Casual anti-Scottish racism Tories London RBS and other bankers who crashed the global economy and enforced austerity on us through their Tory chums while they continued to get rich at the taxpayers expense
Myopic cultural supremacist Bloomsbury cerebral narcissists Racist and biased football commentators Warmongering political class embroiled in the military-industrial complex and Friends of Israel Anglo-Saxon supremacism Public schoolboy scroungers pretending to be hard-nosed capitalists Oxbridge muppets educated above their level of intelligence Contrived eccentricity Whitehall scammers...
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 14/09/2014 20:58 Labour is facing a battle from Ukip, a party that bangs on about local roots. And so it does this. Head. Wall. --> manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-m…
Casual anti-Scottish racism Tories London RBS and other bankers who crashed the global economy and enforced austerity on us through their Tory chums while they continued to get rich at the taxpayers expense
Myopic cultural supremacist Bloomsbury cerebral narcissists Racist and biased football commentators Warmongering political class embroiled in the military-industrial complex and Friends of Israel Anglo-Saxon supremacism Public schoolboy scroungers pretending to be hard-nosed capitalists Oxbridge muppets educated above their level of intelligence Contrived eccentricity Whitehall scammers...
OK, 'contrived eccentricity' confuses me - is that a reference to something, or do you not have eccentrics in Scotland?
'contrived' is key there, looks like a Boris reference
Ah. Well I refuse to believe the Scottish political class will not produce its own fair share of overeducated, public schooled eccentrics, as that's a human thing, not a London thing. A certain percentage in any bunch.
Casual anti-Scottish racism Tories London RBS and other bankers who crashed the global economy and enforced austerity on us through their Tory chums while they continued to get rich at the taxpayers expense
Myopic cultural supremacist Bloomsbury cerebral narcissists Racist and biased football commentators Warmongering political class embroiled in the military-industrial complex and Friends of Israel Anglo-Saxon supremacism Public schoolboy scroungers pretending to be hard-nosed capitalists Oxbridge muppets educated above their level of intelligence Contrived eccentricity Whitehall scammers...
"I don't want to tempt fate, but are the moderators going to let Malcolm out of jail?"
.....and he's funny which is worth the admission fee on its own
(PS Good to see you back. You were the DR Spock of PB. Intelligent logical and pithy)
I think they should certainly let James Kelly out of jail (if he wants it).
Always polite and insightful.
MickPork might be less to people's tastes, but I wouldn't have a problem with him back either.
Just think PB, you can rub their noses in it when Scotland votes no!
I don't think James Kelly is still in jail. Like most people who've gotten banned it will almost certainly have been for a very brief period. (HD2 is the exception here...)
Given that it is the political editor of The Sun that is tweeting about the Big Name and Midnight, it seems likely to be Rupert Murdoch.
Perhaps they've worked out that Murdoch officially backing the Union is the "Yes" campaigns last hope? Always seemed very unconvincing this idea that they would actually want the support of the Scottish Sun...
Casual anti-Scottish racism Tories London RBS and other bankers who crashed the global economy and enforced austerity on us through their Tory chums while they continued to get rich at the taxpayers expense
Myopic cultural supremacist Bloomsbury cerebral narcissists Racist and biased football commentators Warmongering political class embroiled in the military-industrial complex and Friends of Israel Anglo-Saxon supremacism Public schoolboy scroungers pretending to be hard-nosed capitalists Oxbridge muppets educated above their level of intelligence Contrived eccentricity Whitehall scammers...
Well, it seems that as none of the above, I am still welcome...
Casual anti-Scottish racism Tories London RBS and other bankers who crashed the global economy and enforced austerity on us through their Tory chums while they continued to get rich at the taxpayers expense
Myopic cultural supremacist Bloomsbury cerebral narcissists Racist and biased football commentators Warmongering political class embroiled in the military-industrial complex and Friends of Israel Anglo-Saxon supremacism Public schoolboy scroungers pretending to be hard-nosed capitalists Oxbridge muppets educated above their level of intelligence Contrived eccentricity Whitehall scammers...
I think I only score one. Gutted.
Not sure I've ever heard Boris Johnson do a football commentary, but he just about manages every other category.
Personally I will not be glad to see the back of anything. If Scotland votes yes then I'll never set foot in the country again. Was very depressing to be on holiday there last week. Whatever happens 50% of the population will be extremely hacked off such is the nasty, divisive, sectarian hatred whipped up by Salmond. He's still lying to the electorate that negotiations will be conducted in a spirit of friendship. Like hell they will and no English politician will be left in any doubt about how they want any negotiations to be conducted.
If the Queen can't intervene in Scottish independence what exactly is the point of having her?
I don't think she should intervene, but it seems like precisely the sort of question that we've always thought that the monarchy was all about. Which questions would they step forwards on?
Either she intervenes (one way or another) or I can't see any argument against abolition of the Monarchy.
I suppose the problem is she will be queen over all the island whichever side wins, so she does not feel it is one of the situations she can intervene these days, as she has to live with both sides afterwards. Simpler if Scotland were going republican.
Queen perhaps, but non-entity also. The Monarchy has (in principle) some power. It's really hard to see that it has any purpose if it fails to act in something so vitally important as the Union.
If Scotland was declaring itself a Republican state would she intervene? Clearly no.
Scottish independence under the Crown is perhaps one of the few cases where she could legitimately express a view.
The Royals increasingly sicken me. (In the background as I type this I hear Harry braying on the TV with a voice that only taxpayer subsidy can enable)
Those that want James Kelly back; why post here about it? He has his own blog, as you may be aware, you can beg him to come back in the comments there. I'm indifferent whether he comes back or not, but I do tire of reading "oh James Kelly, he was the best, I wish he'd come back" comments here.
