The postwar record of British teams is one of underperformance, even in the heyday of British Football of the fifties and sixties. We naively assumed that as English and Scots invented the game, and introduced it around the world we would dominate internationally. The 1966 Campaign started poorly, but the team got better as time went on. Generally this is the case, it takes time for a team to gel and get used to each other.
The England team is in transition, from one generation to the next, and neither Rooney or Gerrard will be the future of English football. There are some talented individuals but they need to be knitted into a coherent team. I do not blame Roy, indeed I think his approach was the right one, both in team selection and tactics. What is needed is for more preparation time before the tournament. The premiership plays high tempo football, part of the reason for its popularity around the world. The team needs time for minor injuries to recover and for the team to gel.
England away from home have always struggled. They never even qualified in 74 and 78 when there was hardly any foreign players in the first division and their club teams were winning European cups.
It will not make a difference.
The only factor which could make a difference is the thought for many Scots especially Labour voters, is more Conservative rule from Westminster.
I had a vote living in Scotland , I would vote yes, then you make your own choice and don`t have to worry ever again of the possibility of the conservative party from England ruling over you.
I well remember us being urged to support the Jocks in 1978. The difference is that the Scots went out with high expectations, even though they had the same wall to wall advertising opportunities.
Their first match was against Peru and their thirty eight year old centre forward, Cubillas. I remember it fondly; he scored twice in an easy 3-1 victory. After the match, I walked out into the back garden and glanced over at my next door neighbour who'd just come out too.
We both collapsed in almost hysterical laughter. Thanks for that glorious memory, Scotland.
Will England respond in the same manner by giving an Archie Gemmill-like performance in the last match against Costa Rica? Somehow I doubt it. The Scots did have a good team and were hurt by all the insults they had endured back home. The English public, by comparison, almost expected it.
Costa Rica 2 England 1 has a nice symmetry.
1978 was great , what a summer, World Cup was a disaster but what a hoot and good excuse for a massive binge. The mass hysteria was incredible, but soon brought back to earth as usual. Ally was a star.
Ah, another in the hilarious series of articles that included the 'Downfall of Rangers: why it's bad for the Yes campaign', and 'The White Paper: why it's bad for the Yes campaign'.
It's a pity this place is so utterly irrelevant to the referendum, there would be quite a few Yes votes in the bag if anyone in Scotland read PB at peak bollocks.
Ha ha ha , Liberal voice, you could not make it up. You are really desperate now Flash.
Still there is always Pat Kane and the fat lottery winner ....
Good old unionists, always personal insults, all they have to offer. I see carlotta whining elsewhere as normal, like an old broken record. Just needs Scott to post someone else's opinions to make a full house on Britnat Bingo.
To describe Colin and Chris as fat isn't an insult , it's euphemistic.
If only Britnat supporters would use their good fortune to fund anything other than labour or Tory parties. Some people give money for the benefit of others not to purchase benefit for themselves. Britnats are the latter just in case that is too deep for you.
"New information about Rowlings' estimated $160 million in charitable giving combined with Britain's high tax rates bumped the 'Harry Potter' scribe from our list this year," stated Forbes.
Ah, another in the hilarious series of articles that included the 'Downfall of Rangers: why it's bad for the Yes campaign', and 'The White Paper: why it's bad for the Yes campaign'.
It's a pity this place is so utterly irrelevant to the referendum, there would be quite a few Yes votes in the bag if anyone in Scotland read PB at peak bollocks.
Well not all websites can have such a big impact as others ...
Ah, another in the hilarious series of articles that included the 'Downfall of Rangers: why it's bad for the Yes campaign', and 'The White Paper: why it's bad for the Yes campaign'.
It's a pity this place is so utterly irrelevant to the referendum, there would be quite a few Yes votes in the bag if anyone in Scotland read PB at peak bollocks.
Well not all websites can have such a big impact as others ...
Some more partisan sites have their guns aimed at their feet...
Some partisan sites have more readers than all the Scottish media put together as well. Have a look at web sites , traffic etc , you will see a partisan site is above PB in popularity and not far from the top. Green cheese flashy , the unionists standard position.
I note @malcolmg is making a bid for Wee Eck's diplomatic service .... he may get the job too.
You hoping to be his pie maker
I've finally determined you come to PB to make the other CyberNats appear respectable.
Wrong it is to get a laugh at clowns
Oh......you think we're laughing with you?
Carlotta, I know you are a self important windbag, but just for the record I personally do not care if you are doing cartwheels in the buff , your are an anonymous nobody on the internet, get over yourself
It's a very patronising view of Scots to believe that something is trivial as a football result or two would influence their votes in the referendum - especially as the Yes side is clear that in the event of independence the BBC and all other English-based media will remain freely available.
Ha ha ha , Liberal voice, you could not make it up. You are really desperate now Flash.
Still there is always Pat Kane and the fat lottery winner ....
Good old unionists, always personal insults, all they have to offer. I see carlotta whining elsewhere as normal, like an old broken record. Just needs Scott to post someone else's opinions to make a full house on Britnat Bingo.
To describe Colin and Chris as fat isn't an insult , it's euphemistic.
If only Britnat supporters would use their good fortune to fund anything other than labour or Tory parties. Some people give money for the benefit of others not to purchase benefit for themselves. Britnats are the latter just in case that is too deep for you.
"New information about Rowlings' estimated $160 million in charitable giving combined with Britain's high tax rates bumped the 'Harry Potter' scribe from our list this year," stated Forbes.
But then she's just a b*tch and a wh*re to some Nats.
Yawn, one eyed view of the world, try posting the bile written about the Weirs , you could even just copy the posts on here about them. Once again you assume tehy are nationalists as well , despite not having a clue who they are. Given the level of their comments they are almost unionists, they hold all the cards on semi literate morons.
Ah, another in the hilarious series of articles that included the 'Downfall of Rangers: why it's bad for the Yes campaign', and 'The White Paper: why it's bad for the Yes campaign'.
It's a pity this place is so utterly irrelevant to the referendum, there would be quite a few Yes votes in the bag if anyone in Scotland read PB at peak bollocks.
Well not all websites can have such a big impact as others ...
Some more partisan sites have their guns aimed at their feet...
Oh, you mean the 7th most influential UK political blog that is registered as an official campaigner with the Electoral Commission, and is an actual player in the Indy referendum? The site described by STV yesterday as 'arguably the most exciting, invigorating, and innovative entrant to the Scottish media world in recent years' (http://tinyurl.com/qfek83s)?
The postwar record of British teams is one of underperformance, even in the heyday of British Football of the fifties and sixties. We naively assumed that as English and Scots invented the game, and introduced it around the world we would dominate internationally. The 1966 Campaign started poorly, but the team got better as time went on. Generally this is the case, it takes time for a team to gel and get used to each other.
The England team is in transition, from one generation to the next, and neither Rooney or Gerrard will be the future of English football. There are some talented individuals but they need to be knitted into a coherent team. I do not blame Roy, indeed I think his approach was the right one, both in team selection and tactics. What is needed is for more preparation time before the tournament. The premiership plays high tempo football, part of the reason for its popularity around the world. The team needs time for minor injuries to recover and for the team to gel.
England away from home have always struggled. They never even qualified in 74 and 78 when there was hardly any foreign players in the first division and their club teams were winning European cups.
It will not make a difference.
The only factor which could make a difference is the thought for many Scots especially Labour voters, is more Conservative rule from Westminster.
I had a vote living in Scotland , I would vote yes, then you make your own choice and don`t have to worry ever again of the possibility of the conservative party from England ruling over you.
Well the Welsh team performs at the normal level for a small country that prefers a different sport.
More recently we seem to have nailed the left wing position, so just another 10 to go.
Ah, another in the hilarious series of articles that included the 'Downfall of Rangers: why it's bad for the Yes campaign', and 'The White Paper: why it's bad for the Yes campaign'.
It's a pity this place is so utterly irrelevant to the referendum, there would be quite a few Yes votes in the bag if anyone in Scotland read PB at peak bollocks.
it is highly entertaining, rather than debate the subject , they write insults about supposed Scottish insults. You could not make it up.
Ah, another in the hilarious series of articles that included the 'Downfall of Rangers: why it's bad for the Yes campaign', and 'The White Paper: why it's bad for the Yes campaign'.
It's a pity this place is so utterly irrelevant to the referendum, there would be quite a few Yes votes in the bag if anyone in Scotland read PB at peak bollocks.
Well not all websites can have such a big impact as others ...
Some more partisan sites have their guns aimed at their feet...
Some partisan sites have more readers than all the Scottish media put together as well. Have a look at web sites , traffic etc , you will see a partisan site is above PB in popularity and not far from the top. Green cheese flashy , the unionists standard position.
If Wings is such a wonderful source of info why have Yes ditched it ?
I suppose after Sept it will return to mocking 9-11, dead soldiers and Hillsborough ?
