politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alex Salmond fighting a Westminster seat that voted overwh

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alex Salmond fighting a Westminster seat that voted overwhelmingly NO would be a huge gamble

It’s been reported widely that the outgoing SNP leader and Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, is thinking about seeking a Westminster seat to fight at GE15. This would mean a return to the Commons.

Read the full story here

Charles

first

Socrates

antifrank - I answered you on the previous thread.

taffys

'He failed in the biggest project of his political career.'

Very harsh, considering the autonomy that Scotland is set to get.

AlastairMeeks

If Alex Salmond is to return to Westminster, what is he trying to achieve? He doesn't need to be there to be driving negotiations in a hung Parliament, so his aim should be to use his box office bankability to get more SNP MPs there.

If he stands in Gordon, I expect he'll win. He remains personally popular and to choose a former journalist for the local rag over one of the country's most important politicians would be nuts. I doubt the good people of Gordon are that nuts.

But could he not do more by standing in a seat which the SNP had not previously had chances in but could now win after the referendum? If he loses, there's no disgrace - he's already stepped down as party leader. And if he wins, he may drag other SNP candidates in the area to Westminster on his coattails.

And Gordon will probably go SNP anyway, given how split the unionist vote is there and that there is no incumbent Lib Dem in 2015.

Sunil_Prasannan

FPT

Greater London population density (2011 census):
8,173,900 divided by 607 sq. miles = 13,466 per sq. mile

Rest of England population density (2011 census):
53,012,456 - 8,173,900 = 44,838,556
divided by (50,346-607=) 49,739 sq. miles = 901 per sq. mile

AlastairMeeks

Socrates - it was a fairly throwaway line. And you'll forgive me if I don't spend the afternoon at work typing in google searches that involve the words "boys" and "paedophile" in order to find you more evidence. So I'll leave it there for now.

TGOHF

Just publicity for his book and lecture career..

Who would want a loser as their MP - he would make Gordon Brown look like a diligent MP.

Sunil_Prasannan

Eck could have chosen Dundee. Or somewhere in Glasgow.

TOPPING

He is a magisterial politician and only diminished himself slightly in the run-up to indyref so on balance (and I disagree with everything he says) I would prefer him to be part of the mainstream political scene.

That said, I can't see why he resigned from SNP in the first place.

TGOHF

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Eck could have chosen Dundee. Or somewhere in Glasgow.

He's not that stupid - he'd have to go to these places without his FM chauffeur.

twid

The LibDems are collapsing in Scotland, and without the incumbency effect they won't have a chance in this seat. The fact that there was a huge No vote is hardly a concern -- the same is true in most SNP seats such as Moray. If Salmond wants to do something risky, he should attempt to defenestrate Gordon Brown or Jim Murphy.

Sunil_Prasannan

TGOHF said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Eck could have chosen Dundee. Or somewhere in Glasgow.

He's not that stupid - he'd have to go to these places without his FM chauffeur.

But they were just about the only places to vote Yes!

AlastairMeeks

Miaow:

"Jeremy Browne ‏@JeremyBrowneMP · 24m24 minutes ago
The Prime Minister just told me that he was sorry I'm standing down. First party leader to say that to me since I announced it. Appreciated."

shadsy

Very much on topic, here's some seats in which you might want to consider backing the SNP, if you believe the political scientists.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/political-scientists-predict-huge-snp-gains-in-2015/

Socrates

antifrank said:

Socrates - it was a fairly throwaway line. And you'll forgive me if I don't spend the afternoon at work typing in google searches that involve the words "boys" and "paedophile" in order to find you more evidence. So I'll leave it there for now.

I was genuinely intellectually curious rather than offended!

david_herdson

twid said:

The LibDems are collapsing in Scotland, and without the incumbency effect they won't have a chance in this seat. The fact that there was a huge No vote is hardly a concern -- the same is true in most SNP seats such as Moray. If Salmond wants to do something risky, he should attempt to defenestrate Gordon Brown or Jim Murphy.

Brown's standing down anyway isn't he?

But it would still be a mistake: never make such moves look personal: the public doesn't like being made to be pawns in someone else's private game. If he had a legitimate reason to stand against Murphy, or Brown, or whoever, fine - but IFAIK, he doesn't. Gordon is a good choice for him in his natural homeland and he should win comfortably.

Sunil_Prasannan

Charles said:

first

Stagecoach!

TGOHF

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TGOHF said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Eck could have chosen Dundee. Or somewhere in Glasgow.

He's not that stupid - he'd have to go to these places without his FM chauffeur.

But they were just about the only places to vote Yes!

Oh he'd win ..

Pulpstar

If the SNP fail to gain Gordon I'd be genuinely shocked.

