Have gay rights ever really been pushed by the SNP? One of those issues where it's pretty clear that if you're gay you're glad to be linked to the English middle classes.
On topic, it looks like next year will be the pollsters' 1992 redux.
Inept leader of the opposition, trailing the PM on the leader ratings, and mahoosively on the economy.
An exclusive poll today reveals that David Cameron’s Conservatives have established a massive lead on the issue that the public say is most important to their vote at the general election — managing the economy.
In the past six months, the percentage who think the Tories have the best policies for the economy has jumped from 35 to 45 per cent, pollsters Ipsos MORI found.
That gives Mr Cameron’s party a 25-point lead on the number one issue over Ed Miliband’s Labour, whose share ebbed from 22 to 20 per cent.
I think I may have a small nervous breakdown or something at this rate. The uncertainty is killing me.
Keep calm and remember you're a Nat/Unionist
I've got a Dr Who T-Shirt that reads: "Regenerate and Carry On". Wish I could do similar. Deep-breath. It is genuinely exciting up here right now, not felt this level of national energy ever.
I was speculating over the weekend, on how the various Scottish Doctors would vote.
I have David Tennant as a No, Ditto Peter Capaldi, wasn't sure about Sylvester McCoy.
Don't forget, I'm in Edinburgh tomorrow for a few hours, I shall do my lovebombing on the Scots, that should probably lead to a big swing to No.
I've packed my England rugby shirts especially for the occasion.
Why on earth would they guess? They'd fast forward to the 19th, and go back a few months and pile all their pocket money on at Ladbrokes etc.
The Doctor doesn't gamble or play the lottery for personal profit.
He bought two winning lottery tickets, one for Donna when she was getting married, and once to give to a teacher a winning ticket, to get him to retire, so he could investigate something weird at a school (was the episode where David Tennant's Doctor met Sarah-Jane Smith for the first time)
Ah! I bow down to your superior expertise.
I suppose he could check on the future results before he voted - but voting would then either be pointless, or, improbably, change the result of a tie.
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
Not necessary.
All they need to do is get people to pay their fair share in taxes.
Tax avoiders, big business, the rich ( particularly those in the City who caused the crash and deficit in the first place) etc.
My gut feel is that "safety first" would be a more likely factor for the gap (as in 1992), rather than a superior SNP operation leading to a higher than expected Yes vote
I'm still sticking to the position as shown in the polls - TCTC. But I may be completely wrong
Minor point: the YES campaign is so much more than the SNP. The grass roots movements that comprise YES are quite diverse, plenty of people voting YES are not SNP supporters.
Sorry, I forgot. Superior grassroots movement, not an SNP operation, against a motley top-down campaign of deferred Yes voters.
I gave no comment on the relative strength of either campaign, nor did I offer any commentary regarding the make-up of the NO campaign.
It is clear that the NO camp are diverse, including as they do traditional Labourites, Tories, LibDemmer, Orange Men etc. What is also clear is that the grassroots are not as apparent or abundant.
Nor did I denigrate NO supporters, indeed I think it was a mistake by Salmond to say what he did.
Totally accepted. I just put together language that you hear all the time from the YES crowd, although not normally in one sentence.
But I would quibble with just one point. It really is an SNP operation. The Greens are there to provide diplomatic cover. A bit like the ragbag of Tongans and Romanians in the so-called Coalition of the Willing for the Iraq invasion.
Better Together suffer from a lack of togetherness precisely because there is no one party running the show.
Have gay rights ever really been pushed by the SNP? One of those issues where it's pretty clear that if you're gay you're glad to be linked to the English middle classes.
"Or Corals 8/11 on over 80%, a sound lowish-risk bet IMO."
Yes, that looks a very decent 8/11 chance.
Has anybody an update on the Postal Voting? I heard over the weekend it's running at >80% and the final figure is likely to be north of 85%. If that is right, a general turnout of over 80% seems pretty much nailed on.
Mr Kinnock's rally was a formal event. To compare that (given the nature of the Yes campaign) is perhaps to suggest that a Militant Tendency demo had to meet his approval on every occasion.
Alex Salmond has backed yes campaigners who staged an angry protest outside the BBC's Scottish headquarters over perceived bias shown by the corporation's political editor, Nick Robinson.
If so would you mind PMing me? Had a couple of questions about a sexy new technology (reimbursed by NICE, amazingly) that I've been offered a stake in and am intrigued by.
My son does - and I get visual migraines. I'm not sure how to contact via Vanilla but if RCS contacts me happy to help, to the extent I can.
If pollsters get it wrong, it may be shy NO supporters not stating their position. The YES campaign is relying on a lot of noisy passionate support and apparently Salmond is organising for noisy marches to the polling stations. If you are a NO supporter, given what might be perceived as threats, you might decide to stay quiet about how you will vote.
Have gay rights ever really been pushed by the SNP? One of those issues where it's pretty clear that if you're gay you're glad to be linked to the English middle classes.
The SNP government introduced same sex marriage laws earlier on this year.
But has been a sore point for the party, a few years ago, one of their MEPS called some SNPers, Mean, Angry, Bigots for not being pro gay marriage.
It wasn't a specifically SNP issue, as i recall, but a sore point for just about all parties. I can't remember about the LDs but IIRC there were tensions in SLAB and the Tories. Again IIRC, the vote was left up to personal conscience, and all parties (except perhaps LDs) saw defections against the legislation because of genuine personal convictions (for instance, membership of various Churches).