Casual anti-Scottish racism Tories London RBS and other bankers who crashed the global economy and enforced austerity on us through their Tory chums while they continued to get rich at the taxpayers expense
Myopic cultural supremacist Bloomsbury cerebral narcissists Racist and biased football commentators Warmongering political class embroiled in the military-industrial complex and Friends of Israel Anglo-Saxon supremacism Public schoolboy scroungers pretending to be hard-nosed capitalists Oxbridge muppets educated above their level of intelligence Contrived eccentricity Whitehall scammers...
I think I only score one. Gutted.
Not sure I've ever heard Boris Johnson do a football commentary, but he just about manages every other category.
But Boris was responsible for one the truly "great" football tackles
I'll miss Scotland being part of the union. I think of it as its heart and social conscience. The antithesis of 'Farageland' which too many other parts of the UK are turning into.
Well the social attitudes are really not very different on either side of the border. I think surveys repeatedly point that out. I do think the Scots are more inclined to back the underdog though.
You're too harsh on the English. Don't get that element of the left at all.
Personally I will not be glad to see the back of anything. If Scotland votes yes then I'll never set foot in the country again. Was very depressing to be on holiday there last week. Whatever happens 50% of the population will be extremely hacked off such is the nasty, divisive, sectarian hatred whipped up by Salmond. He's still lying to the electorate that negotiations will be conducted in a spirit of friendship. Like hell they will and no English politician will be left in any doubt about how they want any negotiations to be conducted.
I agree that if YES win the negotiations will be for the UK selfish interest, and that's the mood that people will be in.
Salmond will expolit that, feed on it, and present himself as the best person to stand up to the bullies in these negotiations.
And so on.
Did you see the BBC Scotland debate tonight? The audience was so emotional like a Jerry Springer mob.
The losers will be very depressed whoever they are - because this is not for 5 years its forever.
Casual anti-Scottish racism Tories London RBS and other bankers who crashed the global economy and enforced austerity on us through their Tory chums while they continued to get rich at the taxpayers expense
Myopic cultural supremacist Bloomsbury cerebral narcissists Racist and biased football commentators Warmongering political class embroiled in the military-industrial complex and Friends of Israel Anglo-Saxon supremacism Public schoolboy scroungers pretending to be hard-nosed capitalists Oxbridge muppets educated above their level of intelligence Contrived eccentricity Whitehall scammers...
I think I only score one. Gutted.
Not sure I've ever heard Boris Johnson do a football commentary, but he just about manages every other category.
But Boris was responsible for one the truly "great" football tackles
"I don't want to tempt fate, but are the moderators going to let Malcolm out of jail?"
.....and he's funny which is worth the admission fee on its own
(PS Good to see you back. You were the DR Spock of PB. Intelligent logical and pithy)
I think they should certainly let James Kelly out of jail (if he wants it).
Always polite and insightful.
MickPork might be less to people's tastes, but I wouldn't have a problem with him back either.
Just think PB, you can rub their noses in it when Scotland votes no!
I don't think James Kelly is still in jail. Like most people who've gotten banned it will almost certainly have been for a very brief period. (HD2 is the exception here...)
I miss HD2, a true eccentric.
He is on twitter.
He is indeed but that limit on the number of characters per message doesn't allow him enough scope to do justice to his views. I make no comment on his views but at least he was normally polite on here.
Apologies if this has been posted before, but re that ICM indyref poll, has a pollster ever described their own poll as an outlier?
Martin Boon, the head of ICM Research, said his firm's poll should be seen in the context of a volatile campaign in which results have shifted dramatically.
“Polls can and do go up and down and the fuss an individual poll makes will soon be forgotten when the real result arrives,” he said. “The proper way to analyse this poll is simply to take it as an ‘outlier’ which fits into the overall impression created by all Scottish polls right now: it seems too close to call, and could go either way
Can someone explain to me the point of this cartoon?
So far it's seems to have two points. Point one, to show up humourless lefties*, point two to show that humourless Nats** can't take a dig at Scotland even from a Canadian***
*you ** so far TUD & SD ***Marf
Point 4, humour is an extremely subjective thing, as you demonstrate so eloquently*
Given that it is the political editor of The Sun that is tweeting about the Big Name and Midnight, it seems likely to be Rupert Murdoch.
Perhaps they've worked out that Murdoch officially backing the Union is the "Yes" campaigns last hope? Always seemed very unconvincing this idea that they would actually want the support of the Scottish Sun...
Yes he isn't really someone you want on your side. Perhaps the morale boost might be because he likes to go with the side tat appears to be winning?
I sort of hope it is someone else - but we will soon find out!
Apologies if this has been posted before, but re that ICM indyref poll, has a pollster ever described their own poll as an outlier?
Martin Boon, the head of ICM Research, said his firm's poll should be seen in the context of a volatile campaign in which results have shifted dramatically.
“Polls can and do go up and down and the fuss an individual poll makes will soon be forgotten when the real result arrives,” he said. “The proper way to analyse this poll is simply to take it as an ‘outlier’ which fits into the overall impression created by all Scottish polls right now: it seems too close to call, and could go either way
I guess he doesn't believe his own poll, which wouldn't be the first time for a pollster.
As we often forget, one out of twenty polls by a pollster is an outlier, unlucky for ICM that their last online poll was that outlier, which everyone will judge them against.
Not at all obsessed, I noticed you name checked me a few times in conversations with others in the last day or so, so thought it was fair game
(A nice way of saying you started it basically... "Mate")
But your suggestion of never responding to me sounds fantastic, I am bang up for it.