AlastairMeeks

@Socrates

If I get a free moment at a later point, I may return to the subject by private message (to avoid our host being given kittens). But my spare time at present is largely taken up by processing the current constituency betting odds by party (I'm trying to list all seats for each party where the odds are between 16/1 and 1/16). I'm in the midst of the Hs.

EDITED for stupid quoting on my part.

Sunil_Prasannan

TGOHF said:

Just publicity for his book and lecture career..

Who would want a loser as their MP - he would make Gordon Brown look like a diligent MP.

You could argue from a certain POV that ALL MPs are "losers"

Sunil_Prasannan

Pulpstar said:

If the SNP fail to gain Gordon I'd be genuinely shocked.

"Gordon's alive?"

Alistair

antifrank said:

If Alex Salmond is to return to Westminster, what is he trying to achieve? He doesn't need to be there to be driving negotiations in a hung Parliament, so his aim should be to use his box office bankability to get more SNP MPs there.

If he stands in Gordon, I expect he'll win. He remains personally popular and to choose a former journalist for the local rag over one of the country's most important politicians would be nuts. I doubt the good people of Gordon are that nuts.

But could he not do more by standing in a seat which the SNP had not previously had chances in but could now win after the referendum? If he loses, there's no disgrace - he's already stepped down as party leader. And if he wins, he may drag other SNP candidates in the area to Westminster on his coattails.

And Gordon will probably go SNP anyway, given how split the unionist vote is there and that there is no incumbent Lib Dem in 2015.

SLAB base pretty much their entire existence on hating Alex Salmond. Not on hating what he does or his policies but on hating Salmond himself - you can drive the average SLAB memeber into a fleckle specked rage just by mentioning his name. If Salmond was defeated then that would be a massive boost to the morale of SLAB. As a result if Salmond stands he has to stand in a seat he's pretty much guaranteed to win.

SimonStClare

It’s a big risk for an ex party leader and First Minister- would Salmond not be better suited retiring from the fray as an SNP ‘Grandee’ where he still might better assist his party?

Socrates

Oh look, when Richard Nabavi insisted that the government always used warrants for mass surveillance, and that the reports about the government not using warrants were incorrect, he was absolutely wrong:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/29/gchq-nsa-data-surveillance

Alistair

david_herdson said:

twid said:

The LibDems are collapsing in Scotland, and without the incumbency effect they won't have a chance in this seat. The fact that there was a huge No vote is hardly a concern -- the same is true in most SNP seats such as Moray. If Salmond wants to do something risky, he should attempt to defenestrate Gordon Brown or Jim Murphy.

Brown's standing down anyway isn't he?

But it would still be a mistake: never make such moves look personal: the public doesn't like being made to be pawns in someone else's private game. If he had a legitimate reason to stand against Murphy, or Brown, or whoever, fine - but IFAIK, he doesn't. Gordon is a good choice for him in his natural homeland and he should win comfortably.

Bingo - a big part of the SNP's success in 2007 and 2011 is that the Lab campaign seemed based around personal attacks on Salmond. They even turned the Indy Ref campaign into "All About Salmond" and only post the 51% poll did the focus shift away from him.

Socrates

Bloody authoritarian Tories. David Cameron believes in a limited state as much as Tony Blair did....

Socrates

“We now know that data from any call, internet search, or website you visited over the past two years could be stored in GCHQ’s database and analysed at will, all without a warrant to collect it in the first place,” said deputy director Eric King. “It is outrageous that the government thinks mass surveillance, justified by secret “arrangements” that allow for vast and unrestrained receipt and analysis of foreign intelligence material is lawful.”

The Tories believe in a state just small enough to fit inside your inbox.

TGOHF

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TGOHF said:

Just publicity for his book and lecture career..

Who would want a loser as their MP - he would make Gordon Brown look like a diligent MP.

You could argue from a certain POV that ALL MPs are "losers"

Not the Slab, Con and LD ones who WON the Sindy ref - they are winners.

All SNP MSPs and MPs are losers.

TheWatcher

Socrates said:

Oh look, when Richard Nabavi insisted that the government always used warrants for mass surveillance, and that the reports about the government not using warrants were incorrect, he was absolutely wrong:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/29/gchq-nsa-data-surveillance

Old news. How do you think the Septics have got around the laws blocking spying on their own citizens?

Alistair

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TGOHF said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Eck could have chosen Dundee. Or somewhere in Glasgow.

He's not that stupid - he'd have to go to these places without his FM chauffeur.

But they were just about the only places to vote Yes!

So you give that seat to some no name to ride the Yes wave in. If you believe that Yes voters are committed to the cause then even places that voted only 40% yes can be fertile grounds for the SNP because that 40% has only 1 realistic option to vote for.

Richard_Nabavi

Socrates said:

Oh look, when Richard Nabavi insisted that the government always used warrants for mass surveillance, and that the reports about the government not using warrants were incorrect, he was absolutely wrong:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/29/gchq-nsa-data-surveillance

He wasn't, because he never said that.