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
Not necessary.
All they need to do is get people to pay their fair share in taxes.
Tax avoiders, big business, the rich ( particularly those in the City who caused the crash and deficit in the first place) etc.
What rates would you put the main taxes (income, national insurance, corporation) up to in order to get to their "fair share"?
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
I'd be fine with a deficit forever, since we've had a deficit in almost every year for the past 150 years, including most of Thatcher's years in office.
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
Not necessary.
All they need to do is get people to pay their fair share in taxes.
Tax avoiders, big business, the rich ( particularly those in the City who caused the crash and deficit in the first place) etc.
He describes how people are going door to door asking Britons to blindly sign proxy forms for the upcoming elections, allowing someone else in the UK to vote on their behalf.
"They said I didn't have to fill in any details, just to sign my name at the bottom of the form," he says, smiling. "So I signed two."
He laughed as he told me he had no idea who was going to vote on his behalf, and whom they were going to vote for.
"I personally know 25 other people who did the same thing, lots of people just on this street, but everybody does it."
In a sane political entity, news of this sort of abuse would cause us to cancel Commonwealth citizens being allowed to vote in the UK, in addition to proxy voting.
But with Lab/Lib/Con in charge? No chance. Mustn't upset the Muslims by stopping their corrupt voting systems.
Not all Commonwealth citizens are Muslim!
Of course not, but I don't see why people without UK citizenship should be able to vote here. Particularly as the rights are not reciprocal. It's absurd that anyone from Mozambique or Jamaica can just turn up as a student tomorrow and vote in the next general election.
How about Commonwealth Citizens with indefinite leave to remain, like my mum?
He describes how people are going door to door asking Britons to blindly sign proxy forms for the upcoming elections, allowing someone else in the UK to vote on their behalf.
"They said I didn't have to fill in any details, just to sign my name at the bottom of the form," he says, smiling. "So I signed two."
He laughed as he told me he had no idea who was going to vote on his behalf, and whom they were going to vote for.
"I personally know 25 other people who did the same thing, lots of people just on this street, but everybody does it."
In a sane political entity, news of this sort of abuse would cause us to cancel Commonwealth citizens being allowed to vote in the UK, in addition to proxy voting.
But with Lab/Lib/Con in charge? No chance. Mustn't upset the Muslims by stopping their corrupt voting systems.
Not all Commonwealth citizens are Muslim!
Of course not, but I don't see why people without UK citizenship should be able to vote here. Particularly as the rights are not reciprocal. It's absurd that anyone from Mozambique or Jamaica can just turn up as a student tomorrow and vote in the next general election.
How about Commonwealth Citizens with indefinite leave to remain, like my mum?
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
I'd be fine with a deficit forever, since we've had a deficit in almost every year for the past 150 years, including most of Thatcher's years in office.
Not one at 10%+, which is where we would be without the cuts.
We've spent a long time wondering why Mr Salmond he chose the position of currency union rather than the more realistic free floating currency. While it seems it's because it does not frighten the voters and seems to preserve those Scottish Bank jobs, I think we are forgetting the power of this to become a wedge issue and grist to the grievance machine. And please this whole independence movement is built on a grievance against Westminster anything that can make it bigger is an important part of the campaign.
We've had statements trying to imply that the currency 'is a shared asset' that 'it is the democratic wish of the Scottish people'. This is all preparation for when we turn around and say no to a currency union. The attack lines will be ready, it will be all England's fault:
They want to undermine Scotland. Look they are stealing our Scottish Banks and Pension companies, how dare they. Look at all those regeneration agencies offering new office blocks and in Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle, they are bribing them away!
It will be all Westminster's fault. As to the SNP future they have no plans to shut up shop if there is a Yes vote, they plan to rule. All parties do.
They can position themselves as the only truly Scottish Party, all the others are just offshoots of Westminster, they won't have Scotland's true interests at heart they still be beholden to them, not true Scots, Qusilings and fifth columnists. SNP needs to be the underdog surrounded by enemies, the ensuing shitstorm will provide plenty of conflicts with the English, sorry I mean Westminster.
Those businesses and people that flee South will be traitors and cowards, but as there were Unionists and not 'True Scots' (TM) it'll be good riddance.
It will be a real political street fight. It just depends how far they are prepared to push grievance politics and demonisation of their enemies. If the economic waters get really rough how much blame will need to be shifted onto others, how many enemies will the need to find?
I also wonder about the future of freedom of the press under an independence. For several years now any critical article, interview in press or the TV has attracted a thuggish counter attack on individuals and organisations. Will the Economist 'rue the day' for it's Skintland front cover, will it be banned or just be censored? Will Scotland go the way of Singapore and require a right to reply clause with the press to correct lies and bias.
I imagine the Scottish government has a big advertising budget and it will control the TV licencing arrangements and it will want to ensure that any channels in Scotland will be properly 'Scottish' as defined by them. The new SBC will provide a great opportunity for a properly Scottish organisation, that reflects the views and opinions of all true Scots.
It will be probably be nothing overt but most media companies are pretty craven and will do the job for them. The SNP have tried to present this as entirely positive campaign and nothing against the English. But the under currents tell a different story of a prickly self regard with all opposition to be crushed and ostracised. I don't see how that is going to change post independence.