I don't respond to yours anyway unless directly asked a question so no problem there
No indirect passive aggressive mentions either please, I promise I won't do that either
"I noticed you name checked me a few times in conversations with others in the last day or so, so thought it was fair game "
I think you might be wrong with that one. Perhaps I did in the last day or so outside of our conversations, but I cannot recall it. However you have name checked me several times over that period.
"I don't respond to yours anyway unless directly asked a question so no problem there"
I'm calling you a liar on that one. Just last night you jumped into a conversation I was having with PAW. You were not involved in the conversation, and I hadn't asked you a question, yet in a slightly creepy manner you used a post I had made days or weeks earlier to try to prove me wrong. Something you failed in, due to not understanding context.
"No indirect passive aggressive mentions either please"
Like what? I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.
I would have sent this as a personal message, but we all know how you will just publish the PM on the main board a few weeks later, out of context, in an attempt to prove some farcical point.
Ho hum. Perhaps this peace pact will not work, but it's worth a try ...
Anyone else see the BBC debate this evening? Seemed to me a pretty clear victory for the NO side, and in general one of the stronger debates that Better Together have had. Naturally they were helped by the fact that YES was clearly unable to ram this particular studio with its own activists.
Big labour internal rows in Rochdale over candidate for heywood and middleton
Jennifer Williams (@JenWilliamsMEN) 14/09/2014 17:14 Some rank and file councillors considering a walk out from tomorrow's Heywood and Middleton hustings - because no properly local candidates
Jennifer Williams (@JenWilliamsMEN) 14/09/2014 15:49 No Rochdale councillors on there. Several Labour figures have suggested party don't want campaign associated with town hall shenannigans
"GEORGE Galloway branded First Minister Alex Salmond and Labour leader Iain Gray "the political equivalent of the Krankies" yesterday as he officially re-entered Scottish politics."
Those that want James Kelly back; why post here about it? He has his own blog, as you may be aware, you can beg him to come back in the comments there. I'm indifferent whether he comes back or not, but I do tire of reading "oh James Kelly, he was the best, I wish he'd come back" comments here.
Did you take Isam's tip of 16/1 on Cameron leaving post of PM in 2014? Now 4/1?
I disagree with Isam about politics, to say the VERY least, but I'm glad he posts here.
Apologies if this has been posted before, but re that ICM indyref poll, has a pollster ever described their own poll as an outlier?
Martin Boon, the head of ICM Research, said his firm's poll should be seen in the context of a volatile campaign in which results have shifted dramatically.
“Polls can and do go up and down and the fuss an individual poll makes will soon be forgotten when the real result arrives,” he said. “The proper way to analyse this poll is simply to take it as an ‘outlier’ which fits into the overall impression created by all Scottish polls right now: it seems too close to call, and could go either way
Isn't it obvious? They basically did two polls in the same time period - one phone poll (for the Guardian) and one online. The difference between the two was outside of the margin of error. Since the other one was published first they had no option but to claim that this one was an 'outlier' (it could technically have been the other, but this was a better candidate, being low sample and out of line with other companies' polling). Anything else would have fundamentally undermined the validity of one or other of their polling methods.
Apologies if this has been posted before, but re that ICM indyref poll, has a pollster ever described their own poll as an outlier?
Martin Boon, the head of ICM Research, said his firm's poll should be seen in the context of a volatile campaign in which results have shifted dramatically.
“Polls can and do go up and down and the fuss an individual poll makes will soon be forgotten when the real result arrives,” he said. “The proper way to analyse this poll is simply to take it as an ‘outlier’ which fits into the overall impression created by all Scottish polls right now: it seems too close to call, and could go either way
I guess he doesn't believe his own poll, which wouldn't be the first time for a pollster.
As we often forget, one out of twenty polls by a pollster is an outlier, unlucky for ICM that their last online poll was that outlier, which everyone will judge them against.
Jennifer Williams (@JenWilliamsMEN) 14/09/2014 17:58 Still in Heywood, one of the first Ukip leaflets: not scared to use grooming issue as campaign tactic, clearly pic.twitter.com/uX6Ob2qpj8
Can someone explain to me the point of this cartoon?
So far it's seems to have two points. Point one, to show up humourless lefties*, point two to show that humourless Nats** can't take a dig at Scotland even from a Canadian***
*you ** so far TUD & SD ***Marf
Point 4, humour is an extremely subjective thing, as you demonstrate so eloquently*
*not really.
Did you leave point 3 clear for me to have another dig at you? That's awfully kind of you, did you get given extra manners during the sense of humour bypass?
"GEORGE Galloway branded First Minister Alex Salmond and Labour leader Iain Gray "the political equivalent of the Krankies" yesterday as he officially re-entered Scottish politics."
Did Scottish politics notice?
Scotland is the place to be for a politician if he wants to be noticed, until Saturday though.
The Krankies is of course the nickname for almost any combination of Scottish politicians ad libitum - currently seemingly Ms Lamont and Ms Davidson. But see this from 2011 (not that it worked very well):
"GEORGE Galloway branded First Minister Alex Salmond and Labour leader Iain Gray "the political equivalent of the Krankies" yesterday as he officially re-entered Scottish politics."
""No indirect passive aggressive mentions either please"
Like what? I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.
I would have sent this as a personal message, but we all know how you will just publish the PM on the main board a few weeks later, out of context, in an attempt to prove some farcical point."
Ummm... I don't want to take sides here, but maybe he meant just like the last sentence I quoted..
There are good news for everyone. For the moderates, the left dont have a majority. For the right, the Swedish Democrats overperformed to become the third largest party. For everyone, Carl Bildt is out of power.