Ah, another in the hilarious series of articles that included the 'Downfall of Rangers: why it's bad for the Yes campaign', and 'The White Paper: why it's bad for the Yes campaign'.
It's a pity this place is so utterly irrelevant to the referendum, there would be quite a few Yes votes in the bag if anyone in Scotland read PB at peak bollocks.
it is highly entertaining, rather than debate the subject , they write insults about supposed Scottish insults. You could not make it up.
Yes I agree. It also seems to me silly and insulting to voters to think that football and athletics can infulence something as important as this referendum.
One thing that perhaps deserves a bit more attention is that the precipitous fall in libdem vote since 2010 is causing unwinding of the "bias" that the electoral system gives Labour.
If you put C 36. Lab 33 LD 9 into Electoral calculus, that gives Conservatives 308 seats, one more than in 2010 and 18 short of majority.
in 2010 it was C37, Lab 29.5 and LD 23.5
So the collapse in Lib Dem votes means that despite the 2010 gap of 6.5% between Lab and Tory falling to 3%, Torys get more seats, labours gains being pretty well exclusively at Lib expense. Had Libdem vote stayed at 23.5 then labour would have "won" with 35 short of majority.
18 short of majority is really 16 short of majority because SF don't sit.
A result of C36, L31, LD9, a fall of 1% for torys on 2010 and a rise of 1.5% for labour on their 2010 performance (not an improbable scenario) would leave Tories 6 short of majority (4 short once SF not attendance not factored in. Therefore a coalition with the DUPs 8 MPs gives Conservative a majority of 6 (11 once SF factored in).
For illustration, if Torys and Labour get identical vote share to 2010 in 2015 and lib fall to 9%, this gives overall Tory majority of 24.
The rise of the Lib Dems is therefore a large factor in the "bias" towards Labour in the electoral system.
The lib dem collapse makes it far easier for the conservatives to win in 2015 than it was in 2010.
Additionally if the Tory vote is depressed without affecting seat numbers by UKIP piling up votes in safe Tory seats, will we be talking about the bias towards the Tory party in the electoral system after 2015?
Ha ha ha , Liberal voice, you could not make it up. You are really desperate now Flash.
Still there is always Pat Kane and the fat lottery winner ....
Good old unionists, always personal insults, all they have to offer. I see carlotta whining elsewhere as normal, like an old broken record. Just needs Scott to post someone else's opinions to make a full house on Britnat Bingo.
Good to see Scotland are still world leaders in self awareness bypass surgery.
Tick rock, soon be over loser.
Get a life saddo
tick tick, loser.
Saddo
Tick tock, loser.
Weird creepy saddo
Tick tock, loser.
As reluctant as I am to stifle this witty repartee, knock it off.
Ah, another in the hilarious series of articles that included the 'Downfall of Rangers: why it's bad for the Yes campaign', and 'The White Paper: why it's bad for the Yes campaign'.
It's a pity this place is so utterly irrelevant to the referendum, there would be quite a few Yes votes in the bag if anyone in Scotland read PB at peak bollocks.
Well not all websites can have such a big impact as others ...
Some more partisan sites have their guns aimed at their feet...
Described by STV yesterday as 'arguably the most exciting, invigorating, and innovative entrant to the Scottish media world in recent years' (http://tinyurl.com/qfek83s)?
So why are Yes Scotland distancing themselves from it? Couldn't be anything to do with inaccuracy in their reporting and embarrassing Eck could it?
Actually, this current generation is probably the last set of footballers to have gone through the old, neanderthal coaching system. Those following have had a much better education. The results clubs and country get at junior level bear that out. We can expect England sides to be a lot better technically in the future and, therefore, a lot more competitive. What's that saying about the darkest times coming just before the dawn?
I well remember us being urged to support the Jocks in 1978. The difference is that the Scots went out with high expectations, even though they had the same wall to wall advertising opportunities.
Their first match was against Peru and their thirty eight year old centre forward, Cubillas. I remember it fondly; he scored twice in an easy 3-1 victory. After the match, I walked out into the back garden and glanced over at my next door neighbour who'd just come out too.
We both collapsed in almost hysterical laughter. Thanks for that glorious memory, Scotland.
Will England respond in the same manner by giving an Archie Gemmill-like performance in the last match against Costa Rica? Somehow I doubt it. The Scots did have a good team and were hurt by all the insults they had endured back home. The English public, by comparison, almost expected it.
Costa Rica 2 England 1 has a nice symmetry.
1978 was great , what a summer, World Cup was a disaster but what a hoot and good excuse for a massive binge. The mass hysteria was incredible, but soon brought back to earth as usual. Ally was a star.
74 & 78 Scotland had some great players.
The leeds team from that era had many of them. I went to Elland road many a time to see them.
The last game against Holland in 78 was a fantastic performance. I don`t think England will do the same next week. However England best performance ever was against Holland in 96.
But as foxinsox says England have underperformed in every era at international football away from home.
Ah, another in the hilarious series of articles that included the 'Downfall of Rangers: why it's bad for the Yes campaign', and 'The White Paper: why it's bad for the Yes campaign'.
It's a pity this place is so utterly irrelevant to the referendum, there would be quite a few Yes votes in the bag if anyone in Scotland read PB at peak bollocks.
Well not all websites can have such a big impact as others ...
Some more partisan sites have their guns aimed at their feet...
Some partisan sites have more readers than all the Scottish media put together as well. Have a look at web sites , traffic etc , you will see a partisan site is above PB in popularity and not far from the top. Green cheese flashy , the unionists standard position.
If Wings is such a wonderful source of info why have Yes ditched it ?
I suppose after Sept it will return to mocking 9-11, dead soldiers and Hillsborough ?
Dear , dear , I thought you were a bit brighter than chanting monkey flash. Anybody who can read knows those stupid remarks have been shown to be false. Just last week the Scotsman had to grovel and print a humiliating apology for saying similar. If you are going to try and insult YES supporters try and do better than BT and the Tory astroturf No Borders numpties. We can find out you are lying quickly, the days of the Raj are gone, only a few dinosaurs remain. You will notice it goes from strength to strength, much to the chagrin of BT and their media puppets. You need to stop making a Charlie of yourself.
Ha ha ha , Liberal voice, you could not make it up. You are really desperate now Flash.
Still there is always Pat Kane and the fat lottery winner ....
Good old unionists, always personal insults, all they have to offer. I see carlotta whining elsewhere as normal, like an old broken record. Just needs Scott to post someone else's opinions to make a full house on Britnat Bingo.
Good to see Scotland are still world leaders in self awareness bypass surgery.
Tick rock, soon be over loser.
Get a life saddo
tick tick, loser.
Saddo
Tick tock, loser.
Weird creepy saddo
Tick tock, loser.
As reluctant as I am to stifle this witty repartee, knock it off.
Ha ha ha , Liberal voice, you could not make it up. You are really desperate now Flash.
Still there is always Pat Kane and the fat lottery winner ....
Good old unionists, always personal insults, all they have to offer. I see carlotta whining elsewhere as normal, like an old broken record. Just needs Scott to post someone else's opinions to make a full house on Britnat Bingo.
Good to see Scotland are still world leaders in self awareness bypass surgery.
Tick rock, soon be over loser.
Get a life saddo
tick tick, loser.
Saddo
Tick tock, loser.
Weird creepy saddo
Tick tock, loser.
As reluctant as I am to stifle this witty repartee, knock it off.
Was this directed at Malcolmg or Saddened?
If you are not bright enough to be able to read who it was posted to , does it matter. There is a clue in there if you are able to understand it.
Ah, another in the hilarious series of articles that included the 'Downfall of Rangers: why it's bad for the Yes campaign', and 'The White Paper: why it's bad for the Yes campaign'.
It's a pity this place is so utterly irrelevant to the referendum, there would be quite a few Yes votes in the bag if anyone in Scotland read PB at peak bollocks.
Well not all websites can have such a big impact as others ...
Some more partisan sites have their guns aimed at their feet...
Described by STV yesterday as 'arguably the most exciting, invigorating, and innovative entrant to the Scottish media world in recent years' (http://tinyurl.com/qfek83s)?
So why are Yes Scotland distancing themselves from it? Couldn't be anything to do with inaccuracy in their reporting and embarrassing Eck could it?
Why be obtuse and lie, obviously yes need to keep their distance given you get a few sweary words etc on the site. Does the government publicise that they fund No Borders , or that they post lies on Buzzfeed, or promote the Orange Order for NO etc. Whether the official YES support it is irrelevant it is the biggest independence website in the UK , it has hundreds of thousands of followers and surprisingly most of them are for YES , especially after reading the truth on there. Perhaps you should read it and get educated, there is a handy reference page.
Ha ha ha , Liberal voice, you could not make it up. You are really desperate now Flash.
Still there is always Pat Kane and the fat lottery winner ....
Good old unionists, always personal insults, all they have to offer. I see carlotta whining elsewhere as normal, like an old broken record. Just needs Scott to post someone else's opinions to make a full house on Britnat Bingo.