Gah. I was quietly confident until about ten minutes ago.
Reading pb is not good for the nerves.
I still think NO will edge it. The economic calamity of break-up, which will be slow to gather, but remorseless once it starts, will surely frighten too many people....
Won't it?
Eeek.
On the other hand, a YES vote will screw Labour both in Scotland and in rUK, would it not?
This analysis is intended as a starting point. If anyone has suggestions on how to improve it, feel free to comment (preferably via the link above, because this thread could get a bit busy!)
NC
Welcome to PB.com and fascinating first post - your table is already bookmarked for Thursday!
On the night, I will be surprised if Dundee is as close, or Glasgow as strongly for Yes - but no more than hunches!
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
Not necessary.
All they need to do is get people to pay their fair share in taxes.
Tax avoiders, big business, the rich ( particularly those in the City who caused the crash and deficit in the first place) etc.
What rates would you put the main taxes (income, national insurance, corporation) up to in order to get to their "fair share"?
Gah. I was quietly confident until about ten minutes ago.
Reading pb is not good for the nerves.
I still think NO will edge it. The economic calamity of break-up, which will be slow to gather, but remorseless once it starts, will surely frighten too many people....
Won't it?
Eeek.
Have you sent me your bank details? If you have, I haven't received them.
If so would you mind PMing me? Had a couple of questions about a sexy new technology (reimbursed by NICE, amazingly) that I've been offered a stake in and am intrigued by.
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
I'd be fine with a deficit forever, since we've had a deficit in almost every year for the past 150 years, including most of Thatcher's years in office.
Not one at 10%+, which is where we would be without the cuts.
So basically, it doesn't matter what the public want (60% of the public say they disagree with more cuts according to a Lord Ashcroft poll from a few months ago, as I'll never get tired of pointing out), they just have to accept it because it's what the "markets" want?
Aren't you one of the people always going on about "democracy" when it comes to immigration and Europe and how scandalous it is that the elites ignore public opinion? Why doesn't democracy also apply to public opinion on the economy and public spending?
If pollsters get it wrong, it may be shy NO supporters not stating their position. The YES campaign is relying on a lot of noisy passionate support and apparently Salmond is organising for noisy marches to the polling stations. If you are a NO supporter, given what might be perceived as threats, you might decide to stay quiet about how you will vote.
You might want to relax a bit, Mr 67.
Last I saw, it was very much a local grassroots idea for walks to the polls - in about 3 or 4 constituencies. I'd be extremely surprised if the SNP, let alone Mr Salmond, had any input to this, given the decentralised nature of Yes.
I didn't even see the idea mentioned in the Herald this morning, or at least in any detail to catch my eye. Even the DT, DM and Edinburgh Evening News reports only mention a couple of possible marches, one in the suburbs of each of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and these reports make it clear that they are local initiatives - nothing to do with Yes central neaver mind the SNP. I can't even find it in any other papers.
The formal legality thereof remains to be confirmed, of course.
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
I'd be fine with a deficit forever, since we've had a deficit in almost every year for the past 150 years, including most of Thatcher's years in office.
Not one at 10%+, which is where we would be without the cuts.
So basically, it doesn't matter what the public want (60% of the public say they disagree with more cuts according to a Lord Ashcroft poll from a few months ago, as I'll never get tired of pointing out), they just have to accept it because it's what the "markets" want?
Aren't you one of the people always going on about "democracy" when it comes to immigration and Europe and how scandalous it is that the elites ignore public opinion? Why doesn't democracy also apply to public opinion on the economy and public spending?
I haven't stated my views in this conversation. I'm just trying to understand your position. You seem to be suggesting you'd run a 10%+ deficit permanently. Is that correct?
Well if it is like 1992, one challenge for those of us trying to interpret the early results (whether you’re punting, spinning or just really want to know) is knowing what the Scottish 'Basildon' will look like, given that there are likely to be significant regional dispersions. If the first local authority that reports goes 60-40 one way, which side is that good news for?
If this is representative, it is clear both sides would need to win big in their stronger areas to have any chance of winning overall.
This analysis is intended as a starting point. If anyone has suggestions on how to improve it, feel free to comment (preferably via the link above, because this thread could get a bit busy!)
NC
Welcome, and great minds think alike!
My model is basically this approach, with a few extra bells and whistles. I think I will add variation around UNS and turnout, and perform a Monte Carlo forecast, providing a central projection and probability of victory. Also will keep a running total estimate of what proportion of the undeclared voters the underdogs require to overturn the current lead.
Btw, it could be a rollercoaster results night, and not for the faint-hearted bettor.
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
I'd be fine with a deficit forever, since we've had a deficit in almost every year for the past 150 years, including most of Thatcher's years in office.
Not one at 10%+, which is where we would be without the cuts.
So basically, it doesn't matter what the public want (60% of the public say they disagree with more cuts according to a Lord Ashcroft poll from a few months ago, as I'll never get tired of pointing out), they just have to accept it because it's what the "markets" want?
Aren't you one of the people always going on about "democracy" when it comes to immigration and Europe and how scandalous it is that the elites ignore public opinion? Why doesn't democracy also apply to public opinion on the economy and public spending?
I haven't stated my views in this conversation. I'm just trying to understand your position. You seem to be suggesting you'd run a 10%+ deficit permanently. Is that correct?