BTW we count only nine polls with fieldwork end-date 8th to 12th,
fieldwork end Survation 12th September 2014 YouGov 12th September 2014 YouGov 11th September 2014 Populus 11th September 2014 Opinium 11th September 2014 YouGov 10th September 2014 YouGov 9th September 2014 Ipsos-MORI 9th September 2014 YouGov 8th September 2014
"I don't want to tempt fate, but are the moderators going to let Malcolm out of jail?"
.....and he's funny which is worth the admission fee on its own
(PS Good to see you back. You were the DR Spock of PB. Intelligent logical and pithy)
I think they should certainly let James Kelly out of jail (if he wants it).
Always polite and insightful.
MickPork might be less to people's tastes, but I wouldn't have a problem with him back either.
Just think PB, you can rub their noses in it when Scotland votes no!
I don't think James Kelly is still in jail. Like most people who've gotten banned it will almost certainly have been for a very brief period. (HD2 is the exception here...)
Perhaps as the fruit of the OGH loins you can let me know what is the PB ban protocol (just in case)? Is one informed when the excommunication is rescinded or is one left to drift in outer darkness?
If I've added up correctly, it looks like the centre-left's lead over the centre-right is going to be about 4 points, which is about half of what most of the recent opinion polls were saying.
Jennifer Williams (@JenWilliamsMEN) 14/09/2014 17:58 Still in Heywood, one of the first Ukip leaflets: not scared to use grooming issue as campaign tactic, clearly pic.twitter.com/uX6Ob2qpj8
Mr. Isam, UKIP just have to keep talking about the things ordinary people think are important. By doing that they can get change regardless of how many MPs they have.
BTW we count only nine polls with fieldwork end-date 8th to 12th,
fieldwork end Survation 12th September 2014 YouGov 12th September 2014 YouGov 11th September 2014 Populus 11th September 2014 Opinium 11th September 2014 YouGov 10th September 2014 YouGov 9th September 2014 Ipsos-MORI 9th September 2014 YouGov 8th September 2014
Ah OK, Populus and Ashcroft are omitted as fieldwork ended on 7th.
But in that case you need to wait for tomorrow to announce the week's ELBOW - in order to include the Populus and Ashcroft which will be announced tomorrow morning and afternoon - otherwise these will never be included.
Retweeted by Inigo Stealth UKIP Andrew Clark @clarkaw 34m Breaking news: Phones4u chain has collapsed into administration. All 550 shops, employing 5,596 people, to shut.
Here are my top 10 things we'll be glad to see the back of if Scotland leaves the UK (I won't see the back of them, as barring really bad circumstances, I won't move back -though I do entertain it), but you know what I mean.
1. David Cameron 2. A big bunch of Labour MPs 3. Scottish nationalists -you got your wish, have fun, please don't keep in touch 4. A big portion of this country's misery-sustaining left wing consensus 5. Scottish oil -Yes, really, f***ng keep it. If it really is what's keeping us all afloat, I'd rather see RUK learn to exist on its wits 6. Windfarms everywhere 7. Speed cameras everywhere 8. The EU (with any luck) 9. Scottish MPs being able to vote on English issues 10. Trident (with any luck)
That wasn't too hard, and I could go on, but it's really nothing to what we'll (all) lose. Nothing.
Not at all obsessed, I noticed you name checked me a few times in conversations with others in the last day or so, so thought it was fair game
(A nice way of saying you started it basically... "Mate")
But your suggestion of never responding to me sounds fantastic, I am bang up for it.
I don't respond to yours anyway unless directly asked a question so no problem there
No indirect passive aggressive mentions either please, I promise I won't do that either
"I noticed you name checked me a few times in conversations with others in the last day or so, so thought it was fair game "
I think you might be wrong with that one. Perhaps I did in the last day or so outside of our conversations, but I cannot recall it. However you have name checked me several times over that period.
"I don't respond to yours anyway unless directly asked a question so no problem there"
I'm calling you a liar on that one. Just last night you jumped into a conversation I was having with PAW. You were not involved in the conversation, and I hadn't asked you a question, yet in a slightly creepy manner you used a post I had made days or weeks earlier to try to prove me wrong. Something you failed in, due to not understanding context.
"No indirect passive aggressive mentions either please"
Like what? I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.
I would have sent this as a personal message, but we all know how you will just publish the PM on the main board a few weeks later, out of context, in an attempt to prove some farcical point.
Ho hum. Perhaps this peace pact will not work, but it's worth a try ...
A. You did name check me a couple of times, I'm not wrong on that. Rather petty of me, but it's the only reason I did it back
B. you're right I did that last night. Bit ott to use words such as creepy and liar etc, I just noticed you were denying saying something that you had, but fair enough I did butt in
C. I am not referring to anything, just saying that if you don't want to respond to each other it's fine, but sometimes people get round things like that by obvious mentions "without actually mentioning". Not saying you have done this because you haven't, but saying I won't do so and I hope you won't either
D. Ok
No need to be constantly looking for one upmanship. I'm more than happy to never mention you or respond again if you like, let's just stop talking about it and do it. All the best
Jennifer Williams (@JenWilliamsMEN) 14/09/2014 17:58 Still in Heywood, one of the first Ukip leaflets: not scared to use grooming issue as campaign tactic, clearly pic.twitter.com/uX6Ob2qpj8
Mr. Isam, UKIP just have to keep talking about the things ordinary people think are important. By doing that they can get change regardless of how many MPs they have.
The great thing about "talking about things" is that you can pick up thousands of votes without ever having to propose/implement any solutions.
""No indirect passive aggressive mentions either please"
Like what? I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.
I would have sent this as a personal message, but we all know how you will just publish the PM on the main board a few weeks later, out of context, in an attempt to prove some farcical point."
Ummm... I don't want to take sides here, but maybe he meant just like the last sentence I quoted..
