As a Tory that wanted Scots to vote Yes (goodbye likes of Brown and his 40 colleagues) what a shame that this ridiculous posturing and inability to come up with a straight answer on currency has blown all credibility out of the water.
Malcolm the pound is not a currency union. The Euro is. If we wanted a currency union we'd have joined the Euro - as until recently was the SNP solution. You cannot simply dictate that a country that has refused a currency union for two decades will simply convert its own currency into a union. The argument for a currency union isn't some new SNP invention it's been had since the late 80s and been comprehensively rejected. It was never an option.
I don't really care about Scottish Independence to be honest - it's curious to watch those who lambasted Darling when Chancellor of the Exchequer suddenly seem to think he's not a bad chap. Too much of the so-called debate on here and I suspect elsewhere is more about wanting to denigrate Alex Salmond and the SNP for reasons I can't fathom.
To be fair, it's the same the other way. I don't care if Scotland uses the pound, the euro or the thistle as currency. The debate is predicated on the assumption of antagonism in the event of a YES vote almost as if there'll be a border post at Carter Bar by the end of September 19th. I've no problem with an independent Scotland in a currency union with the rest of the UK - the details can be worked out by officials (that's why we have officials).
It seems that the rest of the UK is offering a sweetener of sorts in the event of a YES vote (is it Devomax in disguise ?) and it's faintly amusing to watch those whose basic instinct is to centralise power in Westminster seemingly so keen to give it away - perhaps such largesse could be extended to Wales and the English Local Authorities.
No, I'm not too concerned to be honest. I'm much more concerned (because I operate from enlightened self-interest as most people do) in the threat of a 5.6% increase in my fares next January. A huge increase in fares just before an election - interesting. I wonder if Osborne will lean on Boris to keep fare rises at or even below inflation as part of what I suspect will be a tuck shop full of spring surprises (though many of them will be more like Spring Surprise or Cockroach Cluster).
I am all in favour of minority languages, but when they are closing libraries, leisure centres and putting back operations, surely this money should have been spent on more urgent priorities.
My voting record is leftie, but I did vote Ukip in May, and being in a solid Labour seat, I may indulge myself again next year.
But on to more important things ...
I understand the outcry over Gaza to some extent but the child death toll is minscule compared to the tolll every day from contaminated water and starvation in Africa.
In Gaza, we have two intractable enemies locked in a war of recrimination. That’s bad, it’s the selective outrage that irritates me. By all means, protest about a few children’s deaths but put things in perspective. Before you march and threaten, remember the bigger issues.
Why are child eaths ignored if they’re not on the telly every day in bright technicolour. If Palestinian deaths deserve demonstrations and wall to wall coverage why don’t the thousands more unseen deaths exist for the “concerned” people. Who resigns because more isn’t being done to prevet the slow and agonising deaths of unphotogrpahed children.
I excuse some pople. I’m sure Baroness Warsi (being a concerned Muslim) and Sean T (being a concerned Christian), and having a bob or two to spare, already contribute to preventing these preventable deaths. In that case, they have earned their seat on the outrage bus.
It doesn’t take a lot to help and you don’t have to lecture others on points of principle to feel good about yourself.
The charities exist already. For instance, Oxfam, Save the Children, Unicef, Medecins sans Frontieres and Cafod can always use a financial contribution and many even work in Gaza.
They may have overpaid CEs but their people on the ground dodge the danger and work on without political point scoring being the main issue.
What surprised me most was on the map that shows where the twitter messaes came from Brighton and Eastbourne stand out as major centres. I didn't know that either had a particularly large Scots ex-pat population, so I wonder what the cause of it was.
I don't really care about Scottish Independence to be honest - it's curious to watch those who lambasted Darling when Chancellor of the Exchequer suddenly seem to think he's not a bad chap. Too much of the so-called debate on here and I suspect elsewhere is more about wanting to denigrate Alex Salmond and the SNP for reasons I can't fathom.
To be fair, it's the same the other way. I don't care if Scotland uses the pound, the euro or the thistle as currency. The debate is predicated on the assumption of antagonism in the event of a YES vote almost as if there'll be a border post at Carter Bar by the end of September 19th. I've no problem with an independent Scotland in a currency union with the rest of the UK - the details can be worked out by officials (that's why we have officials).
It seems that the rest of the UK is offering a sweetener of sorts in the event of a YES vote (is it Devomax in disguise ?) and it's faintly amusing to watch those whose basic instinct is to centralise power in Westminster seemingly so keen to give it away - perhaps such largesse could be extended to Wales and the English Local Authorities.
No, I'm not too concerned to be honest. I'm much more concerned (because I operate from enlightened self-interest as most people do) in the threat of a 5.6% increase in my fares next January. A huge increase in fares just before an election - interesting. I wonder if Osborne will lean on Boris to keep fare rises at or even below inflation as part of what I suspect will be a tuck shop full of spring surprises (though many of them will be more like Spring Surprise or Cockroach Cluster).
What surprised me most was on the map that shows where the twitter messaes came from Brighton and Eastbourne stand out as major centres. I didn't know that either had a particularly large Scots ex-pat population, so I wonder what the cause of it was.
The gay and the old of Scotland seem to want to live by the seaside?
This morning those who fear and hate Salmond will be indulging in triumphant, herd-like bellowing, those who think the sun shines out of his fundament will be defensive & prickly. However these numbers are essentially unchanged from before 8pm last night. The undecideds are in neither of these groups.
The ICM shows undecideds broke 74:24 in considering Salmond won the debate. Regardless of whether one thinks that will influence their final decision, those were the stats on the night
This morning those who fear and hate Salmond will be indulging in triumphant, herd-like bellowing, those who think the sun shines out of his fundament will be defensive & prickly. However these numbers are essentially unchanged from before 8pm last night. The undecideds are in neither of these groups.