FWIW, I think Nick Robinson overstepped with his "heckling". Mr Salmond's reply to his question was wrong on the facts, but it was an answer. In terms of general BBC bias, I think they have been inconsistent. Some of the recent reporting has casually given more prominence to the No arguments, probably reflecting what most of its journalist employees think. OTOH the BBC mishandled the second leaders' debate in favour of Alex Salmond. The influential Robert Peston seems to favour the YES side on the economic arguments. A key BT argument is the economic risks that Scotland would face in the case of independence. Mr Peston dismisses those as trivial whereas most experts say they are serious, or at least poorly understood. Overall the biases cancel each other our, I think.
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
I'd be fine with a deficit forever, since we've had a deficit in almost every year for the past 150 years, including most of Thatcher's years in office.
Not one at 10%+, which is where we would be without the cuts.
So basically, it doesn't matter what the public want (60% of the public say they disagree with more cuts according to a Lord Ashcroft poll from a few months ago, as I'll never get tired of pointing out), they just have to accept it because it's what the "markets" want?
I'd like to consistently spend more money than I earn on "nice things" but I have to accept that I cant because eventually I will run out of money and run out of people willing to lend money to me. Does this really have to be explained to people?
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
Not necessary.
All they need to do is get people to pay their fair share in taxes.
Tax avoiders, big business, the rich ( particularly those in the City who caused the crash and deficit in the first place) etc.
Of current government spending, what percentage is being spent on the City?
Just read an interesting thought - a high turnout favours YES, a very high turnout favours NO as it means that _everyone_ has been mobilised not just the enthusiastic.
If so would you mind PMing me? Had a couple of questions about a sexy new technology (reimbursed by NICE, amazingly) that I've been offered a stake in and am intrigued by.
My son does - and I get visual migraines. I'm not sure how to contact via Vanilla but if RCS contacts me happy to help, to the extent I can.
Thanks - would be great. @rcs1000 would you oblige?
Unfortunately my email address includes my surname, which I'd rather not disclose!
I assume you mean by visual migraine, migraine preceded by aura?
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
I'd be fine with a deficit forever, since we've had a deficit in almost every year for the past 150 years, including most of Thatcher's years in office.
Not one at 10%+, which is where we would be without the cuts.
So basically, it doesn't matter what the public want (60% of the public say they disagree with more cuts according to a Lord Ashcroft poll from a few months ago, as I'll never get tired of pointing out), they just have to accept it because it's what the "markets" want?
Aren't you one of the people always going on about "democracy" when it comes to immigration and Europe and how scandalous it is that the elites ignore public opinion? Why doesn't democracy also apply to public opinion on the economy and public spending?
I haven't stated my views in this conversation. I'm just trying to understand your position. You seem to be suggesting you'd run a 10%+ deficit permanently. Is that correct?
Correct.
If we imagine we did this for 20 years, so that debt is approaching 300% of GDP, do you think there might be a point at which people stop lending us money to cover that 10% deficit?
If so would you mind PMing me? Had a couple of questions about a sexy new technology (reimbursed by NICE, amazingly) that I've been offered a stake in and am intrigued by.
My son does - and I get visual migraines. I'm not sure how to contact via Vanilla but if RCS contacts me happy to help, to the extent I can.
Just click on @Charles name and it will bring you to another page. Click on the message icon there and you can send him a direct message. Charles, I unfortunately also suffer from migraines and am happy to answer questions about them if it helps.
"In the year of our Lord 2014, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of BBC Scotland. They voted like warrior poets. They voted like Scotsmen. And won their freedom."
FWIW, I think Nick Robinson overstepped with his "heckling". Mr Salmond's reply to his question was wrong on the facts, but it was an answer. In terms of general BBC bias, I think they have been inconsistent. Some of the recent reporting has casually given more prominence to the No arguments, probably reflecting what most of its journalist employees think. OTOH the BBC mishandled the second leaders' debate in favour of Alex Salmond. The influential Robert Peston seems to favour the YES side on the economic arguments. A key BT argument is the economic risks that Scotland would face in the case of independence. Mr Peston dismisses those as trivial whereas most experts say they are serious, or at least poorly understood. Overall the biases cancel each other our, I think.
Thanks for that view. I was also intrigued by Order Order's comments (no relationship implied)!
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
Not necessary.
All they need to do is get people to pay their fair share in taxes.
Tax evaiders, big business, the rich ( particularly those in the City who caused the crash and deficit in the first place) etc.
Unfortunately ordinary people already pay much more than their fair share of taxes and even if you confiscated all the wealth of big business and the rich, it still wouldn't be enough.
Still, when will weird Ed outline labours economic policies?
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
I'd be fine with a deficit forever, since we've had a deficit in almost every year for the past 150 years, including most of Thatcher's years in office.
Not one at 10%+, which is where we would be without the cuts.
So basically, it doesn't matter what the public want (60% of the public say they disagree with more cuts according to a Lord Ashcroft poll from a few months ago, as I'll never get tired of pointing out), they just have to accept it because it's what the "markets" want?
I'd like to consistently spend more money than I earn on "nice things" but I have to accept that I cant because eventually I will run out of money and run out of people willing to lend money to me. Does this really have to be explained to people?