That was hardly passive-aggressive. It is factual, and explains why I have to mention it on this board rather than PM him directly.
Besides, it is hard to avoid mentioning someone when your post is in reply to theirs. I think he was referring to mentions in other, unrelated, posts ...
The Queen should announce that if Scotland votes yes, then she will promote it above Wales as the training ground for the first son and heir of the UK monarch.
If I've added up correctly, it looks like the centre-left's lead over the centre-right is going to be about 4 points, which is about half of what most of the recent opinion polls were saying.
The Swedish Democrats sucked up most of the protest vote during the campaign.
Also, what the heck does a feminist party is doing in Sweden? Sweden is the last place in the world to need a feminist party, no wonder they got only 3% and got shafted (not in a sexist way) out of parliament.
The mischievous-but-not-necessarily-realistic bit of my brain is thinking that the two by-elections on 9th October 2014 might be like the two which happened on 28th April 1977.
Grimsby: marginal Labour, unexpectedly held Ashfield: safe Labour, unexpectedly lost to Conservative
What if the Conservative Party managed to hold Clacton (like in Newark) but then UKIP sneaked through to gain Heywood & Middleton instead?
Unlikely. But more exciting than being bludgeoned to death with a cucumber.
Löfven is from the right of his party. He wants to do a deal with the two liberal parties (Centre + Peoples' Party), but they point blank refuse. So he will have to reply on the communists, the greens and the Swedish Kippers. A recipe for absolute chaos.
Ah yes, I think it's called 'proportional representation'.
@AndyJS Also if you look at the results, the only movement is a 7% swing from the Moderates to the Swedish Democrats. No wonder, the Moderates main campaign point was that Russia is going to invade Sweden any moment now (the Carl Bildt factor), so people laughed at them, they had a really bad campaign so attention shifted to the Swedish Democrats vs the Left.
If the Queen can't intervene in Scottish independence what exactly is the point of having her?
I don't think she should intervene, but it seems like precisely the sort of question that we've always thought that the monarchy was all about. Which questions would they step forwards on?
Either she intervenes (one way or another) or I can't see any argument against abolition of the Monarchy.
It'd be appalling if the Queen started commenting on current issues. The Monarchy is largely uncontroversial because she doesn't. Other she'll just be another politician.
Could Reinfeldt stay as PM with their tacit support? Or will they not oppose Lofven and a SocDem led government...?
Reinfeldt will be commenting shortly, but after a massive loss of seats he's thought likely to defer to the Social Democrats to have the first try to form a government. The Social Democrat preference is to split off the small centre parties (who have said no up to now, but...?), but a minority green-left government is also possible. Nobody is speculating on Reinfelt staying on with SD support, and there's a general reluctance to let SD be kingmakers.
""No indirect passive aggressive mentions either please"
Like what? I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.
I would have sent this as a personal message, but we all know how you will just publish the PM on the main board a few weeks later, out of context, in an attempt to prove some farcical point."
Ummm... I don't want to take sides here, but maybe he meant just like the last sentence I quoted..
That was hardly passive-aggressive. It is factual, and explains why I have to mention it on this board rather than PM him directly.
Besides, it is hard to avoid mentioning someone when your post is in reply to theirs. I think he was referring to mentions in other, unrelated, posts ...
You did say in that sentence that we all knew he'd reveal a private message, do it out of context, and to make a farcical point. If they're all facts, maybe I misread the passive part..
BTW we count only nine polls with fieldwork end-date 8th to 12th,
fieldwork end Survation 12th September 2014 YouGov 12th September 2014 YouGov 11th September 2014 Populus 11th September 2014 Opinium 11th September 2014 YouGov 10th September 2014 YouGov 9th September 2014 Ipsos-MORI 9th September 2014 YouGov 8th September 2014
Ah OK, Populus and Ashcroft are omitted as fieldwork ended on 7th.
But in that case you need to wait for tomorrow to announce the week's ELBOW - in order to include the Populus and Ashcroft which will be announced tomorrow morning and afternoon - otherwise these will never be included.
Fear not, MikeL! They will be included, we'll just need to update our Excel file and the resulting figures!
BTW we never use the "headline" party-wise tallies, as we have found that looking at the tables and using the actual samples used and the relevant weighted "total voters" sometimes - rarely - gives figures that are at variance.
Case in point:
YouGov (end-date 10th Sep) had a headline Lab tally of 38%, but looking at the tables revealed it was actually 38.65%!
A. You did name check me a couple of times, I'm not wrong on that. Rather petty of me, but it's the only reason I did it back
B. you're right I did that last night. Bit ott to use words such as creepy and liar etc, I just noticed you were denying saying something that you had, but fair enough I did butt in
C. I am not referring to anything, just saying that if you don't want to respond to each other it's fine, but sometimes people get round things like that by obvious mentions "without actually mentioning". Not saying you have done this because you haven't, but saying I won't do so and I hope you won't either
D. Ok
No need to be constantly looking for one upmanship. I'm more than happy to never mention you or respond again if you like, let's just stop talking about it and do it. All the best
A. I'm not sure I did. In fact, I've been trying to avoid it for exactly this sort of reason.
B. That terminology's not OTT when you quickly produce posts of mine from times past. I did find it slightly creepy. Besides, you didn't really prove anything; you ignored the context of the earlier posts, which was using a fictitious and non-specific example of immigration. I could have used Indonesian scientists instead, but stuck with something I know a little of.
C. Ah, so it's not something I've done. Fair enough.
""No indirect passive aggressive mentions either please"
Like what? I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.
I would have sent this as a personal message, but we all know how you will just publish the PM on the main board a few weeks later, out of context, in an attempt to prove some farcical point."
Ummm... I don't want to take sides here, but maybe he meant just like the last sentence I quoted..