The ICM shows undecideds broke 74:24 in considering Salmond won the debate. Regardless of whether one thinks that will influence their final decision, those were the stats on the night
Last night was yet another triumph for your victorious leader, Salmond.
As a Tory that wanted Scots to vote Yes (goodbye likes of Brown and his 40 colleagues) what a shame that this ridiculous posturing and inability to come up with a straight answer on currency has blown all credibility out of the water.
Malcolm the pound is not a currency union. The Euro is. If we wanted a currency union we'd have joined the Euro - as until recently was the SNP solution. You cannot simply dictate that a country that has refused a currency union for two decades will simply convert its own currency into a union. The argument for a currency union isn't some new SNP invention it's been had since the late 80s and been comprehensively rejected. It was never an option.
Philip, I think they will all go for the sensible option which is same currency as we currently have rules on both sides. Everybody seems to think it will all be one way , it will mean rules for the rump UK as well even if they have the majority vote. For Scotland we will have all other powers which is new and the same currency, so good news.
As a Tory that wanted Scots to vote Yes (goodbye likes of Brown and his 40 colleagues) what a shame that this ridiculous posturing and inability to come up with a straight answer on currency has blown all credibility out of the water.
Malcolm the pound is not a currency union. The Euro is. If we wanted a currency union we'd have joined the Euro - as until recently was the SNP solution. You cannot simply dictate that a country that has refused a currency union for two decades will simply convert its own currency into a union. The argument for a currency union isn't some new SNP invention it's been had since the late 80s and been comprehensively rejected. It was never an option.
Philip, I think they will all go for the sensible option which is same currency as we currently have rules on both sides. Everybody seems to think it will all be one way , it will mean rules for the rump UK as well even if they have the majority vote. For Scotland we will have all other powers which is new and the same currency, so good news.
A currency union with rules to prevent problems?
Once again that is the Euro. And how did that work out? We rejected the currency union with rules approach decades ago before problems hit, why would we agree to it now.
As a Tory that wanted Scots to vote Yes (goodbye likes of Brown and his 40 colleagues) what a shame that this ridiculous posturing and inability to come up with a straight answer on currency has blown all credibility out of the water.
Malcolm the pound is not a currency union. The Euro is. If we wanted a currency union we'd have joined the Euro - as until recently was the SNP solution. You cannot simply dictate that a country that has refused a currency union for two decades will simply convert its own currency into a union. The argument for a currency union isn't some new SNP invention it's been had since the late 80s and been comprehensively rejected. It was never an option.
Philip, I think they will all go for the sensible option which is same currency as we currently have rules on both sides. Everybody seems to think it will all be one way , it will mean rules for the rump UK as well even if they have the majority vote. For Scotland we will have all other powers which is new and the same currency, so good news.
I agree with you on the outcome re currency but I cannot see why there will be 'rules for rUK' - essentially if Scotland uses the £ it will be subject to the rUK treasury rules and will not be independent.
This morning those who fear and hate Salmond will be indulging in triumphant, herd-like bellowing, those who think the sun shines out of his fundament will be defensive & prickly. However these numbers are essentially unchanged from before 8pm last night. The undecideds are in neither of these groups.
The ICM shows undecideds broke 74:24 in considering Salmond won the debate. Regardless of whether one thinks that will influence their final decision, those were the stats on the night
Last night was yet another triumph for your victorious leader, Salmond.
I wouldn't necessarily agree, but undecideds appear to think so.
This morning those who fear and hate Salmond will be indulging in triumphant, herd-like bellowing, those who think the sun shines out of his fundament will be defensive & prickly. However these numbers are essentially unchanged from before 8pm last night. The undecideds are in neither of these groups.
The ICM shows undecideds broke 74:24 in considering Salmond won the debate. Regardless of whether one thinks that will influence their final decision, those were the stats on the night
Last night was yet another triumph for your victorious leader, Salmond.
The undecideds appear to think so.
But there is no evidence of an overall move in voting intentions. I always doubted that the debates would have a big impact but I did expect a big Salmond win.
This morning those who fear and hate Salmond will be indulging in triumphant, herd-like bellowing, those who think the sun shines out of his fundament will be defensive & prickly. However these numbers are essentially unchanged from before 8pm last night. The undecideds are in neither of these groups.
The ICM shows undecideds broke 74:24 in considering Salmond won the debate. Regardless of whether one thinks that will influence their final decision, those were the stats on the night
Last night was yet another triumph for your victorious leader, Salmond.
This morning those who fear and hate Salmond will be indulging in triumphant, herd-like bellowing, those who think the sun shines out of his fundament will be defensive & prickly. However these numbers are essentially unchanged from before 8pm last night. The undecideds are in neither of these groups.
The ICM shows undecideds broke 74:24 in considering Salmond won the debate. Regardless of whether one thinks that will influence their final decision, those were the stats on the night
Last night was yet another triumph for your victorious leader, Salmond.
The undecideds appear to think so.
They split more or less fifty fifty.
Ok - what were the figures for the undecided - there's a big difference between 75:25 and 50:50?
What is it with some of our politicians and Israel? I liked Warsi's complimentary 'George is a good friend of the Israeli government.' Compare that to the usual sneering that goes on towards our far more important European allies - I can't imagine George making the kind of snide remarks he did about Sarkozy about Netanyahu?
Is it a question of political donations? I'm not sure. Perhaps they are just excited by a country that seems to be on a permanent war footing whereas we have to deal with hum drum issues like the environment. Or maybe it's a desire to make the Tories nothing more than an extension of the US republican party, famed for their pro-Israel dogma.
Gideon Rachman wrote a good piece in the FT about Israel and the changing world. It's losing support in the west but gaining it elsewhere. Putin is of course very worried about Islamic fundamentalism, China isn't exactly soft on the issue and you now have a Hindu nationalist running India. Putin and Netanyahu apparently get on famously. Why is hug a hoodie Dave positioning himself with those guys?