So basically, this is a variant of what the "liberal elite" say on immigration. Doesn't matter what the public think, the economic facts of life apparently are that we "need" immigrants to keep the economy running, just as we "need" to make spending cuts, and it doesn't matter what the public think, they're not allowed an opinion because they just don't understand.
And yes, apparently you need to explain it to 59% of the public (to be precise, 25% who said the cuts so far were necessary but that 5 years more were not, and 34% who said no cuts were ever necessary):
Speaking of paedos who are pediatricians - apparently an oncologist at Addenbrooke's has just pleaded guilty to abusing child cancer patients. See The Times.
And yes, apparently you need to explain it to 59% of the public
Let's just start with you. If we can get you to understand then I bet we can get anyone to understand. So, once the debt / gdp ratio gets so high after years of 10+% deficits that noone will lend to the UK any more and there isnt enough money to pay for everything what do you propose to do?
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
I'd be fine with a deficit forever, since we've had a deficit in almost every year for the past 150 years, including most of Thatcher's years in office.
Not one at 10%+, which is where we would be without the cuts.
So basically, it doesn't matter what the public want (60% of the public say they disagree with more cuts according to a Lord Ashcroft poll from a few months ago, as I'll never get tired of pointing out), they just have to accept it because it's what the "markets" want?
Aren't you one of the people always going on about "democracy" when it comes to immigration and Europe and how scandalous it is that the elites ignore public opinion? Why doesn't democracy also apply to public opinion on the economy and public spending?
If we ran our country on just what was popular, it would fall apart very quickly. You can bring in arguments about the death penalty, or membership of the EU here if you like.
You would also have logical fallacys.
'Do you want more spending on schoolsnhospitals: Yes' 'Do you want lower taxes: Yes'
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
I'd be fine with a deficit forever, since we've had a deficit in almost every year for the past 150 years, including most of Thatcher's years in office.
Not one at 10%+, which is where we would be without the cuts.
So basically, it doesn't matter what the public want (60% of the public say they disagree with more cuts according to a Lord Ashcroft poll from a few months ago, as I'll never get tired of pointing out), they just have to accept it because it's what the "markets" want?
I'd like to consistently spend more money than I earn on "nice things" but I have to accept that I cant because eventually I will run out of money and run out of people willing to lend money to me. Does this really have to be explained to people?
I'm a believer in allowing people to learn from their mistakes, but it's worth remembering that the British electorate did vote by a seven percentage point margin for the party lead by the man who said that cutting the deficit was his number one priority, over the man who said that deficit spending was investment.
The public aren't as daft as Danny's presentation of isolated polling results makes out.
Speaking of paedos who are pediatricians - apparently an oncologist at Addenbrooke's has just pleaded guilty to abusing child cancer patients. See The Times.
"In the year of our Lord 2014, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of BBC Scotland. They voted like warrior poets. They voted like Scotsmen. And won their freedom."
If you are coming up the ECML on your train, you'll be directly crossing at least four battlefields - never mind sieges. And here's what you will be passing on the Edinburgh (up? down? line at Berwick:
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
I'd be fine with a deficit forever, since we've had a deficit in almost every year for the past 150 years, including most of Thatcher's years in office.
Not one at 10%+, which is where we would be without the cuts.
So basically, it doesn't matter what the public want (60% of the public say they disagree with more cuts according to a Lord Ashcroft poll from a few months ago, as I'll never get tired of pointing out), they just have to accept it because it's what the "markets" want?
Aren't you one of the people always going on about "democracy" when it comes to immigration and Europe and how scandalous it is that the elites ignore public opinion? Why doesn't democracy also apply to public opinion on the economy and public spending?
If we ran our country on just what was popular, it would fall apart very quickly. You can bring in arguments about the death penalty, or membership of the EU here if you like.
You would also have logical fallacys.
'Do you want more spending on schoolsnhospitals: Yes' 'Do you want lower taxes: Yes'
For example....
OK then. So presumably, you don't disagree with the "elite" encouraging mass immigration over the past 15 years, despite public opposition?
Just checking whether you're consistent, or if you think that it's fine for the elite to override public opinion when it's an issue you agree with them on, but think it's a scandal for them to override public opinion when you disagree with them.
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
I'd be fine with a deficit forever, since we've had a deficit in almost every year for the past 150 years, including most of Thatcher's years in office.
Not one at 10%+, which is where we would be without the cuts.
So basically, it doesn't matter what the public want (60% of the public say they disagree with more cuts according to a Lord Ashcroft poll from a few months ago, as I'll never get tired of pointing out), they just have to accept it because it's what the "markets" want?
I'd like to consistently spend more money than I earn on "nice things" but I have to accept that I cant because eventually I will run out of money and run out of people willing to lend money to me. Does this really have to be explained to people?
I'm a believer in allowing people to learn from their mistakes, but it's worth remembering that the British electorate did vote by a seven percentage point margin for the party lead by the man who said that cutting the deficit was his number one priority, over the man who said that deficit spending was investment.
The public aren't as daft as Danny's presentation of isolated polling results makes out.
Polling of a single question or point provides an answer that is not necessarily a true representation of the public view of that point when it is considered in conjunction with the other factors that construe reality and life.
"In the year of our Lord 2014, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of BBC Scotland. They voted like warrior poets. They voted like Scotsmen. And won their freedom."