That was hardly passive-aggressive. It is factual, and explains why I have to mention it on this board rather than PM him directly.
Besides, it is hard to avoid mentioning someone when your post is in reply to theirs. I think he was referring to mentions in other, unrelated, posts ...
You did say in that sentence that we all knew he'd reveal a private message, do it out of context, and to make a farcical point. If they're all facts, maybe I misread the passive part..
They're all facts. I'm not sure where you're going with the 'passive' part.
The Queen should announce that if Scotland votes yes, then she will promote it above Wales as the training ground for the first son and heir of the UK monarch.
Didn't Charles go to Gordonstoun?
Or perhaps they could elect a monarch every five years, choosing between the descendants of the Queen. Henry the Ninth!
Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true
And just who has the authority to declare someone a heretic, and therefore not a Christian? The pope of Rome, some apostate Anglican archbishop or even the state? It is certainly arguable, on the basis of tradition, that your own Anglican sect is nothing more than a heretical bunch of schismatics intent on corrupting the one true apostolic Catholic faith. Indeed, the late Runcie, like Stephen Gardiner before him, devoted much of his time in office to healing the so-called Anglo-Roman schism.
At the time it was a decision of the Council of Nicea which represented the collective view of all Christians at the time. There's a reasonable case for allowing the main groups in a given faith to determine who belongs to that faith and who doesn't.
Retweeted by Inigo Stealth UKIP Andrew Clark @clarkaw 34m Breaking news: Phones4u chain has collapsed into administration. All 550 shops, employing 5,596 people, to shut.
BTW we count only nine polls with fieldwork end-date 8th to 12th,
fieldwork end Survation 12th September 2014 YouGov 12th September 2014 YouGov 11th September 2014 Populus 11th September 2014 Opinium 11th September 2014 YouGov 10th September 2014 YouGov 9th September 2014 Ipsos-MORI 9th September 2014 YouGov 8th September 2014
Ah OK, Populus and Ashcroft are omitted as fieldwork ended on 7th.
But in that case you need to wait for tomorrow to announce the week's ELBOW - in order to include the Populus and Ashcroft which will be announced tomorrow morning and afternoon - otherwise these will never be included.
Fear not, MikeL! They will be included, we'll just need to update our Excel file and the resulting figures!
Who is "we"? Are you a collective, like the Borg??
Charles speaking a lot of crap about heresy and Christianity on the previous thread. Just because you had a Roman Emperor on your side doesn't make your side right.
IIRC, you're a atheist, aren't you? (It may be @RichardT)
But as far as I'm concerned, it's up to the main recognised Christian faiths to decide whether they view another group as being part of the same faith as them
@ Charles - Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true
They were Christians up until the point a rival doctrine declared them not to be so. Just because someone claims someone else is not something does not make it true either, there is no single authority on what makes someone a christian, and if modern christianity has evolved considerably from its earliest beginnings, when it appears there was considerable disagreement on some fundamental questions, what makes one a heretic today might not have then and might not in the future, hence all the many 'back to the basics' movements through history which reject the churches of their time for what they think is the intended 'pure' and 'true' faith which has been lost.
There are many things about some modern christian denominations which would have not been acceptable hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's why someone's self identification of christianity makes more sense to me than the reverse (they may well not be 'mainstream' however), because the cut off point of what makes a true christian, however divergent from one denomination to another, can always be shifted, from nicenean to chalcedonian and so on and so on.
'God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'
Can you give any examples of substance where modern Christian denominations have moved away from this? In belief, not method of demonstrating or exercising that belief.
One of the difficulties of opinion polling in the Scottish referendum arises from postal votes. Asking someone who has voted how they intend to vote on Thursday is clearly an absurdity. Nor can polls of how people have voted be published before 10 o'clock on Thursday. Does anyone know how the polling companies have dealt with this issue, or whether they are simply ignoring it?
Charles speaking a lot of crap about heresy and Christianity on the previous thread. Just because you had a Roman Emperor on your side doesn't make your side right.
IIRC, you're a atheist, aren't you? (It may be @RichardT)
But as far as I'm concerned, it's up to the main recognised Christian faiths to decide whether they view another group as being part of the same faith as them
And who determines which ones are 'main' enough to decide that? Is it judged by number of adherents? Restorationists are not permitted to seek an early time and still be within the umbrella of the same faith, despite earlier denominations making their own changes as they wanted? Interesting distinctions at play, but then without such things we would not have so many denominations within single faiths of course.
At the time it was a decision of the Council of Nicea which represented the collective view of all Christians at the time. There's a reasonable case for allowing the main groups in a given faith to determine who belongs to that faith and who doesn't.
That's like saying someone wasn't a Marxist because they, or their doctrines were condemned by Comintern. Plainly absurd.
""No indirect passive aggressive mentions either please"
Like what? I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.
I would have sent this as a personal message, but we all know how you will just publish the PM on the main board a few weeks later, out of context, in an attempt to prove some farcical point."
Ummm... I don't want to take sides here, but maybe he meant just like the last sentence I quoted..
That was hardly passive-aggressive. It is factual, and explains why I have to mention it on this board rather than PM him directly.
Besides, it is hard to avoid mentioning someone when your post is in reply to theirs. I think he was referring to mentions in other, unrelated, posts ...
You did say in that sentence that we all knew he'd reveal a private message, do it out of context, and to make a farcical point. If they're all facts, maybe I misread the passive part..
They're all facts. I'm not sure where you're going with the 'passive' part.
Ho hum. I'm off to bed.
I didn't know Isam would reveal a private message and he doesn't always make out of context and/or farcical points. That's them "facts" dealt with.