In a little-noticed move, a small number of police officers are now routinely carrying sidearms while on patrol in much of Scotland - the first in the UK outside Northern Ireland to do so. How did this come about, and does it alter the relationship between the constabulary and the public?
Saturday night in Inverness. Outside a McDonald's restaurant, a scuffle between two men breaks out. Three police officers arrive to intervene. So far, so mundane.
Except that strapped around the hips of each of the policemen approaching the brawl is a holstered Glock 17 semi-automatic pistol.
It's a sight that once would have been unthinkable. In this corner of the Scottish Highlands - an area with one of the lowest crime rates in the UK - the officers showing up to a relatively workaday disturbance are armed.
Although every police force has a firearms unit, for decades it has been an article of faith that in the mainland UK, almost uniquely among major industrialised nations, the police do not carry guns as a matter of course.
I am all in favour of minority languages, but when they are closing libraries, leisure centres and putting back operations, surely this money should have been spent on more urgent priorities.
Indeed, though these sums are tiny by govt standards. They are probably considerably less than the amount spent on Cardiff's third bilingual high school which is due to open in soon (next month even I think), which is the real driver of sustaining or even expanding the language for the future.
For my tuppence on last night: Salmond needed a game changer, and didn't get one. Darling was surprisingly passionate and effective.
Really the currency is just a huge hole below the waterline of the good ship independence. What Salmond just has never publically recognised is that the new foreign country to the South, that will effectively be created in the event of a Yes vote, would of course have a strong national interest in having a friendly cooperative prosperous northern neighbour (a la Canada), but that's not the same thing as having 100% symmetry of interests or views. It's perfectly clear it's in Scotland's interests to have a currency union, but it's just not in the rUK's. We do not want to have to pick up the bill for any future Fred the Shred's, or have to implicitly underwrite Salmond's expansive public sector. If the price is 10% extra debt and rebuilding Faslane in Falmouth then so be it. It's cheaper than RBS mark II 25 years down the line, or public freebies all round from Gretna to Lerwick.
The irony is if Salmond had been braver he could've maybe sold real independence Scots currency and all. It's perfectly feasible but I suspect he took a perceived easier route, and has (almost certainly) blown it.
This morning those who fear and hate Salmond will be indulging in triumphant, herd-like bellowing, those who think the sun shines out of his fundament will be defensive & prickly. However these numbers are essentially unchanged from before 8pm last night. The undecideds are in neither of these groups.
The ICM shows undecideds broke 74:24 in considering Salmond won the debate. Regardless of whether one thinks that will influence their final decision, those were the stats on the night
Last night was yet another triumph for your victorious leader, Salmond.
The undecideds appear to think so.
They split more or less fifty fifty.
Ok - what were the figures for the undecided - there's a big difference between 75:25 and 50:50?
This morning those who fear and hate Salmond will be indulging in triumphant, herd-like bellowing, those who think the sun shines out of his fundament will be defensive & prickly. However these numbers are essentially unchanged from before 8pm last night. The undecideds are in neither of these groups.
The ICM shows undecideds broke 74:24 in considering Salmond won the debate. Regardless of whether one thinks that will influence their final decision, those were the stats on the night
Last night was yet another triumph for your victorious leader, Salmond.
The undecideds appear to think so.
They split more or less fifty fifty.
Ok - what were the figures for the undecided - there's a big difference between 75:25 and 50:50?
From Scottishelections.org.uk;
" Amongst the key undecided swing voters, Salmond was considered narrowly victorious with 55% to Darling's 45%."
What is it with some of our politicians and Israel? I liked Warsi's complimentary 'George is a good friend of the Israeli government.' Compare that to the usual sneering that goes on towards our far more important European allies - I can't imagine George making the kind of snide remarks he did about Sarkozy about Netanyahu?
Is it a question of political donations? I'm not sure. Perhaps they are just excited by a country that seems to be on a permanent war footing whereas we have to deal with hum drum issues like the environment. Or maybe it's a desire to make the Tories nothing more than an extension of the US republican party, famed for their pro-Israel dogma.
Gideon Rachman wrote a good piece in the FT about Israel and the changing world. It's losing support in the west but gaining it elsewhere. Putin is of course very worried about Islamic fundamentalism, China isn't exactly soft on the issue and you now have a Hindu nationalist running India. Putin and Netanyahu apparently get on famously. Why is hug a hoodie Dave positioning himself with those guys?
I think Warsi's resignation was unnecessary and her comments about george Osborne are snide. As to Cameron positioning himself with Putin and Netanyahu -that is demonstrably nonsense. The ME question is extraordinarily complex - both sides have quite extreme positions although I'm not sure the Israeli Constitution states that Gaza is to be destroyed unlike the position of Hamas. Britain's role is inevitably very limited but news soundbites a la Miliband should not form a major part of it.
Not difficult at all, if you have a Sky box, and the foresight to manually tune STV and save to "other channels". I'm surprised this wasn't publicised in advance.
This morning those who fear and hate Salmond will be indulging in triumphant, herd-like bellowing, those who think the sun shines out of his fundament will be defensive & prickly. However these numbers are essentially unchanged from before 8pm last night. The undecideds are in neither of these groups.
The ICM shows undecideds broke 74:24 in considering Salmond won the debate. Regardless of whether one thinks that will influence their final decision, those were the stats on the night
Last night was yet another triumph for your victorious leader, Salmond.
The undecideds appear to think so.
They split more or less fifty fifty.
Ok - what were the figures for the undecided - there's a big difference between 75:25 and 50:50?
From Scottishelections.org.uk;
" Amongst the key undecided swing voters, Salmond was considered narrowly victorious with 55% to Darling's 45%."
The whole piece.
' Salmond Wins Over Undecided Voters in First Debate
As the referendum debate between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond draws to a close, most commentators have acknowledged Darling as the victor with the First Minister giving a less stellar than expected performance.