Good to see Scotland are still world leaders in self awareness bypass surgery.
Tick rock, soon be over loser.
Get a life saddo
tick tick, loser.
Saddo
Tick tock, loser.
Weird creepy saddo
Tick tock, loser.
As reluctant as I am to stifle this witty repartee, knock it off.
I well remember us being urged to support the Jocks in 1978. The difference is that the Scots went out with high expectations, even though they had the same wall to wall advertising opportunities.
Their first match was against Peru and their thirty eight year old centre forward, Cubillas. I remember it fondly; he scored twice in an easy 3-1 victory. After the match, I walked out into the back garden and glanced over at my next door neighbour who'd just come out too.
We both collapsed in almost hysterical laughter. Thanks for that glorious memory, Scotland.
Will England respond in the same manner by giving an Archie Gemmill-like performance in the last match against Costa Rica? Somehow I doubt it. The Scots did have a good team and were hurt by all the insults they had endured back home. The English public, by comparison, almost expected it.
Costa Rica 2 England 1 has a nice symmetry.
1978 was great , what a summer, World Cup was a disaster but what a hoot and good excuse for a massive binge. The mass hysteria was incredible, but soon brought back to earth as usual. Ally was a star.
74 & 78 Scotland had some great players.
The leeds team from that era had many of them. I went to Elland road many a time to see them.
The last game against Holland in 78 was a fantastic performance. I don`t think England will do the same next week. However England best performance ever was against Holland in 96.
But as foxinsox says England have underperformed in every era at international football away from home.
There were great teams in both England and Scotland in those days. It was a great time for football and was mainly home players. Leeds , Nottingham Forest , Liverpool , Celtic , Rangers , Aberdeen , Dundee United , etc. European tournaments were home and away ties , none of the seeding nowadays to make money for elite few. The ties were great and you had teams travelling to far flung parts and playing minnow teams on real dodgy parks. All too clinical and money oriented nowadays.
Yorkcity, pleasant to have a civil conversation with an intelligent poster, rare occasion on here nowadays.
Ah, another in the hilarious series of articles that included the 'Downfall of Rangers: why it's bad for the Yes campaign', and 'The White Paper: why it's bad for the Yes campaign'.
It's a pity this place is so utterly irrelevant to the referendum, there would be quite a few Yes votes in the bag if anyone in Scotland read PB at peak bollocks.
Well not all websites can have such a big impact as others ...
Some more partisan sites have their guns aimed at their feet...
Described by STV yesterday as 'arguably the most exciting, invigorating, and innovative entrant to the Scottish media world in recent years' (http://tinyurl.com/qfek83s)?
So why are Yes Scotland distancing themselves from it? Couldn't be anything to do with inaccuracy in their reporting and embarrassing Eck could it?
. Whether the official YES support it is irrelevant it is the biggest independence website in the UK , it has hundreds of thousands of followers and surprisingly most of them are for YES , especially after reading the truth on there.
The lies were on Wings over Somerset and embarrassed both the Scottish Government and Eck - but with project Fib, any lie will do.....
@blairmcdougall: With 90 days until #indyref the SNP start hiring people to work out how much leaving the UK would cost. Shambles. http://t.co/MyHjDgA99e
The Scots were blessed with some great players in the 70s but I was never a fan of Joe Jordan. He may have been effective but he lacked a little technical artistry.
There's an apochryphal story about him missing training one day. "Where were you?" he was asked. "At the dentist," he replied. "I had to get some teeth taken out of my elbow.".
And yes, I know he played for your lot before he ended up at Old Trafford.
@blairmcdougall: With 90 days until #indyref the SNP start hiring people to work out how much leaving the UK would cost. Shambles. http://t.co/MyHjDgA99e
I contracted to SG from April 2010 to October 2012. Part of the remit was looking at costs of independence (to be fair, as part of the overall contingency planning), so I think this story contains a soupcon of bollox.
Just returned from perambulating with the hound. According to the BBC livefeed Williams are looking very nice on long runs. Let's hope that's accurate.
Thank you for an interesting thought, but as I have no interest in football whatsoever, I am unable to comment on your premis. But If football restricted the use of players with a foreign passport as does cricket, then more of our youth may be more evident in the Premier League and wages may be lower.
However, to use your thought and project it forwards. If the NOs win say 55/45 in September, what effect will that have on the 2015 result in Scotland?
Will the SNP advance and capture seats from Labour due to a sympathy vote or a try-harder vote? Or will the SNP decline if there is more of a devomax after September and before May and so the Cons get more seats?
Ah, another in the hilarious series of articles that included the 'Downfall of Rangers: why it's bad for the Yes campaign', and 'The White Paper: why it's bad for the Yes campaign'.
It's a pity this place is so utterly irrelevant to the referendum, there would be quite a few Yes votes in the bag if anyone in Scotland read PB at peak bollocks.
Well not all websites can have such a big impact as others ...
Some more partisan sites have their guns aimed at their feet...
Some partisan sites have more readers than all the Scottish media put together as well. Have a look at web sites , traffic etc , you will see a partisan site is above PB in popularity and not far from the top. Green cheese flashy , the unionists standard position.
If Wings is such a wonderful source of info why have Yes ditched it ?
I suppose after Sept it will return to mocking 9-11, dead soldiers and Hillsborough ?
Dear , dear , I thought you were a bit brighter than chanting monkey flash. Anybody who can read knows those stupid remarks have been shown to be false. Just last week the Scotsman had to grovel and print a humiliating apology for saying similar. If you are going to try and insult YES supporters try and do better than BT and the Tory astroturf No Borders numpties. We can find out you are lying quickly, the days of the Raj are gone, only a few dinosaurs remain. You will notice it goes from strength to strength, much to the chagrin of BT and their media puppets. You need to stop making a Charlie of yourself.
Malcolm I can assure you that the No campaign hope dearly that WIngs goes from strength to strength. He may be loved by Nationalists but he's exactly the sort of person who puts off undecided voters. So the more we hear from that malevolent, odious character the better!
I well remember us being urged to support the Jocks in 1978. The difference is that the Scots went out with high expectations, even though they had the same wall to wall advertising opportunities.
Their first match was against Peru and their thirty eight year old centre forward, Cubillas. I remember it fondly; he scored twice in an easy 3-1 victory. After the match, I walked out into the back garden and glanced over at my next door neighbour who'd just come out too.
We both collapsed in almost hysterical laughter. Thanks for that glorious memory, Scotland.
Will England respond in the same manner by giving an Archie Gemmill-like performance in the last match against Costa Rica? Somehow I doubt it. The Scots did have a good team and were hurt by all the insults they had endured back home. The English public, by comparison, almost expected it.
Costa Rica 2 England 1 has a nice symmetry.
1978 was great , what a summer, World Cup was a disaster but what a hoot and good excuse for a massive binge. The mass hysteria was incredible, but soon brought back to earth as usual. Ally was a star.
You're not kidding about the disaster.
One Scottish player was banned for taking a banned substance.
Practice over. Tight at the top, but I think Mercedes are sandbagging. Williams look good, maybe Alonso too (although his practice was good in Canada and qualifying/the race was not).
'It must be depressing for people like NPXMP who got elected under Blair and see their prospects next year sinking down the toilet under Milibland. Anna Soubry's majority will be heading north comfortably into 4 figures.'
I see that you are seeking to build on the stunningly accurate forecasts you made about Tory gains in Scotland in 2010.
'It must be depressing for people like NPXMP who got elected under Blair and see their prospects next year sinking down the toilet under Milibland. Anna Soubry's majority will be heading north comfortably into 4 figures.'
I see that you are seeking to build on the stunningly accurate forecasts you made about Tory gains in Scotland in 2010.
Not to worry. Anna Soubry, who is intensely disliked, and not only by kippers, will have a first rate UKIP candidate running against her. So Nearly Headless Nick may still have a chance.
I well remember us being urged to support the Jocks in 1978. The difference is that the Scots went out with high expectations, even though they had the same wall to wall advertising opportunities.
Their first match was against Peru and their thirty eight year old centre forward, Cubillas. I remember it fondly; he scored twice in an easy 3-1 victory. After the match, I walked out into the back garden and glanced over at my next door neighbour who'd just come out too.
We both collapsed in almost hysterical laughter. Thanks for that glorious memory, Scotland.
Will England respond in the same manner by giving an Archie Gemmill-like performance in the last match against Costa Rica? Somehow I doubt it. The Scots did have a good team and were hurt by all the insults they had endured back home. The English public, by comparison, almost expected it.
Costa Rica 2 England 1 has a nice symmetry.
1978 was great , what a summer, World Cup was a disaster but what a hoot and good excuse for a massive binge. The mass hysteria was incredible, but soon brought back to earth as usual. Ally was a star.
You're not kidding about the disaster.
One Scottish player was banned for taking a banned substance.
From the way Willie Johnston was playing it must have been a sedative.