I'd be grateful if you'd desist from misrepresenting me.

Socrates

TheWatcher said:

Socrates said:

Oh look, when Richard Nabavi insisted that the government always used warrants for mass surveillance, and that the reports about the government not using warrants were incorrect, he was absolutely wrong:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/29/gchq-nsa-data-surveillance

Old news. How do you think the Septics have got around the laws blocking spying on their own citizens?

The American government has been just as bad. But on the plus side, the American Senate at least has a group that is heavily pushing for reform. Who is doing this on the British side? What MPs do we have outside the authoritarian party line?

Parliament is not a check on power any more. It is controlled by the executive to the greatest extent since the 1770s, and we know how that turned out.

Carnyx

Alistair said:

antifrank said:

If Alex Salmond is to return to Westminster, what is he trying to achieve? He doesn't need to be there to be driving negotiations in a hung Parliament, so his aim should be to use his box office bankability to get more SNP MPs there.

If he stands in Gordon, I expect he'll win. He remains personally popular and to choose a former journalist for the local rag over one of the country's most important politicians would be nuts. I doubt the good people of Gordon are that nuts.

But could he not do more by standing in a seat which the SNP had not previously had chances in but could now win after the referendum? If he loses, there's no disgrace - he's already stepped down as party leader. And if he wins, he may drag other SNP candidates in the area to Westminster on his coattails.

And Gordon will probably go SNP anyway, given how split the unionist vote is there and that there is no incumbent Lib Dem in 2015.

SLAB base pretty much their entire existence on hating Alex Salmond. Not on hating what he does or his policies but on hating Salmond himself - you can drive the average SLAB memeber into a fleckle specked rage just by mentioning his name. If Salmond was defeated then that would be a massive boost to the morale of SLAB. As a result if Salmond stands he has to stand in a seat he's pretty much guaranteed to win.

I don't think that's fair on SLAB. They're not that bigoted. They hate the SNP and its policies just as much - even when they are policies Labour originally put forward, or support in any sane universe. Just remember the Bain Principle.

TGOHF

Socrates said:

Bloody authoritarian Tories. David Cameron believes in a limited state as much as Tony Blair did....

What do you have to hide ?

Socrates

Richard_Nabavi said:

Socrates said:

Oh look, when Richard Nabavi insisted that the government always used warrants for mass surveillance, and that the reports about the government not using warrants were incorrect, he was absolutely wrong:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/29/gchq-nsa-data-surveillance

He wasn't, because he never said that.

I'd be grateful if you'd desist from misrepresenting me.

I remember you saying that the government needed a warrant to check the content of email, and rubbished my link from the Guardian saying otherwise as being inaccurate, on the basis that the government had denied it.

Socrates

TGOHF said:

Socrates said:

Bloody authoritarian Tories. David Cameron believes in a limited state as much as Tony Blair did....

What do you have to hide ?

My private life. But thank you for fully demonstrating the Tory mindset with the question of autocrats throughout the ages.

Carnyx

TGOHF said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TGOHF said:

Just publicity for his book and lecture career..

Who would want a loser as their MP - he would make Gordon Brown look like a diligent MP.

You could argue from a certain POV that ALL MPs are "losers"

Not the Slab, Con and LD ones who WON the Sindy ref - they are winners.

All SNP MSPs and MPs are losers.

With figures of 30-40% of hitherto hardcore SLAB voters having voted Yes, and therefore having a major reason to be scunnered with their local Labour MP, I think we need to wait 18 months before seeing whether you are right.

shadsy

If you head for our General Election markets, under general election specials, you can find a price of 2/1 that Salmond wins a seat in 2015.

Alistair

shadsy said:

Very much on topic, here's some seats in which you might want to consider backing the SNP, if you believe the political scientists.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/political-scientists-predict-huge-snp-gains-in-2015/

I'd gladly lay 11/8 on SNP to take Orkney and Shetlands!

If the SNP take Orkney and Shetlands then I feel comfortable in predicting Scottish Independence within 5 years.

Flightpath

Why would Salmond want to go to Westminster? He can vote on nothing which affects his constituents locally. He has no say in the Scottish NHS for instance. Its likely even more will be devolved to Scotland.
So what is the point? Well it seems to me the big point is the gravy train he gets a nice salary and he does very little for it since most responsibilities for his constituents will have been devolved to the local MSP.
Salmond scurrying to Westminster is sickening.

dr_spyn

Tesco dropped further into the shonet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29821061

Carnyx

Alistair said:

david_herdson said:

twid said:

The LibDems are collapsing in Scotland, and without the incumbency effect they won't have a chance in this seat. The fact that there was a huge No vote is hardly a concern -- the same is true in most SNP seats such as Moray. If Salmond wants to do something risky, he should attempt to defenestrate Gordon Brown or Jim Murphy.