An instant ICM poll held at the end of the debate gave Darling the win overall with 56% of respondents choosing him as the winner to Salmond's 44%. However, this lead comes from Darling's stronger support amongst those definitely voting no (90%-10%) compared to Salmond's support amongst those definitely voting yes (80%-20%).
Amongst the key undecided swing voters, Salmond was considered narrowly victorious with 55% to Darling's 45%. Salmond's winning margin is even greater however amongst those who remained uncertain after the debate - 74% to 26%.'
This morning those who fear and hate Salmond will be indulging in triumphant, herd-like bellowing, those who think the sun shines out of his fundament will be defensive & prickly. However these numbers are essentially unchanged from before 8pm last night. The undecideds are in neither of these groups.
The ICM shows undecideds broke 74:24 in considering Salmond won the debate. Regardless of whether one thinks that will influence their final decision, those were the stats on the night
Last night was yet another triumph for your victorious leader, Salmond.
The undecideds appear to think so.
They split more or less fifty fifty.
Ok - what were the figures for the undecided - there's a big difference between 75:25 and 50:50?
Boris says he will in all probability try and stand for parliament in 2015
I'm not surprised. Boris is seemingly reneging on a commitment made during the 2012 Mayoral campaign that he would not seek a return to Westminster during his term.
He will of course (and rightly) use the point that Ken Livingstone remained MP for Brent from 2000 to 2001 so the two jobs aren't incompatible for a short timescale though some in London might argue otherwise and of course Boris stood down as MP for Henley in 2008 to run as London Mayor so if he couldn't do the two jobs then, how come he can do them now ?
Boris is also of course leaving the door open (if he can't find a seat or he doesn't get elected) to running for a third term as Mayor but it seems probable that, if elected, he would be out of the running. Current polls show a swing to Labour in London of some 4.5% which might be enough to topple 6-8 Conservatives but the outer seats (Uxbridge, Ruislip perhaps) would be quite safe.
This morning those who fear and hate Salmond will be indulging in triumphant, herd-like bellowing, those who think the sun shines out of his fundament will be defensive & prickly. However these numbers are essentially unchanged from before 8pm last night. The undecideds are in neither of these groups.
The ICM shows undecideds broke 74:24 in considering Salmond won the debate. Regardless of whether one thinks that will influence their final decision, those were the stats on the night
Last night was yet another triumph for your victorious leader, Salmond.
The undecideds appear to think so.
They split more or less fifty fifty.
Ok - what were the figures for the undecided - there's a big difference between 75:25 and 50:50?
From Scottishelections.org.uk;
" Amongst the key undecided swing voters, Salmond was considered narrowly victorious with 55% to Darling's 45%."
The whole piece.
' Salmond Wins Over Undecided Voters in First Debate
As the referendum debate between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond draws to a close, most commentators have acknowledged Darling as the victor with the First Minister giving a less stellar than expected performance.
An instant ICM poll held at the end of the debate gave Darling the win overall with 56% of respondents choosing him as the winner to Salmond's 44%. However, this lead comes from Darling's stronger support amongst those definitely voting no (90%-10%) compared to Salmond's support amongst those definitely voting yes (80%-20%).
Amongst the key undecided swing voters, Salmond was considered narrowly victorious with 55% to Darling's 45%. Salmond's winning margin is even greater however amongst those who remained uncertain after the debate - 74% to 26%.'
The 74 to 26 break in that group isn't good for Salmond. It shows that that the undecideds that voted for him in the 55:45 breakdown remain undecided whereas Darling's undecideds are now convinced for No.
Also you can see why Dave decided not to debate with Alex Salmond
1) Dave would have wiped the floor with Salmond, and that would have led to a sympathy vote for Salmond and yes, so not good for the Union
2) It was really good to see two passionate Scots, talking about the future of Scotland, an Englishman v a Scot, the passion would not have been there.
“Sentimentality is the expression of emotion without judgment. Perhaps it is worse than that: it is the expression of emotion without an acknowledgement that judgment should enter into how we should react to what we see and hear.”
In response to CD13 below, there is an awful lot of hysterical and self-indulgent posturing about appalling events, usually in response to how often they appear on the TV without any regard for the accuracy or context of those reports. Only a fool would think that we are getting the full story from any party in a war zone or indeed from journalists in a war zone.
And people who die or are killed or suffer out of sight of cameras are ignored, regardless of how bad their suffering is. So no outrage over what is happening to Christians in Iraq now or in Syria or what is happening to gay men in Iran or - and this is the awful pity of it I could go on and on with my list - because it is out of sight, out of mind.
I do not have any sort of solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Northern Ireland may well be a hopeful template though the cessation of violence happened when the IRA accepted defeat (whatever they may say in public) and Northern Ireland continued to be part of the UK even though their express goal has always been its elimination. Peace usually comes when one side is defeated or both sides are so exhausted that they accept terms they could have had years and thousands of deaths earlier. What I do think is that hysterical finger-pointing by outsiders with little scope to do anything (Britain has been mistrusted by Arabs and Jews since the 1930s and simply is not a player, whatever delusions Cameron, Milliband or Clegg may have) is pointless and unhelpful. Neither side has leaders of courage and vision who could reach out and make the first steps. It is a tragedy for both and until / if that happens, innocents on both sides will suffer. It is very very sad.
Could Boris be leader of the opposition and London Mayor from say September 2015 to May 2016?
Or would he have to give up the Mayoralty a few months early?
What we have to keep in mind is that if Cameron does get booted out next year, Osborne is finished with him - Both their fate's are inextricably linked.
In that case the leadership battle opens up for Boris and probably Theresa.
If Cameron win's it's "game on" for Osborne, Boris, Theresa and probably two or three others in 2017/2018.
Whether Cameron wins or loses, many think he won't serve the full term so Boris' decision is not necessarily surprising.
I'm sure this has forced Boris's hand. If he's outside Parliament, he's nowhere. Inside, even on the backbenches, he's a contender for a defeated party looking for new leadership next year OR he's the potential successor to a long-serving party leader and Prime Minister in 2017-18. Even his recent comments on the EU are hedging his bets as to whether Britain stays in or leaves.