Sport does play a role for the SNP campaign as proved by the commonwealth games, however it will affect only marginally the result. People don't usually vote for someone or something because of sport, the London olympics proved that it doesn't affect voting intentions very much.
Sport can play a significant role in politics, as Justinian discovered when chariot fans very nearly overthrew him. If his wife hadn't been made of sterner stuff than himself he would have fled Byzantium.
In the event of a No vote, as the polls predict, I would expect a drop in SNP votes at Westminster. This is what happened in 1979. At that time the swing was mostly to the Tories and was a significant component of putting Mrs T in Downing st.
The difficulty is predicting where those votes would go this time around. I expect they will head in several directions, possibly compensating to a degree for lack of enthusiasm for Miliband north of the border. It may also mean that Danny Alexander becomes safer in Inverness. South of the border, I would expect a modest boost for Cameron and perhaps also North of the Border.
There would be some real infighting in the SNP as before, with the Ultras of Wings turning on their compatriots with their characteristic charm and reasonableness.
Thank you for an interesting thought, but as I have no interest in football whatsoever, I am unable to comment on your premis. But If football restricted the use of players with a foreign passport as does cricket, then more of our youth may be more evident in the Premier League and wages may be lower.
However, to use your thought and project it forwards. If the NOs win say 55/45 in September, what effect will that have on the 2015 result in Scotland?
Will the SNP advance and capture seats from Labour due to a sympathy vote or a try-harder vote? Or will the SNP decline if there is more of a devomax after September and before May and so the Cons get more seats?
Ah, another in the hilarious series of articles that included the 'Downfall of Rangers: why it's bad for the Yes campaign', and 'The White Paper: why it's bad for the Yes campaign'.
It's a pity this place is so utterly irrelevant to the referendum, there would be quite a few Yes votes in the bag if anyone in Scotland read PB at peak bollocks.
Well not all websites can have such a big impact as others ...
Some more partisan sites have their guns aimed at their feet...
Some partisan sites have more readers than all the Scottish media put together as well. Have a look at web sites , traffic etc , you will see a partisan site is above PB in popularity and not far from the top. Green cheese flashy , the unionists standard position.
If Wings is such a wonderful source of info why have Yes ditched it ?
I suppose after Sept it will return to mocking 9-11, dead soldiers and Hillsborough ?
Dear , dear , I thought you were a bit brighter than chanting monkey flash. Anybody who can read knows those stupid remarks have been shown to be false. Just last week the Scotsman had to grovel and print a humiliating apology for saying similar. If you are going to try and insult YES supporters try and do better than BT and the Tory astroturf No Borders numpties. We can find out you are lying quickly, the days of the Raj are gone, only a few dinosaurs remain. You will notice it goes from strength to strength, much to the chagrin of BT and their media puppets. You need to stop making a Charlie of yourself.
Malcolm I can assure you that the No campaign hope dearly that WIngs goes from strength to strength. He may be loved by Nationalists but he's exactly the sort of person who puts off undecided voters. So the more we hear from that malevolent, odious character the better!
The more women voters in particular who read the "Rev" (sic) the better...
LOL, did you read your own post you numpty, if you are stupid enough to smear people based on the daily Mail, you don't deserve any politeness. You deserve to be pilloried for the nasty numpty you are.
I would have thought that any decline in SNP support after a No vote, if such a decline happened, would be mainly to Won't Vote rather than to another party.
Ladbrokes clearly believe that EdM will not only be the next PM, but also that he'll make a good fist of it. There's no way otherwise that he'd be the outsider in this field.
Ladbrokes clearly believe that EdM will not only be the next PM, but also that he'll make a good fist of it. There's no way otherwise that he'd be the outsider in this field.
I don't follow. This pays out on the first to leave. If Nick Clegg is gone by 31 May 2015, Ed Miliband's putative premiership will barely have started.
That's about the size of it. The 10/11 on Labour most seats has value though.
I don't agree. Since bookies' odds effectively reflect punters' betting patterns which in turn are based largely on here and now polling numbers, then if we are to see a serious degree of crossover over the coming months which many serious commentators are suggesting, then Labour's odds seem very likely to lengthen.
Vanilla is messing me up and I have some urgent work to do, which is a shame as this seems like an interesting discussion. But I have a few points to throw into the mix and hope to call in later -
1. The Glasgow Commonwealth Games are a Labour, not SNP, initiative - started by the Labour Party when they were in power in Holyrood, together with Glasgow City Council (much the same thing). So currently Glasgow CC (SLAB) + Scottish Gmt (SNP) - so neutral politically. Actually the real tension is perhaps more GCC versus the Greens and Trots over the way the land was compulsorily seized and cleared.
2. @foxinsox - hmm, but re SNP vote after a No, remember that they were not in power in 1979 and voting was under FPTP - neither being the case now, when they are widely seen as the natural party of government in Scotland replacing Labour. Plus there actually may be an additional vote against Unionist parties by those Labour, etc., voters upset with their MPs gojng for No, in bed with Tories, worried about Unionists fulfilling their devo-a-tiny-bit-more promises, etc. etc. [not how I see it so much as how many will see it].
3. The World Cupp 1966 effect is not, I think, a simple football supporting issue but was actually more interesting than that. What it did do was highlight two things -
(a) the prevalence of the doctrine that England = UK and only English news was important
(b) the prevalence of English news on the "British" Broadcasting Corporation - and going on and on and on about 'our' or the 'national' victory did not help
I don't think the football supporting stuff was an issue beyond the pub or the bar as far as 1966 was concerned: what it did do was help make a lot of people aware something might be wrong with the body politic and sensitised them to further thought and debate.
Is it just me or should they not have looked at the costs years ago???
Back of a fag packet independence, what could go wrong?
All politicians everywhere have always exclusively used back of the fag packet calculations. Why else do you think they are so keen to push plain packaging....easier to write on
I would have thought that any decline in SNP support after a No vote, if such a decline happened, would be mainly to Won't Vote rather than to another party.
Is it just me or should they not have looked at the costs years ago???
Back of a fag packet independence, what could go wrong?
All politicians everywhere have always exclusively used back of the fag packet calculations. Why else do you think they are so keen to push plain packaging....easier to write on
Always assuming one has remembered to remove the cellophane wrap.
One thing that perhaps deserves a bit more attention is that the precipitous fall in libdem vote since 2010 is causing unwinding of the "bias" that the electoral system gives Labour.
If you put C 36. Lab 33 LD 9 into Electoral calculus, that gives Conservatives 308 seats, one more than in 2010 and 18 short of majority.
in 2010 it was C37, Lab 29.5 and LD 23.5
So the collapse in Lib Dem votes means that despite the 2010 gap of 6.5% between Lab and Tory falling to 3%, Torys get more seats, labours gains being pretty well exclusively at Lib expense. Had Libdem vote stayed at 23.5 then labour would have "won" with 35 short of majority.
18 short of majority is really 16 short of majority because SF don't sit.
A result of C36, L31, LD9, a fall of 1% for torys on 2010 and a rise of 1.5% for labour on their 2010 performance (not an improbable scenario) would leave Tories 6 short of majority (4 short once SF not attendance not factored in. Therefore a coalition with the DUPs 8 MPs gives Conservative a majority of 6 (11 once SF factored in).
For illustration, if Torys and Labour get identical vote share to 2010 in 2015 and lib fall to 9%, this gives overall Tory majority of 24.
The rise of the Lib Dems is therefore a large factor in the "bias" towards Labour in the electoral system.
The lib dem collapse makes it far easier for the conservatives to win in 2015 than it was in 2010.
Additionally if the Tory vote is depressed without affecting seat numbers by UKIP piling up votes in safe Tory seats, will we be talking about the bias towards the Tory party in the electoral system after 2015?
Excellent post. Refreshing to see people finally discussing that a collapsed Lib Dem vote means the Tories need nothing like a 7% lead to retain largest seat share and probably can cobble a majority on a five point lead. Lib Dem incumbency is a thing of the past. And yep, the rise of UKIP in the urban North and safe Tory South might just reset the clock.
One thing that perhaps deserves a bit more attention is that the precipitous fall in libdem vote since 2010 is causing unwinding of the "bias" that the electoral system gives Labour.
If you put C 36. Lab 33 LD 9 into Electoral calculus, that gives Conservatives 308 seats, one more than in 2010 and 18 short of majority.
in 2010 it was C37, Lab 29.5 and LD 23.5
So the collapse in Lib Dem votes means that despite the 2010 gap of 6.5% between Lab and Tory falling to 3%, Torys get more seats, labours gains being pretty well exclusively at Lib expense. Had Libdem vote stayed at 23.5 then labour would have "won" with 35 short of majority.
18 short of majority is really 16 short of majority because SF don't sit.
A result of C36, L31, LD9, a fall of 1% for torys on 2010 and a rise of 1.5% for labour on their 2010 performance (not an improbable scenario) would leave Tories 6 short of majority (4 short once SF not attendance not factored in. Therefore a coalition with the DUPs 8 MPs gives Conservative a majority of 6 (11 once SF factored in).