If you are coming up the ECML on your train, you'll be directly crossing at least four battlefields - never mind sieges. And here's what you will be passing on the Edinburgh (up? down? line at Berwick:
"In the year of our Lord 2014, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of BBC Scotland. They voted like warrior poets. They voted like Scotsmen. And won their freedom."
If you are coming up the ECML on your train, you'll be directly crossing at least four battlefields - never mind sieges. And here's what you will be passing on the Edinburgh (up? down? line at Berwick:
Anyway, two years ago I went by train from King's Cross all the way to Leuchars, via Edinburgh, plus a bus ride to St Andrews. Very evocative place, with the ruins overlooking the rocky strips entering the sea.
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
I'd be fine with a deficit forever, since we've had a deficit in almost every year for the past 150 years, including most of Thatcher's years in office.
Not one at 10%+, which is where we would be without the cuts.
So basically, it doesn't matter what the public want (60% of the public say they disagree with more cuts according to a Lord Ashcroft poll from a few months ago, as I'll never get tired of pointing out), they just have to accept it because it's what the "markets" want?
I'd like to consistently spend more money than I earn on "nice things" but I have to accept that I cant because eventually I will run out of money and run out of people willing to lend money to me. Does this really have to be explained to people?
I'm a believer in allowing people to learn from their mistakes, but it's worth remembering that the British electorate did vote by a seven percentage point margin for the party lead by the man who said that cutting the deficit was his number one priority, over the man who said that deficit spending was investment.
The public aren't as daft as Danny's presentation of isolated polling results makes out.
Yeah, and in 2005 people voted for the more pro-immigration party. That quite obviously did not mean people agreed with Labour's policies on immigration.
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
I'd be fine with a deficit forever, since we've had a deficit in almost every year for the past 150 years, including most of Thatcher's years in office.
Not one at 10%+, which is where we would be without the cuts.
So basically, it doesn't matter what the public want (60% of the public say they disagree with more cuts according to a Lord Ashcroft poll from a few months ago, as I'll never get tired of pointing out), they just have to accept it because it's what the "markets" want?
Aren't you one of the people always going on about "democracy" when it comes to immigration and Europe and how scandalous it is that the elites ignore public opinion? Why doesn't democracy also apply to public opinion on the economy and public spending?
If we ran our country on just what was popular, it would fall apart very quickly. You can bring in arguments about the death penalty, or membership of the EU here if you like.
You would also have logical fallacys.
'Do you want more spending on schoolsnhospitals: Yes' 'Do you want lower taxes: Yes'
For example....
OK then. So presumably, you don't disagree with the "elite" encouraging mass immigration over the past 15 years, despite public opposition?
There will be no immigration of any kind once your fiscal policies are adopted and cripple the UK economy! Win win.
A bystander tweeted that the attackers yelled "Fuck yer yes" and "Better Together" before the attack.
This might be the tweet - though there is precious little to suggest there are other tweets with the same words.
@LozPacitti · 3h BT tweets of "vandalised" signs. I saw an artist get his nose burst open by 3 students shouting "Fuck yer yes" outside Usher Hall. Nothing.
Lovely day! The last time I was there a Shackleton AEW was grinding its way up the sky with Tornados zooming around. Which probably means I need to go again.
Frequent threads are good to avoid overloading the comments system!
Wait until Friday morning!
I'll be in a meeting with sparse internet access. Gutted!
Be around Wednesday night.
I'll be doing the mega indyref polling round up thread.
That'll be fun.
Will endeavor to do so. Bad timing all round, this meeting. Moving house the day after!
You should delay your house move until a few days after the indyref, Get your priorities sorted.
I really didn't think this through, did I? ;-)
I'm not sure we can call you a politics geek, monster spreadsheets notwithstanding. Mike and I delayed our holidays to make sure the indyref would be covered by PB.
A bystander tweeted that the attackers yelled "Fuck yer yes" and "Better Together" before the attack.
This might be the tweet - though there is precious little to suggest there are other tweets with the same words.
@LozPacitti · 3h BT tweets of "vandalised" signs. I saw an artist get his nose burst open by 3 students shouting "Fuck yer yes" outside Usher Hall. Nothing.
Go to the Wings Twitter feed. There are at least three tweets relevant to this. Look at the one whch has a 'view conversation'.
At least this time there is a photo (urgh: not for haemophobes).
Lovely day! The last time I was there a Shackleton AEW was grinding its way up the sky with Tornados zooming around. Which probably means I need to go again.
Aw, I had to make do with watching a couple of Typhoons on manoeuvres - not the same!
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
Not necessary.
All they need to do is get people to pay their fair share in taxes.
Tax evaiders, big business, the rich ( particularly those in the City who caused the crash and deficit in the first place) etc.
Unfortunately ordinary people already pay much more than their fair share of taxes and even if you confiscated all the wealth of big business and the rich, it still wouldn't be enough.
Still, when will weird Ed outline labours economic policies?
Ordinary people do, but not the rich and big business.
Get the billions that are avoided in tax every year.
Also we could stop shovelling billions taxpayer cash into the hands of private companies to provide a worse, less efficient public service.
But Chinless Toff Cameron won't, because he's in the back pocket of the City, the super rich and Big Business.
Lovely day! The last time I was there a Shackleton AEW was grinding its way up the sky with Tornados zooming around. Which probably means I need to go again.