For all this morning's words. Boris is still dancing on the head of the pin and trying to stake out a position most advantageous to himself (someone else acting on motivated self-interest - there's a lot of that about).
Could Boris be leader of the opposition and London Mayor from say September 2015 to May 2016?
Or would he had to give up the Mayoralty a few months early?
What we have to keep in mind is that if Cameron does get booted out next year, Osborne is finished with him - Both their fate's are inextricably linked.
In that case the leadership battle opens up for Boris and probably Theresa,
Don't write off Phil Hammond (an outer from the EU), Sajid Javid or Jeremy Hunt.
This morning those who fear and hate Salmond will be indulging in triumphant, herd-like bellowing, those who think the sun shines out of his fundament will be defensive & prickly. However these numbers are essentially unchanged from before 8pm last night. The undecideds are in neither of these groups.
The ICM shows undecideds broke 74:24 in considering Salmond won the debate. Regardless of whether one thinks that will influence their final decision, those were the stats on the night
Last night was yet another triumph for your victorious leader, Salmond.
The undecideds appear to think so.
They split more or less fifty fifty.
Ok - what were the figures for the undecided - there's a big difference between 75:25 and 50:50?
I think Boris is deluded if he thinks that he would be a good leader of the Tory Party and the Tories are even more deluded if they think he would make a good PM.
Could Boris damage Cameron/Tories election campaign ? The talk will be of the Tories losing the election and Boris taking over. Or if the Tories did stay in government about Boris being in the cabinet, even taking over from Cameron. Could prove to be a distraction for the Tories campaign, as the media are bound to give extra coverage to Boris, with every word he says analysed to see how different it is to Camerons.
Think for this reason that Tory central office will make sure that Boris does not stand in May 2015.
TSE makes the killer point that parties don't pick the same leader twice. Very often a party which has had one leader for a long time go for someone who is, if not politically than socially and culturally the polar opposite.
Thus Thatcher begat Major and Blair begat Brown and Ashdown begat Kennedy. All completely different personalities and styles. To imagine Johnson following Cameron is to see someone repeating themselves. The next Conservative leader will be the social and personality antithesis of Cameron even if their politics are similar.
Boris wants to be leader too much and his opinions on immigration make him a non starter. Shame as he has the charisma to win any election otherwise. Also his record isn't the best in London, especially the free for all for property developers.
The next leader needs to white and from the provincial middle class (Maggie) or working class (Major), these voters are the key demographic that are the future of the Conservative party and need to be won over.
This morning those who fear and hate Salmond will be indulging in triumphant, herd-like bellowing, those who think the sun shines out of his fundament will be defensive & prickly. However these numbers are essentially unchanged from before 8pm last night. The undecideds are in neither of these groups.
The ICM shows undecideds broke 74:24 in considering Salmond won the debate. Regardless of whether one thinks that will influence their final decision, those were the stats on the night
Last night was yet another triumph for your victorious leader, Salmond.
The undecideds appear to think so.
They split more or less fifty fifty.
Ok - what were the figures for the undecided - there's a big difference between 75:25 and 50:50?
From Scottishelections.org.uk;
" Amongst the key undecided swing voters, Salmond was considered narrowly victorious with 55% to Darling's 45%."
The whole piece.
' Salmond Wins Over Undecided Voters in First Debate
As the referendum debate between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond draws to a close, most commentators have acknowledged Darling as the victor with the First Minister giving a less stellar than expected performance.
An instant ICM poll held at the end of the debate gave Darling the win overall with 56% of respondents choosing him as the winner to Salmond's 44%. However, this lead comes from Darling's stronger support amongst those definitely voting no (90%-10%) compared to Salmond's support amongst those definitely voting yes (80%-20%).
Amongst the key undecided swing voters, Salmond was considered narrowly victorious with 55% to Darling's 45%. Salmond's winning margin is even greater however amongst those who remained uncertain after the debate - 74% to 26%.'
The 74 to 26 break in that group isn't good for Salmond. It shows that that the undecideds that voted for him in the 55:45 breakdown remain undecided whereas Darling's undecideds are now convinced for No.
Well spotted! That's actually a pretty dire set of numbers for Yes.
As indeed did the Napoleonic War. I wonder how or even if, had there not been an armed conflict in 1915, Britain would have celebrated the centenary of the Battle of Waterloo.
The bicentenary approaches apace - on that occasion of course the Germans were on our side as were the Austrians and the French were the enemy.
In 1815, we fought with Germany against France. In 1915 we fought with France against Germany In 2015 some people see the likes of France and Germany against us.
Mr. Eagles, ticking demographic boxes is identity politics bullshit, and didn't work tremendously well with Warsi.
It would be, Mr. D, however I think Sajid Javid could do it purely on merit and nothing to do with any sort of identity politics. He is a very bright and, I think, tough fellow. He is however very new and 2015 might be too soon for him, he really needs to run a big department for a couple of years and build a following in the PCP.
If Cameron gets in next year then 2017/18 would be a very good time for Javid. If Cameron looses next year then I think it likely that Javid will get bored with politics and take himself off to somewhere he can make a difference with his undoubtedly huge talents. Next time I am passing the bookies I think I'll see if I can't get a little money on him as next Conservative leader.
As Charles Murray wrote on Britain's growing criminal underclass “The US has dealt with the problem of the underclass by putting 2m people in jail, which has had a big impact. We haven’t rehabilitated anyone but just kept them out of society. It is not a happy solution but it is the only solution.”
Mr. Eagles, ticking demographic boxes is identity politics bullshit, and didn't work tremendously well with Warsi.
It would be, Mr. D, however I think Sajid Javid could do it purely on merit and nothing to do with any sort of identity politics. He is a very bright and, I think, tough fellow. He is however very new and 2015 might be too soon for him, he really needs to run a big department for a couple of years and build a following in the PCP.