On the "passive" part, if you take it away from passive-aggressive you're left with ........? You normally post stuff I agree with, and I wanted Isam to answer your questions - I'd love to know what Ukippers would have as their red lines on immigration. But that line seemed, to me at least, quite unnecessarily rude.
Reinfeldt has added that he's resigning as party leader and expects that they will be in opposition for the next 4 years. He gave a hat-tip to Cameron (and Obama) as people he'd enjoyed working with. He didn't (so far as I noticed) comment on what the centre parties ought to do.
Jennifer Williams (@JenWilliamsMEN) 14/09/2014 17:58 Still in Heywood, one of the first Ukip leaflets: not scared to use grooming issue as campaign tactic, clearly pic.twitter.com/uX6Ob2qpj8
Mr. Isam, UKIP just have to keep talking about the things ordinary people think are important. By doing that they can get change regardless of how many MPs they have.
The great thing about "talking about things" is that you can pick up thousands of votes without ever having to propose/implement any solutions.
Very true, Mr. Alex, but it does have a direct benefit for the ordinary punters - it gets what they are worried about on the the agenda of the great ad and the good. The solutions may come later, but if they don't then the party that was raising the issues is going to get the votes and perhaps its own chance to come up with solutions.
I know listening to people and giving them a voice is never going to catch on with the, current, major parties but that that is no reason not to do it.
Why on earth is John Bickley getting it in the neck from the Guardian and from Labour? His comments seem perfectly reasonable:
Bickley is quoted in the leaflet as saying that his father was a Labour trade unionist and worked hard to give his family a good start in life.
"The Labour party of today would be unrecognisable to him," Bickley wrote. "They have betrayed ordinary working people through their love affair with immigration, political correctness and multi-culturalism.
"Labour's betrayal is no more apparent than with the young white working-class girls of Rotherham and Rochdale where rather than upset immigrant communities, years of abuse were ignored and complaints swept under the carpet.
"Meanwhile, the Tories have stood idly by as immigration has driven wages down, created housing shortages and made the life of ordinary people tougher every day."
Naturally, I wouldn't agree with the last of those points, but he hasn't said anything unpleasant, incendiary or objectionable there, they are all reasonable political opinions.
He also comes over as very reasonable in this interview from a local paper:
Comments
Maybe the 5/2 I took on ukip here isn't so bad
OOPS! I mentioned betting!!! Sorry my bad
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ)
14/09/2014 20:58
Labour is facing a battle from Ukip, a party that bangs on about local roots. And so it does this. Head. Wall. --> manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-m…
If Scotland was declaring itself a Republican state would she intervene? Clearly no.
Scottish independence under the Crown is perhaps one of the few cases where she could legitimately express a view.
The Royals increasingly sicken me. (In the background as I type this I hear Harry braying on the TV with a voice that only taxpayer subsidy can enable)
Salmond has also said there will be no second referendum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO9F6BDffx4
You're too harsh on the English. Don't get that element of the left at all.
Salmond will expolit that, feed on it, and present himself as the best person to stand up to the bullies in these negotiations.
And so on.
Did you see the BBC Scotland debate tonight? The audience was so emotional like a Jerry Springer mob.
The losers will be very depressed whoever they are - because this is not for 5 years its forever.
Why on earth would a pollster say that?
Sherman would likely have become President if he had wanted to.
*not really.
I sort of hope it is someone else - but we will soon find out!
As we often forget, one out of twenty polls by a pollster is an outlier, unlucky for ICM that their last online poll was that outlier, which everyone will judge them against.
I think you might be wrong with that one. Perhaps I did in the last day or so outside of our conversations, but I cannot recall it. However you have name checked me several times over that period.
"I don't respond to yours anyway unless directly asked a question so no problem there"
I'm calling you a liar on that one. Just last night you jumped into a conversation I was having with PAW. You were not involved in the conversation, and I hadn't asked you a question, yet in a slightly creepy manner you used a post I had made days or weeks earlier to try to prove me wrong. Something you failed in, due to not understanding context.
"No indirect passive aggressive mentions either please"
Like what? I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.
I would have sent this as a personal message, but we all know how you will just publish the PM on the main board a few weeks later, out of context, in an attempt to prove some farcical point.
Ho hum. Perhaps this peace pact will not work, but it's worth a try ...
Jennifer Williams (@JenWilliamsMEN)
14/09/2014 17:14
Some rank and file councillors considering a walk out from tomorrow's Heywood and Middleton hustings - because no properly local candidates
Jennifer Williams (@JenWilliamsMEN)
14/09/2014 15:49
No Rochdale councillors on there. Several Labour figures have suggested party don't want campaign associated with town hall shenannigans
Maybe away to play his hand. Earlier than he 19th I'd originally predicted.
I disagree with Isam about politics, to say the VERY least, but I'm glad he posts here.
James Kelly, similar.
11 polls - Lab leads:
YouGov: 5,6,6,4,3
Populus: 2,4
Ashcroft: 7
MORI: minus 1
Opinium: 8
Survation: 4
Average Lab lead = 4.36 (ie 48/11)
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/poll-surge-puts-ukip-in-with-byelection-chance-9728907.html
Jennifer Williams (@JenWilliamsMEN)
14/09/2014 17:58
Still in Heywood, one of the first Ukip leaflets: not scared to use grooming issue as campaign tactic, clearly pic.twitter.com/uX6Ob2qpj8
Plus, phones4u have a reputation for bad selling practices which damages the network.
Children’s TV entertainers The Krankies have revealed their sordid past as secret swingers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075996/The-Krankies-admit-secret-swingers-Not-fan-dabi-dozi.html
""No indirect passive aggressive mentions either please"
Like what? I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.
I would have sent this as a personal message, but we all know how you will just publish the PM on the main board a few weeks later, out of context, in an attempt to prove some farcical point."