Brown's standing down anyway isn't he?

But it would still be a mistake: never make such moves look personal: the public doesn't like being made to be pawns in someone else's private game. If he had a legitimate reason to stand against Murphy, or Brown, or whoever, fine - but IFAIK, he doesn't. Gordon is a good choice for him in his natural homeland and he should win comfortably.

Bingo - a big part of the SNP's success in 2007 and 2011 is that the Lab campaign seemed based around personal attacks on Salmond. They even turned the Indy Ref campaign into "All About Salmond" and only post the 51% poll did the focus shift away from him.

Very interesting comments. The problem for Labour with that strategy of course was that a fair chunk of the electorate actually voted for him - so basically telling these folk that they were idiots was not going to work.

Salmond's resignation has of course effectively binned a decade and more of his opponents' investment in hate propaganda, and let the most popular politician in Scotland take over at the head of the SG and SNP. And if Mr S is still in politics, he continues to attract and distract the attention of SLAB, especially if he is in Westminster.

Sunil_Prasannan

TGOHF said:

Socrates said:

Bloody authoritarian Tories. David Cameron believes in a limited state as much as Tony Blair did....

What do you have to hide ?

Surprised there's a whole Wiki article on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

The nothing to hide argument is an argument which states that government surveillance programs do not threaten privacy unless they uncover illegal activities, and that if they do uncover illegal activities, the person committing these activities does not have the right to keep them private. Hence, a person who favors this argument may state "I've got nothing to hide" and therefore do not express opposition to government surveillance.[1] An individual using this argument may say that a person should not have worries about government or surveillance if he/she has "nothing to hide."[2]

The motto "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" has been used in the closed-circuit television program practiced in cities in the United Kingdom.[3]

isam

shadsy said:

If you head for our General Election markets, under general election specials, you can find a price of 2/1 that Salmond wins a seat in 2015.

Can I bet with you on here using Lads prices?

EDIT: Because when I go into the shops the limits are so low.. I don't bet big, but I asked for £300 at 5/6 that Rochester turnout would be below 50% and got the max allowed of £60.. a possible win of £50

On Phillip Hollobone to be next defector (a losing bet) I was only allowed £10 at 10/1, but at least I was allowed to win £100

Its not because I am a face in the shop either, its the max allowed on their computer

Alistair

Flightpath said:

Why would Salmond want to go to Westminster? He can vote on nothing which affects his constituents locally. He has no say in the Scottish NHS for instance. Its likely even more will be devolved to Scotland.
So what is the point? Well it seems to me the big point is the gravy train he gets a nice salary and he does very little for it since most responsibilities for his constituents will have been devolved to the local MSP.
Salmond scurrying to Westminster is sickening.

Do you not think being there to have a say in what extra powers are devolved to Scotland would be a smidge important?

TheWatcher

Flightpath said:

Salmond scurrying to Westminster is sickening.

But not surprising. He clearly loves the freebies and benefits of political life.

Carnyx

Flightpath said:

Why would Salmond want to go to Westminster? He can vote on nothing which affects his constituents locally. He has no say in the Scottish NHS for instance. Its likely even more will be devolved to Scotland.
So what is the point? Well it seems to me the big point is the gravy train he gets a nice salary and he does very little for it since most responsibilities for his constituents will have been devolved to the local MSP.
Salmond scurrying to Westminster is sickening.

Have a look at the Scottish Parliament info sheets which tell people which pmt to go to (on the website: it was discussed here a few months ago). You'll find there is a great deal for a MP to do for constituents, quite apart from special projects and issues such as, I daresay, the constitution.

JPJ2

Mike Smithon writes:

"The relevant fact about the Gordon constituency is that in the IndyRef Gordon it voted by nearly two to one against independence – hardly good territory, you would think, for the NATs"

Mr Smithson can't quite shake off his love of the Lib Dems which I think is skewing his judgement here.

I think it is even more relevant that the SNP vote was only 22% at the GE in 2010.

I choose to interpret that as meaning that the Yes vote much exceeded the SNP vote. The SNP are already in second place and I have not the slightest doubt that Salmond will win comfortably if he stands.

It strikes me that Salmond leading the SNP thrust for Westminster in circumstances where a hung parliament remains the likely outcome must be attractive to him-and attractive to voters in Scotland as well!

Pulpstar

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/glasgow-east/winning-party

Pile into the 1-4 I reckon.

Sunil_Prasannan

TheWatcher said:

Flightpath said:

Salmond scurrying to Westminster is sickening.

But not surprising. He clearly loves the freebies and benefits of political life.

Wouldn't that apply to his 649 colleagues as well?

anotherDave

SeanT said:

Has this been linked?