If Cameron gets in next year then 2017/18 would be a very good time for Javid. If Cameron looses next year then I think it likely that Javid will get bored with politics and take himself off to somewhere he can make a difference with his undoubtedly huge talents. Next time I am passing the bookies I think I'll see if I can't get a little money on him as next Conservative leader.
Indeed, the only black mark against him, is that he's an ex Banker and the fact he'd be running up against the party of Phil Woolas.
I think Boris is deluded if he thinks that he would be a good leader of the Tory Party and the Tories are even more deluded if they think he would make a good PM.
He would make an excellent Leader of the Opposition against Ed Miliband. He would also make a much better PM than Ed Miliband. Those are the only two worthwhile considerations.
If the Tories win the next election, then it won't be Boris - the continuity candidate is Osborne, the safe-hands option is Hammond, or it's to the next generation to look, in 4-5 years time.
Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
Well the re offending rates are only significant when compared to how many offences would be committed if there were less prison wouldn't they? How do you know it would be better if we let people off?
When Peter Weir was pitching The Way Back to get financing very few of the Hollywood types had heard of the Gulags. Some things stay forgotten and some stay remembered due to the propaganda purposes they serve in the present.
Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
Well the re offending rates are only significant when compared to how many offences would be committed if there were less prison wouldn't they? How do you know it would be better if we let people off?
Burglaries committed by offenders in prison are running at 0% still..
Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
Yes rehabilitation can work in some cases but on the whole it is a waste of time. Longer prison sentences would stop this re-offending not to mention the crimes not being committed whilst they were already in prison. Most criminals simple become older and effectively retire, crimes a young mans game. Another happy by product is that they aren't free to propagate if they are incarcerated during their prime reproductive period.
Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
Andy Cooke did a good article a while back about crime began declining within a couple of years of Michael Howard's decision to lock up more criminals.
Prison doesn't work, in the sense of making people better. It does, however, take a lot of anti-social people out of circulation, until they reach an age when crime doesn't seem so appealing.
Labour at 1/2 to win the London Mayoral contest must look relatively more attractive too. After the last Standard poll I am very happy with my Tessa Jowell betting slip (but I'm not sure about the 3/1 she's at with Paddy Power right now).
Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
Well the re offending rates are only significant when compared to how many offences would be committed if there were less prison wouldn't they? How do you know it would be better if we let people off?
Pop quiz hot shot.
What do studies and stats across the world show
1) Those given non custodial sentences have a lower re-offending rate
or
2) Those given custodial sentences have a higher re-offending rate
Comments
Malcolm the pound is not a currency union. The Euro is. If we wanted a currency union we'd have joined the Euro - as until recently was the SNP solution. You cannot simply dictate that a country that has refused a currency union for two decades will simply convert its own currency into a union. The argument for a currency union isn't some new SNP invention it's been had since the late 80s and been comprehensively rejected. It was never an option.
I don't really care about Scottish Independence to be honest - it's curious to watch those who lambasted Darling when Chancellor of the Exchequer suddenly seem to think he's not a bad chap. Too much of the so-called debate on here and I suspect elsewhere is more about wanting to denigrate Alex Salmond and the SNP for reasons I can't fathom.
To be fair, it's the same the other way. I don't care if Scotland uses the pound, the euro or the thistle as currency. The debate is predicated on the assumption of antagonism in the event of a YES vote almost as if there'll be a border post at Carter Bar by the end of September 19th. I've no problem with an independent Scotland in a currency union with the rest of the UK - the details can be worked out by officials (that's why we have officials).
It seems that the rest of the UK is offering a sweetener of sorts in the event of a YES vote (is it Devomax in disguise ?) and it's faintly amusing to watch those whose basic instinct is to centralise power in Westminster seemingly so keen to give it away - perhaps such largesse could be extended to Wales and the English Local Authorities.
No, I'm not too concerned to be honest. I'm much more concerned (because I operate from enlightened self-interest as most people do) in the threat of a 5.6% increase in my fares next January. A huge increase in fares just before an election - interesting. I wonder if Osborne will lean on Boris to keep fare rises at or even below inflation as part of what I suspect will be a tuck shop full of spring surprises (though many of them will be more like Spring Surprise or Cockroach Cluster).
"New Welsh language centres are to be opened with £1.25m of Welsh government funding to encourage more people to learn and use the language.
The cash comes on top of £1.6m already pledged in June to support the use of Welsh in business and the community."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-28662015
I am all in favour of minority languages, but when they are closing libraries, leisure centres and putting back operations, surely this money should have been spent on more urgent priorities.
Sarcasm is dead, I see.
My voting record is leftie, but I did vote Ukip in May, and being in a solid Labour seat, I may indulge myself again next year.
But on to more important things ...
I understand the outcry over Gaza to some extent but the child death toll is minscule compared to the tolll every day from contaminated water and starvation in Africa.
In Gaza, we have two intractable enemies locked in a war of recrimination. That’s bad, it’s the selective outrage that irritates me. By all means, protest about a few children’s deaths but put things in perspective. Before you march and threaten, remember the bigger issues.
Why are child eaths ignored if they’re not on the telly every day in bright technicolour. If Palestinian deaths deserve demonstrations and wall to wall coverage why don’t the thousands more unseen deaths exist for the “concerned” people. Who resigns because more isn’t being done to prevet the slow and agonising deaths of unphotogrpahed children.
I excuse some pople. I’m sure Baroness Warsi (being a concerned Muslim) and Sean T (being a concerned Christian), and having a bob or two to spare, already contribute to preventing these preventable deaths. In that case, they have earned their seat on the outrage bus.
It doesn’t take a lot to help and you don’t have to lecture others on points of principle to feel good about yourself.
The charities exist already. For instance, Oxfam, Save the Children, Unicef, Medecins sans Frontieres and Cafod can always use a financial contribution and many even work in Gaza.