For illustration, if Torys and Labour get identical vote share to 2010 in 2015 and lib fall to 9%, this gives overall Tory majority of 24.
The rise of the Lib Dems is therefore a large factor in the "bias" towards Labour in the electoral system.
The lib dem collapse makes it far easier for the conservatives to win in 2015 than it was in 2010.
Additionally if the Tory vote is depressed without affecting seat numbers by UKIP piling up votes in safe Tory seats, will we be talking about the bias towards the Tory party in the electoral system after 2015?
Excellent post. Refreshing to see people finally discussing that a collapsed Lib Dem vote means the Tories need nothing like a 7% lead to retain largest seat share and probably can cobble a majority on a five point lead. Lib Dem incumbency is a thing of the past. And yep, the rise of UKIP in the urban North and safe Tory South might just reset the clock.
Two wishful thinkers agreeing with each other , dream on .
Vanilla is messing me up and I have some urgent work to do, which is a shame as this seems like an interesting discussion. But I have a few points to throw into the mix and hope to call in later -
1. The Glasgow Commonwealth Games are a Labour, not SNP, initiative - started by the Labour Party when they were in power in Holyrood, together with Glasgow City Council (much the same thing). So currently Glasgow CC (SLAB) + Scottish Gmt (SNP) - so neutral politically. Actually the real tension is perhaps more GCC versus the Greens and Trots over the way the land was compulsorily seized and cleared.
2. @foxinsox - hmm, but re SNP vote after a No, remember that they were not in power in 1979 and voting was under FPTP - neither being the case now, when they are widely seen as the natural party of government in Scotland replacing Labour. Plus there actually may be an additional vote against Unionist parties by those Labour, etc., voters upset with their MPs gojng for No, in bed with Tories, worried about Unionists fulfilling their devo-a-tiny-bit-more promises, etc. etc. [not how I see it so much as how many will see it].
3. The World Cupp 1966 effect is not, I think, a simple football supporting issue but was actually more interesting than that. What it did do was highlight two things -
(a) the prevalence of the doctrine that England = UK and only English news was important
(b) the prevalence of English news on the "British" Broadcasting Corporation - and going on and on and on about 'our' or the 'national' victory did not help
I don't think the football supporting stuff was an issue beyond the pub or the bar as far as 1966 was concerned: what it did do was help make a lot of people aware something might be wrong with the body politic and sensitised them to further thought and debate.
I also agree that PMB has a good point. UKIP voters are fairly evenly spread and in safe seats for either side may reduce majorities, but combined with the drop in LD voting paradoxically may mean that a four party system most benefits the two main parties.
One thing that perhaps deserves a bit more attention is that the precipitous fall in libdem vote since 2010 is causing unwinding of the "bias" that the electoral system gives Labour.
If you put C 36. Lab 33 LD 9 into Electoral calculus, that gives Conservatives 308 seats, one more than in 2010 and 18 short of majority.
in 2010 it was C37, Lab 29.5 and LD 23.5
So the collapse in Lib Dem votes means that despite the 2010 gap of 6.5% between Lab and Tory falling to 3%, Torys get more seats, labours gains being pretty well exclusively at Lib expense. Had Libdem vote stayed at 23.5 then labour would have "won" with 35 short of majority.
18 short of majority is really 16 short of majority because SF don't sit.
A result of C36, L31, LD9, a fall of 1% for torys on 2010 and a rise of 1.5% for labour on their 2010 performance (not an improbable scenario) would leave Tories 6 short of majority (4 short once SF not attendance not factored in. Therefore a coalition with the DUPs 8 MPs gives Conservative a majority of 6 (11 once SF factored in).
For illustration, if Torys and Labour get identical vote share to 2010 in 2015 and lib fall to 9%, this gives overall Tory majority of 24.
The rise of the Lib Dems is therefore a large factor in the "bias" towards Labour in the electoral system.
The lib dem collapse makes it far easier for the conservatives to win in 2015 than it was in 2010.
Additionally if the Tory vote is depressed without affecting seat numbers by UKIP piling up votes in safe Tory seats, will we be talking about the bias towards the Tory party in the electoral system after 2015?
Excellent post. Refreshing to see people finally discussing that a collapsed Lib Dem vote means the Tories need nothing like a 7% lead to retain largest seat share and probably can cobble a majority on a five point lead. Lib Dem incumbency is a thing of the past. And yep, the rise of UKIP in the urban North and safe Tory South might just reset the clock.
One thing that perhaps deserves a bit more attention is that the precipitous fall in libdem vote since 2010 is causing unwinding of the "bias" that the electoral system gives Labour.
If you put C 36. Lab 33 LD 9 into Electoral calculus, that gives Conservatives 308 seats, one more than in 2010 and 18 short of majority.
in 2010 it was C37, Lab 29.5 and LD 23.5
So the collapse in Lib Dem votes means that despite the 2010 gap of 6.5% between Lab and Tory falling to 3%, Torys get more seats, labours gains being pretty well exclusively at Lib expense. Had Libdem vote stayed at 23.5 then labour would have "won" with 35 short of majority.
18 short of majority is really 16 short of majority because SF don't sit.
A result of C36, L31, LD9, a fall of 1% for torys on 2010 and a rise of 1.5% for labour on their 2010 performance (not an improbable scenario) would leave Tories 6 short of majority (4 short once SF not attendance not factored in. Therefore a coalition with the DUPs 8 MPs gives Conservative a majority of 6 (11 once SF factored in).
For illustration, if Torys and Labour get identical vote share to 2010 in 2015 and lib fall to 9%, this gives overall Tory majority of 24.
The rise of the Lib Dems is therefore a large factor in the "bias" towards Labour in the electoral system.
The lib dem collapse makes it far easier for the conservatives to win in 2015 than it was in 2010.
Additionally if the Tory vote is depressed without affecting seat numbers by UKIP piling up votes in safe Tory seats, will we be talking about the bias towards the Tory party in the electoral system after 2015?
Excellent post. Refreshing to see people finally discussing that a collapsed Lib Dem vote means the Tories need nothing like a 7% lead to retain largest seat share and probably can cobble a majority on a five point lead. Lib Dem incumbency is a thing of the past. And yep, the rise of UKIP in the urban North and safe Tory South might just reset the clock.
Two wishful thinkers agreeing with each other , dream on .
We all know you think the magic pixies will save dozens of Lib Dems on a vote share of 9% Mark, but logic, UNS and basic common sense tell us otherwise. You can't lose 2/3 of your votes and not pay a catastrophic penalty. Enjoy your victories in Eastleigh, Shetland and Sheffield Hallam and hope the three have enough to tip the cabbie.
One thing that perhaps deserves a bit more attention is that the precipitous fall in libdem vote since 2010 is causing unwinding of the "bias" that the electoral system gives Labour.
If you put C 36. Lab 33 LD 9 into Electoral calculus, that gives Conservatives 308 seats, one more than in 2010 and 18 short of majority.
in 2010 it was C37, Lab 29.5 and LD 23.5
So the collapse in Lib Dem votes means that despite the 2010 gap of 6.5% between Lab and Tory falling to 3%, Torys get more seats, labours gains being pretty well exclusively at Lib expense. Had Libdem vote stayed at 23.5 then labour would have "won" with 35 short of majority.
18 short of majority is really 16 short of majority because SF don't sit.
A result of C36, L31, LD9, a fall of 1% for torys on 2010 and a rise of 1.5% for labour on their 2010 performance (not an improbable scenario) would leave Tories 6 short of majority (4 short once SF not attendance not factored in. Therefore a coalition with the DUPs 8 MPs gives Conservative a majority of 6 (11 once SF factored in).
For illustration, if Torys and Labour get identical vote share to 2010 in 2015 and lib fall to 9%, this gives overall Tory majority of 24.
The rise of the Lib Dems is therefore a large factor in the "bias" towards Labour in the electoral system.
The lib dem collapse makes it far easier for the conservatives to win in 2015 than it was in 2010.
Additionally if the Tory vote is depressed without affecting seat numbers by UKIP piling up votes in safe Tory seats, will we be talking about the bias towards the Tory party in the electoral system after 2015?
Excellent post. Refreshing to see people finally discussing that a collapsed Lib Dem vote means the Tories need nothing like a 7% lead to retain largest seat share and probably can cobble a majority on a five point lead. Lib Dem incumbency is a thing of the past. And yep, the rise of UKIP in the urban North and safe Tory South might just reset the clock.
Two wishful thinkers agreeing with each other , dream on .
We all know you think the magic pixies will save dozens of Lib Dems on a vote share of 9% Mark, but logic, UNS and basic common sense tell us otherwise. You can't lose 2/3 of your votes and not pay a catastrophic penalty. Enjoy your victories in Eastleigh, Shetland and Sheffield Hallam and hope the three have enough to tip the cabbie.
Lord Ashcroft's recent polling shows that you are living in dream land .
