sensibly aspire to.
However, the C2 group has been consistently under-represented in most opinion polls, including Ashcroft's, and so the large variations in voting intention found in this group are particularly subject to sampling error, as we are seeing with large variations in the Ashcroft poll from week-to-week.
The question I am pondering is not so much "Why is there so much variation in the Ashcroft Polls?", but "[Why] is there less variation in the other polls?"
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
So Con effectively at a 13 year low with less than a year to go to a general election.
Not ideal, to say the least.
The main poll numbers - wow. 14% for parties other than the main four. The LDs at 6% - well, possible after the far from positive week's media but the real shock number (if it's correct) is the 25% for the Conservatives.
I find that hard to believe but if so, it would be an unprecedented low for the party in this Parliament and would suggest, I would think, at least half the current Conservative Parliamentary Party losing their seats.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
The perversion that has happened to the US political system is that it has become corrupted by special interest, which the Founding Fathers designed the entire system to avoid.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the Founding Fathers had varied views, with men like Jefferson being far more democratic than men like Hamilton. Indeed, the US system had a far broader franchise than any other nation in the world at the time. Any hostility to "democracy" was not to be solved by aristocracy, but by a written constitution and a bill of rights.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpIRhvDIYAAVdAq.jpg
Start with UK, Sweden, Holland and Hungary, then find another large country, the obvious ones being Italy (who are being a bit vague) and France (who want their former Socialist finance minister - not sure Cameron could sell that one as a win...)
The reason I still like Shadsy's 4/6 odds is that Juncker gets multiple shots at this. Not only is he clearly odds-on for the first vote, if the heads of government vote for somebody else the first time the parliament are likely to vote them down and tell them to try again.
My humour chip is intact Sunil, at least in respect of yourself. Possibly yours needs a slight reboot? :-)
You may count on my support should you offer me a small western coastal "strath". It need not be large, perhaps a few acres, and the land does not need to be fertile so long as the slope is around 55 degrees of inclination towards the south. (proximity to the gulf stream would be nice, but not essential)