UKIP MEP lays into the Labour Caliphate of Rotherham. Let's just say she doesn't exactly pull punches.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/28/It-s-Labour-s-Failure-to-Stop-1-400-Children-Being-Abused-that-Is-Despicable-Not-UKIP-s-Poster …

The author is the UKIP Westminster candidate for Rotherham.

Alistair

Carnyx said:

Alistair said:

david_herdson said:

twid said:

The LibDems are collapsing in Scotland, and without the incumbency effect they won't have a chance in this seat. The fact that there was a huge No vote is hardly a concern -- the same is true in most SNP seats such as Moray. If Salmond wants to do something risky, he should attempt to defenestrate Gordon Brown or Jim Murphy.

Brown's standing down anyway isn't he?

But it would still be a mistake: never make such moves look personal: the public doesn't like being made to be pawns in someone else's private game. If he had a legitimate reason to stand against Murphy, or Brown, or whoever, fine - but IFAIK, he doesn't. Gordon is a good choice for him in his natural homeland and he should win comfortably.

Bingo - a big part of the SNP's success in 2007 and 2011 is that the Lab campaign seemed based around personal attacks on Salmond. They even turned the Indy Ref campaign into "All About Salmond" and only post the 51% poll did the focus shift away from him.

Very interesting comments. The problem for Labour with that strategy of course was that a fair chunk of the electorate actually voted for him - so basically telling these folk that they were idiots was not going to work.

Salmond's resignation has of course effectively binned a decade and more of his opponents' investment in hate propaganda, and let the most popular politician in Scotland take over at the head of the SG and SNP. And if Mr S is still in politics, he continues to attract and distract the attention of SLAB, especially if he is in Westminster.

I always thought that SLAB's approach at the previous two Holyrood elections of attacking the politician with the highest net Favourable rating in Scotland was weird when they should have been focusing on the SNP as a whole and it's fractured messaging (given that the SNP is a factitious conglomeration of Social Democracts, Populist Pro-Business types and some hard core Socialists). It's only from really reading SLAB blog type stuff in depth have I really understood how crazy, crazy angry Salmond himself makes them.

And now SLAB seems to believe that its problems have been caused by the voters failing them rather than they failing the voters.

Socrates

How ungrateful can you get? A woman gets given asylum by the generosity of this country, then complains when she's not given 1.5 times the average salary to live in Westminster:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/single-motheroffive-made-homeless-by-benefits-cap-turns-to-supreme-court-over-westminster-councils-attempts-at-social-cleansing-9824374.html

isam

SeanT said:

Has this been linked?

UKIP MEP lays into the Labour Caliphate of Rotherham. Let's just say she doesn't exactly pull punches.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/28/It-s-Labour-s-Failure-to-Stop-1-400-Children-Being-Abused-that-Is-Despicable-Not-UKIP-s-Poster …

Simply telling the truth

Modern politics prefers to smear someone for the way they tell the truth than criticise incompetence and lies

Bond_James_Bond

SeanT said:

Has this been linked?

UKIP MEP lays into the Labour Caliphate of Rotherham. Let's just say she doesn't exactly pull punches.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/28/It-s-Labour-s-Failure-to-Stop-1-400-Children-Being-Abused-that-Is-Despicable-Not-UKIP-s-Poster …

Good piece. Needs to be said over and over again. Labour = pure evil.

___Bobajob___

James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous
AllyPally I replied to you on the PT
Sunil I replied to you on the PT
Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."

HurstLlama

Socrates said:

Oh look, when Richard Nabavi insisted that the government always used warrants for mass surveillance, and that the reports about the government not using warrants were incorrect, he was absolutely wrong:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/29/gchq-nsa-data-surveillance

Mr. Socrates, I think you are being inaccurate in your description of Mr. Navabi's views on this matter. He can and no doubt will speak for himself but I know from arguments I have had with him that he has never argued that HMG should, let alone does, obtain warrants for mass surveillance exercises, indeed his point has always been the reverse. That is to say mass surveillance, i.e trawling metadata cannot and should not require a warrant. I disagree with him on that point because trawling of metadata always requires one or more start points and warrants for those should, in my view, be required. However, by law they are not.

As for the rest of the Guardian article it seems to have been written in the main to confuse rather than educate. Just what is in those great wodges of data that are apparently moved between intelligence agencies and how often and in what circumstances are they collected and passed over? The article is silent on such matters, yet without knowing the answers how are we to judge whether the tests of necessity and proportionality have been complied with?

Socrates

SeanT said:

Food for thought for any remaining indyreffers, bless them.

The SNP's fiscal calculations for iScotland - contentious in themselves - rested on an oil price of around $110 a barrel (let's ignore the issue of whether their forecasts of future oil production were optimistic).