And with the national government of Con and Lab and the destruction of all but 3 of the Liberal MPs, it falls upon me as speaker to call the leader of the opposition, Mr Nigel Dodds, to ask questions of the Prime Minister.
One thing that perhaps deserves a bit more attention is that the precipitous fall in libdem vote since 2010 is causing unwinding of the "bias" that the electoral system gives Labour.
If you put C 36. Lab 33 LD 9 into Electoral calculus, that gives Conservatives 308 seats, one more than in 2010 and 18 short of majority.
in 2010 it was C37, Lab 29.5 and LD 23.5
So the collapse in Lib Dem votes means that despite the 2010 gap of 6.5% between Lab and Tory falling to 3%, Torys get more seats, labours gains being pretty well exclusively at Lib expense. Had Libdem vote stayed at 23.5 then labour would have "won" with 35 short of majority.
18 short of majority is really 16 short of majority because SF don't sit.
A result of C36, L31, LD9, a fall of 1% for torys on 2010 and a rise of 1.5% for labour on their 2010 performance (not an improbable scenario) would leave Tories 6 short of majority (4 short once SF not attendance not factored in. Therefore a coalition with the DUPs 8 MPs gives Conservative a majority of 6 (11 once SF factored in).
For illustration, if Torys and Labour get identical vote share to 2010 in 2015 and lib fall to 9%, this gives overall Tory majority of 24.
The rise of the Lib Dems is therefore a large factor in the "bias" towards Labour in the electoral system.
The lib dem collapse makes it far easier for the conservatives to win in 2015 than it was in 2010.
Additionally if the Tory vote is depressed without affecting seat numbers by UKIP piling up votes in safe Tory seats, will we be talking about the bias towards the Tory party in the electoral system after 2015?
Excellent post. Refreshing to see people finally discussing that a collapsed Lib Dem vote means the Tories need nothing like a 7% lead to retain largest seat share and probably can cobble a majority on a five point lead. Lib Dem incumbency is a thing of the past. And yep, the rise of UKIP in the urban North and safe Tory South might just reset the clock.
Two wishful thinkers agreeing with each other , dream on .
We all know you think the magic pixies will save dozens of Lib Dems on a vote share of 9% Mark, but logic, UNS and basic common sense tell us otherwise. You can't lose 2/3 of your votes and not pay a catastrophic penalty. Enjoy your victories in Eastleigh, Shetland and Sheffield Hallam and hope the three have enough to tip the cabbie.
Mark you did say that I was having a wet dream when I stated that the LDs maybe down to 1 MEP. What is your wet dream level for next year's GE? Under 35 MPs? Under 30? Under 25?
@MarkSenior it shows you have a slim chance of holding Cheadle, a good chance of holding Sutton and Eastleigh and losing all the others polled. It tells us nothing of the position in so called 'safe' Lib Dem seats. You're going to have under 25 MPs after the election. Deal with it.
Of course the Liberals might make a minor comeback in 2020 if their trouncing helps them to extricate the poison of SDP from the party. Michael Meadowcroft is clearly a continuity Liberal sleeper agent.
Quite, point taken. However the same factors which I adduced (save 'natural party' of domestic administration) could also apply to Westminster.
A further factor is the increasing likelihood of a coalition gmt or small-majority or even minority gmt (something with which Scots have been familiar for much longer than is often realised). In that respect, therefore, voting for a party such as the SNP becomes much more attractive (or less unattractive) in terms of 'wasted vote', if the SNP could end up as part of a consortium of similar parties holding the balance of power, or at least making life much more difficult for a weak majority party.
Early days yet, and you may well be right, but recent Westminster VI polling in Scotland offers some support for the above and in particular a decline in the Labour vote, which is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that pro-indy Labour voters are seeking a new home for their vote. Of course this may be nothing to do with indy and everything to do with Mr Miliband and London Labour's perceived dominance, but that would still give the same result.
England are the LibDems of the football world. Perennial under-achievers after their crowning glory of 1966, or the Downing Street rose garden in 2010 in the LibDems' case.
@blairmcdougall: With 90 days until #indyref the SNP start hiring people to work out how much leaving the UK would cost. Shambles. http://t.co/MyHjDgA99e
If Danny Alexander was doing the job we pay him to do he would have published an update to the National Register of Assets (currently 8 years out of date and counting) and half the work could have been avoided...
"A worrying number of shy and book smart children are being labelled as 'mentally ill' by doctors who are under pressure from parents to give them a diagnosis according to a top psychiatrist.
Professor Sir Simon Wessely, the new head of the Royal College of Psychiatrists says that there is a growing trend of medicating normal traits in children by the insistence of overbearing parents.
Pushy parents are getting GPs to prescribe drugs such as Ritalin and Prozac to treat serious disorders creating a huge rise in antidepressants and drug use among young children.
Along with mental health diagnosis, one of the most commonly medicated disorders is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
If a child is seen as being overactive, but does not necessarily have ADHD, he could be prescribed drugs, Professor Wessely said.
He told The Times: 'Certain behaviour carry stigma and there's less stigma if it's associated with a disorder. Often it's about the avoidance of guilt.
Around three to seven per cent of children, or 400,000, are believed to have ADHD in the UK, with many being prescribed drugs to try and improve their concentration at school.
According to recent figures, the use of ADHD drugs has tripled over the past decade and antidepressants usage has shot up too.
Professor Wessely said that it is becoming less common for children to be labelled as 'shy' but they are more likely to be branded as having a social phobia or a behavioural problem.
And even schools are benefitting from mislabelling pupils, says Professor Wessely, as the more special needs children in a school, the more funds they'll get.
However, some experts claim that many disorders have no merit at all, and are in fact, made up.
Paediatric neurologist Dr Richard Saul, based in Chicago, believes that ADHD simply ‘doesn’t exist’ and is being used as a mask for less serious problems. Dr Saul argues that children are being misdiagnosed.
‘ADHD makes a great excuse,’ Dr Saul said in his book, ‘ADHD does not exist: The truth about Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder.’ ‘The diagnosis can be an easy-to-reach-for crutch.
As someone once said, football is a funny old game.
Costa Rica lead Group D with 6 points out of 6, whereas England are bottom with nul points.
Yet the betting odds for the final fixture between these two show England as the hot odds-on favourite, best priced at 0.85/1 with BetVictor, while Costa Rica can be backed at a seemingly value-packed 3.6/1 available from Boylesports.
not really a great fan of England in international football, mostly because I am usually disappointed by them. But with all the stuff being thrown at them at the moment I thought it was worth highlighting the England Footballers Foundation.
Since 2007 all match fees that the England players would have received for international duty have been donated to this organisation to be given to charities such as Help for Heroes and Cancer Research UK.
It would be interesting to have a reasoned comment from you on just why that Herald piece
(a) did not let Mr Wings comment
(b) left out the reason the Tory politician was being criticised, which was for his virulent, and repeated, public and personal attacks on pro-indy supporters
(c) did not discuss the likely reason for the Yes campaign action, which is the risk of No campaigners making vexatious complaints about supposed concerted action between pro-Yes parties under the rather strange Electoral Commission rules (Lallans Peat Worrier had a good posting on the latter a week or three back).
@MarkSenior it shows you have a slim chance of holding Cheadle, a good chance of holding Sutton and Eastleigh and losing all the others polled. It tells us nothing of the position in so called 'safe' Lib Dem seats. You're going to have under 25 MPs after the election. Deal with it.
That id your perverted twist on the figures , Lib Dems to have over 30 seats and around 35 is the general consensus , I accept I am a little more optimistic . you will do better to accept the facts , prepare yourself for that now to avoid treatment post GE .
While Szasz takes a fairly extreme view; there is a case to be made that by giving variations in personality and thinking as medical disorders we force people down a medical path. Should shyness be treated pharmaceutically or by gentle social support? Should the behaviour labelled as ADHD be treated by Ritalin or by behavioural therapy?
I think the medicalisation of social disorders is not only excessive, but counterproductive. A parent and teacher may be grateful with a diagnosis of ADHD but if it leads to acceptance of such behaviour rather than supportive therapy to ameliorate the behaviour, has the child benefited?
The evidence is that Ritalin loses effectiveness after three years, and has significant side effects included stunted growth and progression to other psychiatric conditions. This medical bloger has written extensively on the subject.
"A worrying number of shy and book smart children are being labelled as 'mentally ill' by doctors who are under pressure from parents to give them a diagnosis according to a top psychiatrist
He told The Times: 'Certain behaviour carry stigma and there's less stigma if it's associated with a disorder. Often it's about the avoidance of guilt.
Around three to seven per cent of children, or 400,000, are believed to have ADHD in the UK, with many being prescribed drugs to try and improve their concentration at school.
According to recent figures, the use of ADHD drugs has tripled over the past decade and antidepressants usage has shot up too.
Professor Wessely said that it is becoming less common for children to be labelled as 'shy' but they are more likely to be branded as having a social phobia or a behavioural problem.
And even schools are benefitting from mislabelling pupils, says Professor Wessely, as the more special needs children in a school, the more funds they'll get.