They may have overpaid CEs but their people on the ground dodge the danger and work on without political point scoring being the main issue.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/jamiebartlett/100014060/independence-debate-scotland-decides-twitter-doesnt/
What surprised me most was on the map that shows where the twitter messaes came from Brighton and Eastbourne stand out as major centres. I didn't know that either had a particularly large Scots ex-pat population, so I wonder what the cause of it was.
Tuesday's deal will cut tariffs between Canada and the EU by 98% and could boost trade by 20%, or about $20bn.
The deal includes clauses that make it easier for people from either region to work across the EU and Europe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28671105
Due to be ratified by 2016, as a precursor to an EU-USA trade deal? Could shift votes in a 2017 referendum.
This morning those who fear and hate Salmond will be indulging in triumphant, herd-like bellowing, those who think the sun shines out of his fundament will be defensive & prickly. However these numbers are essentially unchanged from before 8pm last night. The undecideds are in neither of these groups.
The ICM shows undecideds broke 74:24 in considering Salmond won the debate. Regardless of whether one thinks that will influence their final decision, those were the stats on the night
Once again that is the Euro. And how did that work out? We rejected the currency union with rules approach decades ago before problems hit, why would we agree to it now.
Is it a question of political donations? I'm not sure. Perhaps they are just excited by a country that seems to be on a permanent war footing whereas we have to deal with hum drum issues like the environment. Or maybe it's a desire to make the Tories nothing more than an extension of the US republican party, famed for their pro-Israel dogma.
Gideon Rachman wrote a good piece in the FT about Israel and the changing world. It's losing support in the west but gaining it elsewhere. Putin is of course very worried about Islamic fundamentalism, China isn't exactly soft on the issue and you now have a Hindu nationalist running India. Putin and Netanyahu apparently get on famously. Why is hug a hoodie Dave positioning himself with those guys?
Saturday night in Inverness. Outside a McDonald's restaurant, a scuffle between two men breaks out. Three police officers arrive to intervene. So far, so mundane.
Except that strapped around the hips of each of the policemen approaching the brawl is a holstered Glock 17 semi-automatic pistol.
It's a sight that once would have been unthinkable. In this corner of the Scottish Highlands - an area with one of the lowest crime rates in the UK - the officers showing up to a relatively workaday disturbance are armed.
Although every police force has a firearms unit, for decades it has been an article of faith that in the mainland UK, almost uniquely among major industrialised nations, the police do not carry guns as a matter of course.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28656324
We all live in a democracy, and once every five years we vote for the right to be ignored for the next five.
Indeed, though these sums are tiny by govt standards. They are probably considerably less than the amount spent on Cardiff's third bilingual high school which is due to open in soon (next month even I think), which is the real driver of sustaining or even expanding the language for the future.
For my tuppence on last night: Salmond needed a game changer, and didn't get one. Darling was surprisingly passionate and effective.
Really the currency is just a huge hole below the waterline of the good ship independence. What Salmond just has never publically recognised is that the new foreign country to the South, that will effectively be created in the event of a Yes vote, would of course have a strong national interest in having a friendly cooperative prosperous northern neighbour (a la Canada), but that's not the same thing as having 100% symmetry of interests or views. It's perfectly clear it's in Scotland's interests to have a currency union, but it's just not in the rUK's. We do not want to have to pick up the bill for any future Fred the Shred's, or have to implicitly underwrite Salmond's expansive public sector. If the price is 10% extra debt and rebuilding Faslane in Falmouth then so be it. It's cheaper than RBS mark II 25 years down the line, or public freebies all round from Gretna to Lerwick.
The irony is if Salmond had been braver he could've maybe sold real independence Scots currency and all. It's perfectly feasible but I suspect he took a perceived easier route, and has (almost certainly) blown it.
http://tinyurl.com/kkdykgg
" Amongst the key undecided swing voters, Salmond was considered narrowly victorious with 55% to Darling's 45%."
As an aside, why are they mentioning Robert Peel's police force in the article and not the older Glasgow one?
Mr. P, welcome to pb.com.
' Salmond Wins Over Undecided Voters in First Debate
As the referendum debate between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond draws to a close, most commentators have acknowledged Darling as the victor with the First Minister giving a less stellar than expected performance.
An instant ICM poll held at the end of the debate gave Darling the win overall with 56% of respondents choosing him as the winner to Salmond's 44%. However, this lead comes from Darling's stronger support amongst those definitely voting no (90%-10%) compared to Salmond's support amongst those definitely voting yes (80%-20%).
Amongst the key undecided swing voters, Salmond was considered narrowly victorious with 55% to Darling's 45%. Salmond's winning margin is even greater however amongst those who remained uncertain after the debate - 74% to 26%.'
The ball coming loose from the scrum? :-)
He will of course (and rightly) use the point that Ken Livingstone remained MP for Brent from 2000 to 2001 so the two jobs aren't incompatible for a short timescale though some in London might argue otherwise and of course Boris stood down as MP for Henley in 2008 to run as London Mayor so if he couldn't do the two jobs then, how come he can do them now ?
Boris is also of course leaving the door open (if he can't find a seat or he doesn't get elected) to running for a third term as Mayor but it seems probable that, if elected, he would be out of the running. Current polls show a swing to Labour in London of some 4.5% which might be enough to topple 6-8 Conservatives but the outer seats (Uxbridge, Ruislip perhaps) would be quite safe.
Well done chap.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28671107
Still time for the eurozone crisis to flare up before the next election.
1) Dave would have wiped the floor with Salmond, and that would have led to a sympathy vote for Salmond and yes, so not good for the Union
2) It was really good to see two passionate Scots, talking about the future of Scotland, an Englishman v a Scot, the passion would not have been there.
Lay Boris as next Tory leader.
In response to CD13 below, there is an awful lot of hysterical and self-indulgent posturing about appalling events, usually in response to how often they appear on the TV without any regard for the accuracy or context of those reports. Only a fool would think that we are getting the full story from any party in a war zone or indeed from journalists in a war zone.