Right now oil is $80-85 a barrel. A drop of 25%. If YES had won in September, iScotland would now be facing a huge loss of projected income, meaning an immediate fiscal crisis. It would either have to double taxes and slash services, or go bankrupt within two years.

Of course you might argue that this low oil price won't last forever. Remarkably, however the drop in price has come at a time when the cost of a barrel of crude should be RISING - thanks to trouble in the Middle East, Nigeria, Ukraine, etc. Yet it isn't. This is because of a massive increase in oil production from non-OPEC countries (America, Canada etc), the great shift to shale meaning oil has to compete for customers, and the secular switch to solar in China and elsewhere.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102122337#.

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21625819-oil-price-tumbling-good-or-bad-news-world-economy-both

Cheap oil might well be here to stay. Which makes iScotland a fiscal dream - or a fiscal nightmare.

The decline in revenue would be more than the reduction in oil price. With a lower price, less production and exploration would happen.

Pulpstar

shadsy said:

If you head for our General Election markets, under general election specials, you can find a price of 2/1 that Salmond wins a seat in 2015.

Cheers, in for a tenner on that !

TheWatcher

Bond_James_Bond said:

SeanT said:

Has this been linked?

UKIP MEP lays into the Labour Caliphate of Rotherham. Let's just say she doesn't exactly pull punches.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/28/It-s-Labour-s-Failure-to-Stop-1-400-Children-Being-Abused-that-Is-Despicable-Not-UKIP-s-Poster …

Good piece. Needs to be said over and over again. Labour = pure evil.

Are you suggesting that Labour favoured votes over the safety and well being of children?

Pulpstar

Actually right now Brent is at $87.20 a barrel.

Something of an uptick.

Socrates

HurstLlama said:

Socrates said:

Oh look, when Richard Nabavi insisted that the government always used warrants for mass surveillance, and that the reports about the government not using warrants were incorrect, he was absolutely wrong:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/29/gchq-nsa-data-surveillance

Mr. Socrates, I think you are being inaccurate in your description of Mr. Navabi's views on this matter. He can and no doubt will speak for himself but I know from arguments I have had with him that he has never argued that HMG should, let alone does, obtain warrants for mass surveillance exercises, indeed his point has always been the reverse. That is to say mass surveillance, i.e trawling metadata cannot and should not require a warrant. I disagree with him on that point because trawling of metadata always requires one or more start points and warrants for those should, in my view, be required. However, by law they are not.

As for the rest of the Guardian article it seems to have been written in the main to confuse rather than educate. Just what is in those great wodges of data that are apparently moved between intelligence agencies and how often and in what circumstances are they collected and passed over? The article is silent on such matters, yet without knowing the answers how are we to judge whether the tests of necessity and proportionality have been complied with?

In previous discussions with Mr Nabavi, he is fine with not having warrants for things he considers equivalent to the fuzz watching a pub. He has a very broad interpretation of what that is, but that's another argument. However, he has always supported warrants for personal "content": of emails, of webcam conversations, of instant messaging services. We now see that warrants can even be circumvented for this stuff. What's more, the people who are supposed to oversee this stuff don't understand it - as we can see from Edmund's link yesterday.

Flightpath

Mr T's point about the oil price is well made. Reports seem to be saying its going to stay like this for some time and go lower. I am sure its what many of us thought but the media seem shy of ramming it home to the SNP. For this reason alone it makes voting for them one of the most stupid things any Scotsman could think of doing since it has exposed the SNP for a huge set of bluffers and their prospectus as totally bogus.
So why are Labour seen as being in trouble?

AndyJS

According to Betfair exchange, the Tories are stuffed in Rochester & Strood:

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/market?marketId=1.115707446&eventTypeId=2378961

Socrates

Flightpath said:

Mr T's point about the oil price is well made. Reports seem to be saying its going to stay like this for some time and go lower. I am sure its what many of us thought but the media seem shy of ramming it home to the SNP. For this reason alone it makes voting for them one of the most stupid things any Scotsman could think of doing since it has exposed the SNP for a huge set of bluffers and their prospectus as totally bogus.
So why are Labour seen as being in trouble?

The oil price drop is also going to have huge ramifications for international politics. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Nigeria are entirely dependent on revenue from oil & gas for their basic functioning. The advantages of democracy over authoritarian regimes will become clear shortly.

___Bobajob___

Watcher - you are asking the question. What's your view?

Pulpstar

Socrates said:

Flightpath said:

Mr T's point about the oil price is well made. Reports seem to be saying its going to stay like this for some time and go lower. I am sure its what many of us thought but the media seem shy of ramming it home to the SNP. For this reason alone it makes voting for them one of the most stupid things any Scotsman could think of doing since it has exposed the SNP for a huge set of bluffers and their prospectus as totally bogus.
So why are Labour seen as being in trouble?