Aw, I had to make do with watching a couple of Typhoons on manoeuvres - not the same!
Forget about seeing them again. The aircraft have gone. It no longer operates as an RAF base.
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
Not necessary.
All they need to do is get people to pay their fair share in taxes.
Tax evaiders, big business, the rich ( particularly those in the City who caused the crash and deficit in the first place) etc.
Unfortunately ordinary people already pay much more than their fair share of taxes and even if you confiscated all the wealth of big business and the rich, it still wouldn't be enough.
Still, when will weird Ed outline labours economic policies?
Ordinary people do, but not the rich and big business.
Get the billions that are avoided in tax every year.
Also we could stop shovelling billions taxpayer cash into the hands of private companies to provide a worse, less efficient public service.
But Chinless Toff Cameron won't, because he's in the back pocket of the City, the super rich and Big Business.
What rates would you put the main taxes (income, national insurance, corporation) up to in order to get to their "fair share"?
Although yes, those economic ratings are alarming for Labour. Ed Balls's "master plan" of winning "economic credibility" by saying they'll carry out Tory spending cuts does not seem to be working well. The gap was much smaller when they were doing the "incredible" thing of actually opposing the cuts.
In your ideal world, how long would a Labour government keep spending higher than revenue for?
Not necessary.
All they need to do is get people to pay their fair share in taxes.
Tax evaiders, big business, the rich ( particularly those in the City who caused the crash and deficit in the first place) etc.
Unfortunately ordinary people already pay much more than their fair share of taxes and even if you confiscated all the wealth of big business and the rich, it still wouldn't be enough.
Still, when will weird Ed outline labours economic policies?
Ordinary people do, but not the rich and big business.
Get the billions that are avoided in tax every year.
Also we could stop shovelling billions taxpayer cash into the hands of private companies to provide a worse, less efficient public service.
But Chinless Toff Cameron won't, because he's in the back pocket of the City, the super rich and Big Business.
What rates would you put the main taxes (income, national insurance, corporation) up to in order to get to their "fair share"?
'TAX THE BANKERS!' (50 times over - Copyright Ed Balls)
A bystander tweeted that the attackers yelled "Fuck yer yes" and "Better Together" before the attack.
This might be the tweet - though there is precious little to suggest there are other tweets with the same words.
@LozPacitti · 3h BT tweets of "vandalised" signs. I saw an artist get his nose burst open by 3 students shouting "Fuck yer yes" outside Usher Hall. Nothing.
Was the "artist" with the exploded nose one of the performers at the Yes concert? I sincerely hope not.
Also we could stop shovelling billions taxpayer cash into the hands of private companies to provide a worse, less efficient public service.
But Chinless Toff Cameron won't, because he's in the back pocket of the City, the super rich and Big Business.
And Ed wont for many reasons including the fact that the Government he was a member of was responsible for letting most of these contracts in the first place.
Comments
I suppose he could check on the future results before he voted - but voting would then either be pointless, or, improbably, change the result of a tie.
Lab 35.9 (+0.1)
Con 31.5 (-1.4)
UKIP 15.6 (+1.0)
LD 7.6 (+0.2)
Lab leads, ELBOW week ending:
17th Aug = 3.0%
24th Aug = 3.5%
31st Aug = 3.8%
7th Sep = 3.0%
14th Sep = 4.5%
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e28_1410725994
All they need to do is get people to pay their fair share in taxes.
Tax avoiders, big business, the rich ( particularly those in the City who caused the crash and deficit in the first place) etc.
But I would quibble with just one point. It really is an SNP operation. The Greens are there to provide diplomatic cover. A bit like the ragbag of Tongans and Romanians in the so-called Coalition of the Willing for the Iraq invasion.
Better Together suffer from a lack of togetherness precisely because there is no one party running the show.
But has been a sore point for the party, a few years ago, one of their MEPS called some SNPers, Mean, Angry, Bigots for not being pro gay marriage.
"Or Corals 8/11 on over 80%, a sound lowish-risk bet IMO."
Yes, that looks a very decent 8/11 chance.
Has anybody an update on the Postal Voting? I heard over the weekend it's running at >80% and the final figure is likely to be north of 85%. If that is right, a general turnout of over 80% seems pretty much nailed on.
Alex Salmond has backed yes campaigners who staged an angry protest outside the BBC's Scottish headquarters over perceived bias shown by the corporation's political editor, Nick Robinson.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/15/alex-salmond-bbc-protest-nick-robinson?CMP=twt_gu
We've had statements trying to imply that the currency 'is a shared asset' that 'it is the democratic wish of the Scottish people'. This is all preparation for when we turn around and say no to a currency union. The attack lines will be ready, it will be all England's fault:
They want to undermine Scotland. Look they are stealing our Scottish Banks and Pension companies, how dare they. Look at all those regeneration agencies offering new office blocks and in Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle, they are bribing them away!
It will be all Westminster's fault. As to the SNP future they have no plans to shut up shop if there is a Yes vote, they plan to rule. All parties do.
They can position themselves as the only truly Scottish Party, all the others are just offshoots of Westminster, they won't have Scotland's true interests at heart they still be beholden to them, not true Scots, Qusilings and fifth columnists. SNP needs to be the underdog surrounded by enemies, the ensuing shitstorm will provide plenty of conflicts with the English, sorry I mean Westminster.