Ummm... I don't want to take sides here, but maybe he meant just like the last sentence I quoted..
I wonder why the change of heart? Is it just that he is now expecting No to win? He normally goes for the winner!
He's the live count and results:
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/valaret2014/riksdag/Valresultat/#/area=national
There are good news for everyone.
For the moderates, the left dont have a majority.
For the right, the Swedish Democrats overperformed to become the third largest party.
For everyone, Carl Bildt is out of power.
BTW we count only nine polls with fieldwork end-date 8th to 12th,
But in that case you need to wait for tomorrow to announce the week's ELBOW - in order to include the Populus and Ashcroft which will be announced tomorrow morning and afternoon - otherwise these will never be included.
Andrew Clark @clarkaw 34m
Breaking news: Phones4u chain has collapsed into administration. All 550 shops, employing 5,596 people, to shut.
Hope no PBer had any cash in this business.
1. David Cameron
2. A big bunch of Labour MPs
3. Scottish nationalists -you got your wish, have fun, please don't keep in touch
4. A big portion of this country's misery-sustaining left wing consensus
5. Scottish oil -Yes, really, f***ng keep it. If it really is what's keeping us all afloat, I'd rather see RUK learn to exist on its wits
6. Windfarms everywhere
7. Speed cameras everywhere
8. The EU (with any luck)
9. Scottish MPs being able to vote on English issues
10. Trident (with any luck)
That wasn't too hard, and I could go on, but it's really nothing to what we'll (all) lose. Nothing.
B. you're right I did that last night. Bit ott to use words such as creepy and liar etc, I just noticed you were denying saying something that you had, but fair enough I did butt in
C. I am not referring to anything, just saying that if you don't want to respond to each other it's fine, but sometimes people get round things like that by obvious mentions "without actually mentioning". Not saying you have done this because you haven't, but saying I won't do so and I hope you won't either
D. Ok
No need to be constantly looking for one upmanship. I'm more than happy to never mention you or respond again if you like, let's just stop talking about it and do it. All the best
About 4 hours before the poll is published, one of their columnists is going to casually mention the poll lead in an article.
Opinium Research @OpiniumResearch 51s
Big, FINAL, @OpiniumResearch #indyref YES/NO #indypoll out this Wednesday for the @Telegraph
Actually scrap that, whatever he wants, it's always sensible to support the exact opposite.
Great cartoon.
Nick Robinson.
or
Sir Chris Hoy
or
Princess Anne....
or
Archie from Balamory.
Besides, it is hard to avoid mentioning someone when your post is in reply to theirs. I think he was referring to mentions in other, unrelated, posts ...
Also, what the heck does a feminist party is doing in Sweden?
Sweden is the last place in the world to need a feminist party, no wonder they got only 3% and got shafted (not in a sexist way) out of parliament.
Grimsby: marginal Labour, unexpectedly held
Ashfield: safe Labour, unexpectedly lost to Conservative
What if the Conservative Party managed to hold Clacton (like in Newark) but then UKIP sneaked through to gain Heywood & Middleton instead?
Unlikely. But more exciting than being bludgeoned to death with a cucumber.
Also if you look at the results, the only movement is a 7% swing from the Moderates to the Swedish Democrats.
No wonder, the Moderates main campaign point was that Russia is going to invade Sweden any moment now (the Carl Bildt factor), so people laughed at them, they had a really bad campaign so attention shifted to the Swedish Democrats vs the Left.
BTW we never use the "headline" party-wise tallies, as we have found that looking at the tables and using the actual samples used and the relevant weighted "total voters" sometimes - rarely - gives figures that are at variance.
Case in point:
YouGov (end-date 10th Sep) had a headline Lab tally of 38%, but looking at the tables revealed it was actually 38.65%!
B. That terminology's not OTT when you quickly produce posts of mine from times past. I did find it slightly creepy. Besides, you didn't really prove anything; you ignored the context of the earlier posts, which was using a fictitious and non-specific example of immigration. I could have used Indonesian scientists instead, but stuck with something I know a little of.
C. Ah, so it's not something I've done. Fair enough.
D. Cool.
(who eats a British hotel "continental breakfast?" is there anything crapper?)
Ho hum. I'm off to bed.
Are you a collective, like the Borg??
But as far as I'm concerned, it's up to the main recognised Christian faiths to decide whether they view another group as being part of the same faith as them
For instance, Q6 would exclude the Arians.
On the "passive" part, if you take it away from passive-aggressive you're left with ........? You normally post stuff I agree with, and I wanted Isam to answer your questions - I'd love to know what Ukippers would have as their red lines on immigration. But that line seemed, to me at least, quite unnecessarily rude.
I know listening to people and giving them a voice is never going to catch on with the, current, major parties but that that is no reason not to do it.
Bickley is quoted in the leaflet as saying that his father was a Labour trade unionist and worked hard to give his family a good start in life.
"The Labour party of today would be unrecognisable to him," Bickley wrote. "They have betrayed ordinary working people through their love affair with immigration, political correctness and multi-culturalism.
"Labour's betrayal is no more apparent than with the young white working-class girls of Rotherham and Rochdale where rather than upset immigrant communities, years of abuse were ignored and complaints swept under the carpet.
"Meanwhile, the Tories have stood idly by as immigration has driven wages down, created housing shortages and made the life of ordinary people tougher every day."
Naturally, I wouldn't agree with the last of those points, but he hasn't said anything unpleasant, incendiary or objectionable there, they are all reasonable political opinions.
He also comes over as very reasonable in this interview from a local paper:
http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/91328/john-bickley-ukip-candidate-for-heywood-and-middleton-byelection-vows-to-represent-the-people