The oil price drop is also going to have huge ramifications for international politics. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Nigeria are entirely dependent on revenue from oil & gas for their basic functioning. The advantages of democracy over authoritarian regimes will become clear shortly.

Saudi Arabia can withstand falling oil prices more than any other oil producing nation on earth.

It puts the hurt on their competitor nations, in fact the fact that OPEC hasn't cut production is interesting in of itself. My guess would be they are happy to squeeze Russia with it's vast, but more expensive to get at reserves.

Plato

This is fun. linkis.com/theguardian.com/l1rmO

We know from past surveys that people in Britain are wildly wrong on many basic facts about our population. The average person has a pretty poor understanding of things like what proportion of the population are immigrants or Muslims, what percentage of teenage girls get pregnant each year and how the government spends our money. But are we uniquely ignorant in Britain?

It turns out that people in other countries are just as wrong – in fact, often much more so than the British. Americans think that a quarter of US teenage girls give birth each year – when it is actually 3%. The US is also one of the countries that are furthest from reality on the extent of immigration, with an average guess of 31%, when the actual proportion is 13%.

The French think 30% of the population are Muslims, when the real figure is 8%. The French are also too pessimistic about others’ democratic engagement: they think only 58% voted in the last presidential election, when 80% did.

Incredibly, Italians think that nearly half of their population is over 65 years old. Italy does have a relatively old population, but the actual figure is only 21%. Even more bizarrely, Italians also think half their population is unemployed, when the real figure is only 12%.

shadsy

@isam Luckily I'm prevented from laying bets via blogposts.

Yes, the limits for some of these markets are relatively low. Experience has told me to be very pessimistic of our chances of making any money on the sorts of bets you mention. Especially from people betting anonymously in shops (sometimes because they would be even more restricted on-line). So we are cautious.

I expect the answer is to get a better political odds-compiler, but in the meantime, we prefer to limit our potential liabilities this way.

HurstLlama

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TGOHF said:

Socrates said:

Bloody authoritarian Tories. David Cameron believes in a limited state as much as Tony Blair did....

What do you have to hide ?

Surprised there's a whole Wiki article on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

The nothing to hide argument is an argument which states that government surveillance programs do not threaten privacy unless they uncover illegal activities, and that if they do uncover illegal activities, the person committing these activities does not have the right to keep them private. Hence, a person who favors this argument may state "I've got nothing to hide" and therefore do not express opposition to government surveillance.[1] An individual using this argument may say that a person should not have worries about government or surveillance if he/she has "nothing to hide."[2]

The motto "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" has been used in the closed-circuit television program practiced in cities in the United Kingdom.[3]

Avast Cap'n Doc. I was at the Home Office in the early-mid 1990s when email was being introduced. It was made clear to all of us that email, no matter what labels were applied to the individual system, was not secure and one should never write anything on an email that one would not write on a postcard.

What has happened is that some people seem to have forgotten or never understood that electronic communication is the easiest to monitor and intrecept. People get annoyed about the idea that HMG might view their emails but seem quite happy that God knows how many people at ISPs and Network providers can do just the same and with far less restriction. Frankly, if I was in the game of wanting to know what you are writing/searching and who you are contacting I'd bung a few quid to some lowly network admin wallah at your ISP - no warrants required, no checks and balances, no articles in the Guardian.

Scott_P

SeanT said:

Food for thought for any remaining indyreffers, bless them.

@TelePolitics: Will Nicola Sturgeon turn out to be as annoying as Alex Salmond was? http://t.co/t5YfbDVqTi

Sunil_Prasannan

___Bobajob___ said:

James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous
AllyPally I replied to you on the PT
Sunil I replied to you on the PT
Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."

Greater London - 13,466 people per sq. mile (2011)
Rest of England (including all other cities) - 901 per sq. mile (2011)

13,466 is roughly 15 x as crowded as 901.

AllyPally_Rob

___Bobajob___ said:

James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous
AllyPally I replied to you on the PT
Sunil I replied to you on the PT
Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."

The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.

My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!

Ishmael_X

TGOHF said:

Socrates said:

Bloody authoritarian Tories. David Cameron believes in a limited state as much as Tony Blair did....

What do you have to hide ?

Could you post a link to a copy of your last tax return, and a photograph of your penis, just to emphasise the point that there is no objection whatever to third-party access to non-incriminating personal information?

Sunil_Prasannan

HurstLlama said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TGOHF said:

Socrates said:

Bloody authoritarian Tories. David Cameron believes in a limited state as much as Tony Blair did....

What do you have to hide ?