Those businesses and people that flee South will be traitors and cowards, but as there were Unionists and not 'True Scots' (TM) it'll be good riddance.
It will be a real political street fight. It just depends how far they are prepared to push grievance politics and demonisation of their enemies. If the economic waters get really rough how much blame will need to be shifted onto others, how many enemies will the need to find?
I also wonder about the future of freedom of the press under an independence. For several years now any critical article, interview in press or the TV has attracted a thuggish counter attack on individuals and organisations. Will the Economist 'rue the day' for it's Skintland front cover, will it be banned or just be censored? Will Scotland go the way of Singapore and require a right to reply clause with the press to correct lies and bias.
I imagine the Scottish government has a big advertising budget and it will control the TV licencing arrangements and it will want to ensure that any channels in Scotland will be properly 'Scottish' as defined by them. The new SBC will provide a great opportunity for a properly Scottish organisation, that reflects the views and opinions of all true Scots.
17th Aug = 3.0%
24th Aug = 3.5%
31st Aug = 3.8%
7th Sep = 3.0%
14th Sep = 4.5%
On the night, I will be surprised if Dundee is as close, or Glasgow as strongly for Yes - but no more than hunches!
We shall know soon enough.....
We could probably push it up to 41% or 42% (in-line with Germany or Italy), but at the cost of lower economic activity.
Swingback in action with ELBOW.
Aren't you one of the people always going on about "democracy" when it comes to immigration and Europe and how scandalous it is that the elites ignore public opinion? Why doesn't democracy also apply to public opinion on the economy and public spending?
Last I saw, it was very much a local grassroots idea for walks to the polls - in about 3 or 4 constituencies. I'd be extremely surprised if the SNP, let alone Mr Salmond, had any input to this, given the decentralised nature of Yes.
I didn't even see the idea mentioned in the Herald this morning, or at least in any detail to catch my eye. Even the DT, DM and Edinburgh Evening News reports only mention a couple of possible marches, one in the suburbs of each of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and these reports make it clear that they are local initiatives - nothing to do with Yes central neaver mind the SNP. I can't even find it in any other papers.
The formal legality thereof remains to be confirmed, of course.
My model is basically this approach, with a few extra bells and whistles. I think I will add variation around UNS and turnout, and perform a Monte Carlo forecast, providing a central projection and probability of victory. Also will keep a running total estimate of what proportion of the undeclared voters the underdogs require to overturn the current lead.
Btw, it could be a rollercoaster results night, and not for the faint-hearted bettor.
For example, one possible path to a narrow YES win could look like this...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13331381/Indyref.PNG
YES WE CAN wins the Ladbrokes Referendum Race at Musselburgh.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bxk37iVCEAACPYQ.jpg:large
Tired of Scottish talk? Want to discuss the joys of differential front end grip? My early thoughts on Singapore are up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/singapore-early-thoughts.html
Unfortunately my email address includes my surname, which I'd rather not disclose!
I assume you mean by visual migraine, migraine preceded by aura?
Still, when will weird Ed outline labours economic policies?
And yes, apparently you need to explain it to 59% of the public (to be precise, 25% who said the cuts so far were necessary but that 5 years more were not, and 34% who said no cuts were ever necessary):
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ANP-summary-140527.pdf
http://news.stv.tv/east-central/292144-teenagers-arrested-after-man-attacked-outside-usher-hall-yes-gig/
A bystander tweeted that the attackers yelled "Fuck yer yes" and "Better Together" before the attack.
You would also have logical fallacys.
'Do you want more spending on schoolsnhospitals: Yes'
'Do you want lower taxes: Yes'
For example....
The public aren't as daft as Danny's presentation of isolated polling results makes out.
If you are coming up the ECML on your train, you'll be directly crossing at least four battlefields - never mind sieges. And here's what you will be passing on the Edinburgh (up? down? line at Berwick:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/julesfoto/6878949444/
Just checking whether you're consistent, or if you think that it's fine for the elite to override public opinion when it's an issue you agree with them on, but think it's a scandal for them to override public opinion when you disagree with them.
Polling of a single question or point provides an answer that is not necessarily a true representation of the public view of that point when it is considered in conjunction with the other factors that construe reality and life.
I think it's TSE who's coming up tomorrow!
Anyway, two years ago I went by train from King's Cross all the way to Leuchars, via Edinburgh, plus a bus ride to St Andrews. Very evocative place, with the ruins overlooking the rocky strips entering the sea.
I'll be doing the mega indyref polling round up thread.
That'll be fun.
http://www.britishrailwaystations.co.uk/leuchars.html
@LozPacitti · 3h
BT tweets of "vandalised" signs. I saw an artist get his nose burst open by 3 students shouting "Fuck yer yes" outside Usher Hall. Nothing.
At least this time there is a photo (urgh: not for haemophobes).
Get the billions that are avoided in tax every year.
Also we could stop shovelling billions taxpayer cash into the hands of private companies to provide a worse, less efficient public service.
But Chinless Toff Cameron won't, because he's in the back pocket of the City, the super rich and Big Business.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scottish-independence-blog/2014/sep/15/scottish-independence-when-will-the-referendum-result-be-announced
Don't the top 1% of earners already pay 30% of all the income tax?? that's already plenty of billions.
How much would you like them to pay?