And people who die or are killed or suffer out of sight of cameras are ignored, regardless of how bad their suffering is. So no outrage over what is happening to Christians in Iraq now or in Syria or what is happening to gay men in Iran or - and this is the awful pity of it I could go on and on with my list - because it is out of sight, out of mind.
I do not have any sort of solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Northern Ireland may well be a hopeful template though the cessation of violence happened when the IRA accepted defeat (whatever they may say in public) and Northern Ireland continued to be part of the UK even though their express goal has always been its elimination. Peace usually comes when one side is defeated or both sides are so exhausted that they accept terms they could have had years and thousands of deaths earlier. What I do think is that hysterical finger-pointing by outsiders with little scope to do anything (Britain has been mistrusted by Arabs and Jews since the 1930s and simply is not a player, whatever delusions Cameron, Milliband or Clegg may have) is pointless and unhelpful. Neither side has leaders of courage and vision who could reach out and make the first steps. It is a tragedy for both and until / if that happens, innocents on both sides will suffer. It is very very sad.
Or would he have to give up the Mayoralty a few months early?
What we have to keep in mind is that if Cameron does get booted out next year, Osborne is finished with him - Both their fate's are inextricably linked.
In that case the leadership battle opens up for Boris and probably Theresa.
If Cameron win's it's "game on" for Osborne, Boris, Theresa and probably two or three others in 2017/2018.
The PCP won't want Boris as leader, and I'm not sure (whilst amusing) he travels well beyond the M25.
For all this morning's words. Boris is still dancing on the head of the pin and trying to stake out a position most advantageous to himself (someone else acting on motivated self-interest - there's a lot of that about).
David Cameron @David_Cameron 2m
Great news that Boris plans to stand at next year's general election - I've always said I want my star players on the pitch.
I think Boris will stand either in Uxbridge or Kensington.
For box office, he should stand in Thanet South.
Not convinced by Javid, either.
Hammond's another matter. And don't forget future Prime Minister Justine Greening, or Priti Patel.
Italy's economy has fallen back into recession, latest official figures show, after contracting for two quarters in a row.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28671107
Well, all the leads or margins of change are based on pretty small numbers. That's the nature of a poll like this.
Hunt is tough as old boots.
Javid would tick the demographic boxes, the next Tory leader won't be a posh boy aristo Buller boy.
Plus the melt down on the left would be great, the Tories have the first Asian/Muslim leader.
Though, I'm not sure the party of Phil Woolas would act honourably to his election.
http://tinyurl.com/mfvojha
Bootle, Sheffield Central, Banff & Buchan, he'd win all those.
Think for this reason that Tory central office will make sure that Boris does not stand in May 2015.
Another person damaged by the Lib Dems
#LetsMakeTheLibDemsHistory
Thus Thatcher begat Major and Blair begat Brown and Ashdown begat Kennedy. All completely different personalities and styles. To imagine Johnson following Cameron is to see someone repeating themselves. The next Conservative leader will be the social and personality antithesis of Cameron even if their politics are similar.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-08-05/undecided-voters-choose-darling-in-first-scottish-debate/
The next leader needs to white and from the provincial middle class (Maggie) or working class (Major), these voters are the key demographic that are the future of the Conservative party and need to be won over.
Challenge for Miliband? Cam edges leadership polls. Boris tops popularity polls. Osborne leads economy polls. Easy conference speech then.
Prison doesn’t work – as the Glen Parva shambles shows
Most of those locked up have problems that are not solved by incarceration. Society must find another way
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/06/prison-does-not-work-glen-parva-shambles
The bicentenary approaches apace - on that occasion of course the Germans were on our side as were the Austrians and the French were the enemy.
In 1815, we fought with Germany against France.
In 1915 we fought with France against Germany
In 2015 some people see the likes of France and Germany against us.
If Cameron gets in next year then 2017/18 would be a very good time for Javid. If Cameron looses next year then I think it likely that Javid will get bored with politics and take himself off to somewhere he can make a difference with his undoubtedly huge talents. Next time I am passing the bookies I think I'll see if I can't get a little money on him as next Conservative leader.
Breaking: ICC satisfied with the Anderson ruling, and will not appeal against it - ICC chief Dave Richardson.
Lawrence Booth @the_topspin · 4m
Dave Richardson: "There is no merit in [India's] appeal and it would not be in the best interest of the sport to take such action."
Lawrence Booth @the_topspin · 3m
Richardson again: "There is no place in the game for the use of offensive language that is personally insulting of one player by another."
Lawrence Booth @the_topspin · 2m
In other words, Richardson is telling India to get over it, and Anderson to put a sock in it.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/dec/07/michael-howard-prison-works-analysis
As Charles Murray wrote on Britain's growing criminal underclass “The US has dealt with the problem of the underclass by putting 2m people in jail, which has had a big impact. We haven’t rehabilitated anyone but just kept them out of society. It is not a happy solution but it is the only solution.”
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2005/0523/216.html
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1210610
How hungover are you this morning?
If the Tories win the next election, then it won't be Boris - the continuity candidate is Osborne, the safe-hands option is Hammond, or it's to the next generation to look, in 4-5 years time.
Only moderately hungover. Missed the debate, I dont suppose there's an easy way of finding out who won?
He'd flummox Ed by saying Ed is as brilliant as Quintus Sulpicius at The Battle of Allia
Prison doesn't work, in the sense of making people better. It does, however, take a lot of anti-social people out of circulation, until they reach an age when crime doesn't seem so appealing.
What do studies and stats across the world show
1) Those given non custodial sentences have a lower re-offending rate
or
2) Those given custodial sentences have a higher re-offending rate
I'll give you a clue, it's 1)
Good in that there would be a queue of lefties ready to leave the country if he was elected
Bad in that they wouldn't follow through with their threats.
However, as you may have guessed, Darling winning/Salmond losing is great for yes.