However, some experts claim that many disorders have no merit at all, and are in fact, made up.
Paediatric neurologist Dr Richard Saul, based in Chicago, believes that ADHD simply ‘doesn’t exist’ and is being used as a mask for less serious problems. Dr Saul argues that children are being misdiagnosed.
‘ADHD makes a great excuse,’ Dr Saul said in his book, ‘ADHD does not exist: The truth about Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder.’ ‘The diagnosis can be an easy-to-reach-for crutch.
"US demotes Thailand and Qatar for abysmal human trafficking records Corruption impedes progress in Thailand, and workers die in both because of conditions, says US state department's report":
OT EU: Left PMs officially backing Juncker. In return they're expecting "the seat of EP head and a significant representation in the EU in exchange". Note that this doesn't say they're shooting for the presidency of the Council.
"In an essay for Prospect, the president of YouGov, Peter Kellner, writes that there would be a "startling" improvement in Labour's fortunes if David Miliband were leader. The former foreign secretary scores 35% support as the best person for prime minister, 12 points ahead of his brother. A change of leader would see David Cameron's score crash from 33% to 23%.
One MP said: "I like Ed a lot. He is a really nice guy. But he has not managed to get a hearing from the British people. His ratings have been bad since day one and he has not managed to improve them. In fact, they are getting worse.""
"In an essay for Prospect, the president of YouGov, Peter Kellner, writes that there would be a "startling" improvement in Labour's fortunes if David Miliband were leader. The former foreign secretary scores 35% support as the best person for prime minister, 12 points ahead of his brother. A change of leader would see David Cameron's score crash from 33% to 23%.
Just polling the hypothetical neglects a couple of important facts: 1) David Miliband wouldn't have been able to bury the Iraq episode like Ed has. It would have been a serious ongoing problem, even worse as Iraq falls apart, and crippled his ability to win over the 2010 LibDems who have been solid for Ed. 2) David Miliband is utterly shit at politics. His big idea was the individual carbon ration card. He managed to destabilize Gordon Brown's government by always looking like he was going to challenge him without ever actually doing it. And he wasn't good enough to win a Labour leadership election... against Ed Miliband.
"In an essay for Prospect, the president of YouGov, Peter Kellner, writes that there would be a "startling" improvement in Labour's fortunes if David Miliband were leader. The former foreign secretary scores 35% support as the best person for prime minister, 12 points ahead of his brother. A change of leader would see David Cameron's score crash from 33% to 23%.
One MP said: "I like Ed a lot. He is a really nice guy. But he has not managed to get a hearing from the British people. His ratings have been bad since day one and he has not managed to improve them. In fact, they are getting worse.""
In my view, the most perceptive comment in that article is in the final paragraph:
"But one frontbencher said: "Ed is definitely an issue. But on the doorstep you are never quite sure how far people are saying it is about Ed because they think it is about Ed or whether, if you are not comfortable about Labour, you pin it on the leader." "
"In an essay for Prospect, the president of YouGov, Peter Kellner, writes that there would be a "startling" improvement in Labour's fortunes if David Miliband were leader. The former foreign secretary scores 35% support as the best person for prime minister, 12 points ahead of his brother. A change of leader would see David Cameron's score crash from 33% to 23%.
One MP said: "I like Ed a lot. He is a really nice guy. But he has not managed to get a hearing from the British people. His ratings have been bad since day one and he has not managed to improve them. In fact, they are getting worse.""
"In an essay for Prospect, the president of YouGov, Peter Kellner, writes that there would be a "startling" improvement in Labour's fortunes if David Miliband were leader. The former foreign secretary scores 35% support as the best person for prime minister, 12 points ahead of his brother. A change of leader would see David Cameron's score crash from 33% to 23%.
One MP said: "I like Ed a lot. He is a really nice guy. But he has not managed to get a hearing from the British people. His ratings have been bad since day one and he has not managed to improve them. In fact, they are getting worse.""
Comments
The postwar record of British teams is one of underperformance, even in the heyday of British Football of the fifties and sixties. We naively assumed that as English and Scots invented the game, and introduced it around the world we would dominate internationally. The 1966 Campaign started poorly, but the team got better as time went on. Generally this is the case, it takes time for a team to gel and get used to each other.
The England team is in transition, from one generation to the next, and neither Rooney or Gerrard will be the future of English football. There are some talented individuals but they need to be knitted into a coherent team. I do not blame Roy, indeed I think his approach was the right one, both in team selection and tactics. What is needed is for more preparation time before the tournament. The premiership plays high tempo football, part of the reason for its popularity around the world. The team needs time for minor injuries to recover and for the team to gel.
It's a pity this place is so utterly irrelevant to the referendum, there would be quite a few Yes votes in the bag if anyone in Scotland read PB at peak bollocks.
http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/blogs/jk-rowlings-charity-giving-knocks-her-off-forbes-billionaires-list
But then she's just a b*tch and a wh*re to some Nats.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/yes-campaign-distances-itself-from-controversial-website-link.24528929
Some more partisan sites have their guns aimed at their feet...
The big sporting event for the referendum is the Commonwealth Games.
It's a very patronising view of Scots to believe that something is trivial as a football result or two would influence their votes in the referendum - especially as the Yes side is clear that in the event of independence the BBC and all other English-based media will remain freely available.
I love it when 'The' Rangers fans turn green.
More recently we seem to have nailed the left wing position, so just another 10 to go.
I think the tactics were poor tbh.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5705046/tories-target-third-of-lib-dem-seats.html
I suppose after Sept it will return to mocking 9-11, dead soldiers and Hillsborough ?
The Big Issue or the only real Issue of our times;
http://www.bigissue.com/features/interviews/2416/filthy-unsafe-unreformable-nigel-farage-brussels
If you put C 36. Lab 33 LD 9 into Electoral calculus, that gives Conservatives 308 seats, one more than in 2010 and 18 short of majority.
in 2010 it was C37, Lab 29.5 and LD 23.5
So the collapse in Lib Dem votes means that despite the 2010 gap of 6.5% between Lab and Tory falling to 3%, Torys get more seats, labours gains being pretty well exclusively at Lib expense. Had Libdem vote stayed at 23.5 then labour would have "won" with 35 short of majority.
18 short of majority is really 16 short of majority because SF don't sit.
A result of C36, L31, LD9, a fall of 1% for torys on 2010 and a rise of 1.5% for labour on their 2010 performance (not an improbable scenario) would leave Tories 6 short of majority (4 short once SF not attendance not factored in. Therefore a coalition with the DUPs 8 MPs gives Conservative a majority of 6 (11 once SF factored in).
For illustration, if Torys and Labour get identical vote share to 2010 in 2015 and lib fall to 9%, this gives overall Tory majority of 24.
The rise of the Lib Dems is therefore a large factor in the "bias" towards Labour in the electoral system.
The lib dem collapse makes it far easier for the conservatives to win in 2015 than it was in 2010.
Additionally if the Tory vote is depressed without affecting seat numbers by UKIP piling up votes in safe Tory seats, will we be talking about the bias towards the Tory party in the electoral system after 2015?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2664189/Tory-MPs-night-cells-attacking-girlfriend-row-flat.html
Took The Mail 3 months to publish the story about an emotionally tired and overwrought MP.
The leeds team from that era had many of them.
I went to Elland road many a time to see them.
The last game against Holland in 78 was a fantastic performance.
I don`t think England will do the same next week.
However England best performance ever was against Holland in 96.
But as foxinsox says England have underperformed in every era at international football away from home.
You will notice it goes from strength to strength, much to the chagrin of BT and their media puppets. You need to stop making a Charlie of yourself.
Perhaps you should read it and get educated, there is a handy reference page.
European tournaments were home and away ties , none of the seeding nowadays to make money for elite few. The ties were great and you had teams travelling to far flung parts and playing minnow teams on real dodgy parks. All too clinical and money oriented nowadays.
Yorkcity, pleasant to have a civil conversation with an intelligent poster, rare occasion on here nowadays.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/mountain-rescue-team-called-to-stretcher-tourist-in-flip-flops-off-aonach-mor.1403338326
There are some bloody fools out there on the hills.
@blairmcdougall: With 90 days until #indyref the SNP start hiring people to work out how much leaving the UK would cost. Shambles. http://t.co/MyHjDgA99e
The Scots were blessed with some great players in the 70s but I was never a fan of Joe Jordan. He may have been effective but he lacked a little technical artistry.
There's an apochryphal story about him missing training one day. "Where were you?" he was asked. "At the dentist," he replied. "I had to get some teeth taken out of my elbow.".
And yes, I know he played for your lot before he ended up at Old Trafford.
Thank you for an interesting thought, but as I have no interest in football whatsoever, I am unable to comment on your premis. But If football restricted the use of players with a foreign passport as does cricket, then more of our youth may be more evident in the Premier League and wages may be lower.
However, to use your thought and project it forwards. If the NOs win say 55/45 in September, what effect will that have on the 2015 result in Scotland?
Will the SNP advance and capture seats from Labour due to a sympathy vote or a try-harder vote? Or will the SNP decline if there is more of a devomax after September and before May and so the Cons get more seats?
7/4 Clegg
9/4 Salmond
4/1 Farage
5/1 Cameron
6/1 Miliband
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/the-political-sack-race-wholl-be-out-first/
One Scottish player was banned for taking a banned substance.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/austria-pre-qualifying.html
People don't usually vote for someone or something because of sport, the London olympics proved that it doesn't affect voting intentions very much.
The difficulty is predicting where those votes would go this time around. I expect they will head in several directions, possibly compensating to a degree for lack of enthusiasm for Miliband north of the border. It may also mean that Danny Alexander becomes safer in Inverness. South of the border, I would expect a modest boost for Cameron and perhaps also North of the Border.
There would be some real infighting in the SNP as before, with the Ultras of Wings turning on their compatriots with their characteristic charm and reasonableness.
Back of a fag packet independence, what could go wrong?
1. The Glasgow Commonwealth Games are a Labour, not SNP, initiative - started by the Labour Party when they were in power in Holyrood, together with Glasgow City Council (much the same thing). So currently Glasgow CC (SLAB) + Scottish Gmt (SNP) - so neutral politically. Actually the real tension is perhaps more GCC versus the Greens and Trots over the way the land was compulsorily seized and cleared.
2. @foxinsox - hmm, but re SNP vote after a No, remember that they were not in power in 1979 and voting was under FPTP - neither being the case now, when they are widely seen as the natural party of government in Scotland replacing Labour. Plus there actually may be an additional vote against Unionist parties by those Labour, etc., voters upset with their MPs gojng for No, in bed with Tories, worried about Unionists fulfilling their devo-a-tiny-bit-more promises, etc. etc. [not how I see it so much as how many will see it].
3. The World Cupp 1966 effect is not, I think, a simple football supporting issue but was actually more interesting than that. What it did do was highlight two things -
(a) the prevalence of the doctrine that England = UK and only English news was important
(b) the prevalence of English news on the "British" Broadcasting Corporation - and going on and on and on about 'our' or the 'national' victory did not help
I don't think the football supporting stuff was an issue beyond the pub or the bar as far as 1966 was concerned: what it did do was help make a lot of people aware something might be wrong with the body politic and sensitised them to further thought and debate.
There may be value on Salmond going first, If there is a massive defeat for Yes.
I cannot see, Nigel, Ed or Dave going before an election, and any of the three would go with a bad electoral performance, but who knows the order?
Well, no one can question the elegant simplicity of that analysis.
Lib Dem incumbency is a thing of the past.
And yep, the rise of UKIP in the urban North and safe Tory South might just reset the clock.
You're going to have under 25 MPs after the election. Deal with it.
Quite, point taken. However the same factors which I adduced (save 'natural party' of domestic administration) could also apply to Westminster.
A further factor is the increasing likelihood of a coalition gmt or small-majority or even minority gmt (something with which Scots have been familiar for much longer than is often realised). In that respect, therefore, voting for a party such as the SNP becomes much more attractive (or less unattractive) in terms of 'wasted vote', if the SNP could end up as part of a consortium of similar parties holding the balance of power, or at least making life much more difficult for a weak majority party.
Early days yet, and you may well be right, but recent Westminster VI polling in Scotland offers some support for the above and in particular a decline in the Labour vote, which is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that pro-indy Labour voters are seeking a new home for their vote. Of course this may be nothing to do with indy and everything to do with Mr Miliband and London Labour's perceived dominance, but that would still give the same result.
Vaniila still hiccupy and work calls alas ...
"A worrying number of shy and book smart children are being labelled as 'mentally ill' by doctors who are under pressure from parents to give them a diagnosis according to a top psychiatrist.
Professor Sir Simon Wessely, the new head of the Royal College of Psychiatrists says that there is a growing trend of medicating normal traits in children by the insistence of overbearing parents.
Pushy parents are getting GPs to prescribe drugs such as Ritalin and Prozac to treat serious disorders creating a huge rise in antidepressants and drug use among young children.
Along with mental health diagnosis, one of the most commonly medicated disorders is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
If a child is seen as being overactive, but does not necessarily have ADHD, he could be prescribed drugs, Professor Wessely said.
He told The Times: 'Certain behaviour carry stigma and there's less stigma if it's associated with a disorder. Often it's about the avoidance of guilt.
Around three to seven per cent of children, or 400,000, are believed to have ADHD in the UK, with many being prescribed drugs to try and improve their concentration at school.
According to recent figures, the use of ADHD drugs has tripled over the past decade and antidepressants usage has shot up too.
Professor Wessely said that it is becoming less common for children to be labelled as 'shy' but they are more likely to be branded as having a social phobia or a behavioural problem.
And even schools are benefitting from mislabelling pupils, says Professor Wessely, as the more special needs children in a school, the more funds they'll get.
However, some experts claim that many disorders have no merit at all, and are in fact, made up.
Paediatric neurologist Dr Richard Saul, based in Chicago, believes that ADHD simply ‘doesn’t exist’ and is being used as a mask for less serious problems. Dr Saul argues that children are being misdiagnosed.
‘ADHD makes a great excuse,’ Dr Saul said in his book, ‘ADHD does not exist: The truth about Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder.’ ‘The diagnosis can be an easy-to-reach-for crutch.
Mail online.
http://tinyurl.com/k6pxmw9
Costa Rica lead Group D with 6 points out of 6, whereas England are bottom with nul points.
Yet the betting odds for the final fixture between these two show England as the hot odds-on favourite, best priced at 0.85/1 with BetVictor, while Costa Rica can be backed at a seemingly value-packed 3.6/1 available from Boylesports.
Who will TSE tip I wonder?
not really a great fan of England in international football, mostly because I am usually disappointed by them. But with all the stuff being thrown at them at the moment I thought it was worth highlighting the England Footballers Foundation.
Since 2007 all match fees that the England players would have received for international duty have been donated to this organisation to be given to charities such as Help for Heroes and Cancer Research UK.
http://www.englandfootballersfoundation.com/about-eff.html
It would be interesting to have a reasoned comment from you on just why that Herald piece
(a) did not let Mr Wings comment
(b) left out the reason the Tory politician was being criticised, which was for his virulent, and repeated, public and personal attacks on pro-indy supporters
(c) did not discuss the likely reason for the Yes campaign action, which is the risk of No campaigners making vexatious complaints about supposed concerted action between pro-Yes parties under the rather strange Electoral Commission rules (Lallans Peat Worrier had a good posting on the latter a week or three back).
There was a doctor on the radio about ten years ago saying much the same.
That id your perverted twist on the figures , Lib Dems to have over 30 seats and around 35 is the general consensus , I accept I am a little more optimistic . you will do better to accept the facts , prepare yourself for that now to avoid treatment post GE .
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0061771228?pc_redir=1403114907&robot_redir=1
While Szasz takes a fairly extreme view; there is a case to be made that by giving variations in personality and thinking as medical disorders we force people down a medical path. Should shyness be treated pharmaceutically or by gentle social support? Should the behaviour labelled as ADHD be treated by Ritalin or by behavioural therapy?
I think the medicalisation of social disorders is not only excessive, but counterproductive. A parent and teacher may be grateful with a diagnosis of ADHD but if it leads to acceptance of such behaviour rather than supportive therapy to ameliorate the behaviour, has the child benefited?
The evidence is that Ritalin loses effectiveness after three years, and has significant side effects included stunted growth and progression to other psychiatric conditions. This medical bloger has written extensively on the subject.
http://cockroachcatcher.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/adult-adhd-faking-real-psychosis-suicide.html?m=1
Corruption impedes progress in Thailand, and workers die in both because of conditions, says US state department's report":
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jun/20/thailand-qatar-downgraded-human-trafficking-report
http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/zpravy/left-to-back-juncker-in-exchange-for-high-eu-posts-czech-pm/1094102?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed
One MP said: "I like Ed a lot. He is a really nice guy. But he has not managed to get a hearing from the British people. His ratings have been bad since day one and he has not managed to improve them. In fact, they are getting worse.""
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/20/ed-miliband-must-go-lose-election-labour-frontbencher
1) David Miliband wouldn't have been able to bury the Iraq episode like Ed has. It would have been a serious ongoing problem, even worse as Iraq falls apart, and crippled his ability to win over the 2010 LibDems who have been solid for Ed.
2) David Miliband is utterly shit at politics. His big idea was the individual carbon ration card. He managed to destabilize Gordon Brown's government by always looking like he was going to challenge him without ever actually doing it. And he wasn't good enough to win a Labour leadership election... against Ed Miliband.
"But one frontbencher said: "Ed is definitely an issue. But on the doorstep you are never quite sure how far people are saying it is about Ed because they think it is about Ed or whether, if you are not comfortable about Labour, you pin it on the leader." "