Surprised there's a whole Wiki article on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

The nothing to hide argument is an argument which states that government surveillance programs do not threaten privacy unless they uncover illegal activities, and that if they do uncover illegal activities, the person committing these activities does not have the right to keep them private. Hence, a person who favors this argument may state "I've got nothing to hide" and therefore do not express opposition to government surveillance.[1] An individual using this argument may say that a person should not have worries about government or surveillance if he/she has "nothing to hide."[2]

The motto "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" has been used in the closed-circuit television program practiced in cities in the United Kingdom.[3]

Avast Cap'n Doc. I was at the Home Office in the early-mid 1990s when email was being introduced. It was made clear to all of us that email, no matter what labels were applied to the individual system, was not secure and one should never write anything on an email that one would not write on a postcard.

What has happened is that some people seem to have forgotten or never understood that electronic communication is the easiest to monitor and intrecept. People get annoyed about the idea that HMG might view their emails but seem quite happy that God knows how many people at ISPs and Network providers can do just the same and with far less restriction. Frankly, if I was in the game of wanting to know what you are writing/searching and who you are contacting I'd bung a few quid to some lowly network admin wallah at your ISP - no warrants required, no checks and balances, no articles in the Guardian.

Ahoy, Mr Llama! Above noted with great interest!

Pulpstar

Sunil_Prasannan said:

___Bobajob___ said:

James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous
AllyPally I replied to you on the PT
Sunil I replied to you on the PT
Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."

Greater London - 13,466 people per sq. mile (2011)
Rest of England (including all other cities) - 901 per sq. mile (2011)

13,466 is roughly 15 x as crowded as 901.

Paris:

54,899 / sq mile !

Alistair

SeanT said:

Food for thought for any remaining indyreffers, bless them.

The SNP's fiscal calculations for iScotland - contentious in themselves - rested on an oil price of around $110 a barrel (let's ignore the issue of whether their forecasts of future oil production were optimistic).

Right now oil is $80-85 a barrel. A drop of 25%. If YES had won in September, iScotland would now be facing a huge loss of projected income, meaning an immediate fiscal crisis. It would either have to double taxes and slash services, or go bankrupt within two years.

Of course you might argue that this low oil price won't last forever. Remarkably, however the drop in price has come at a time when the cost of a barrel of crude should be RISING - thanks to trouble in the Middle East, Nigeria, Ukraine, etc. Yet it isn't. This is because of a massive increase in oil production from non-OPEC countries (America, Canada etc), the great shift to shale meaning oil has to compete for customers, and the secular switch to solar in China and elsewhere.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102122337#.

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21625819-oil-price-tumbling-good-or-bad-news-world-economy-both

Cheap oil might well be here to stay. Which makes iScotland a fiscal dream - or a fiscal nightmare.

25% sounds like a lot, could you quantify in to how much smaller the overall Scotland tax take would be?

Sunil_Prasannan

Pulpstar said:

Socrates said:

Flightpath said:

Mr T's point about the oil price is well made. Reports seem to be saying its going to stay like this for some time and go lower. I am sure its what many of us thought but the media seem shy of ramming it home to the SNP. For this reason alone it makes voting for them one of the most stupid things any Scotsman could think of doing since it has exposed the SNP for a huge set of bluffers and their prospectus as totally bogus.
So why are Labour seen as being in trouble?

The oil price drop is also going to have huge ramifications for international politics. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Nigeria are entirely dependent on revenue from oil & gas for their basic functioning. The advantages of democracy over authoritarian regimes will become clear shortly.

Saudi Arabia can withstand falling oil prices more than any other oil producing nation on earth.

It puts the hurt on their competitor nations, in fact the fact that OPEC hasn't cut production is interesting in of itself. My guess would be they are happy to squeeze Russia with it's vast, but more expensive to get at reserves.

With apologies to Krushchev:

"Kaliningrad is the testicles of Russia. Whenever I want to make the Russians scream, I squeeze on Kaliningrad!"

Carnyx

Flightpath said:

Mr T's point about the oil price is well made. Reports seem to be saying its going to stay like this for some time and go lower. I am sure its what many of us thought but the media seem shy of ramming it home to the SNP. For this reason alone it makes voting for them one of the most stupid things any Scotsman could think of doing since it has exposed the SNP for a huge set of bluffers and their prospectus as totally bogus.
So why are Labour seen as being in trouble?

Because their leader said so, just before she jacked it in a few months before an election which its members regard as more important than anything else and which loss of Scotland will lose them.

Because the polling subsamples say so with enough consistency perhaps to obviate the usual subsample worry.

Because indyref gave around a third of the most hardcore voters a very strong reason not to vote Labour again.

Easterross

Has Christina made a comment about this thread? Gordon is her home patch and Lady Bruce one of her local councillors.

TheWatcher

Ishmael_X said:

TGOHF said:

Socrates said:

Bloody authoritarian Tories. David Cameron believes in a limited state as much as Tony Blair did....

What do you have to hide ?

Could you post a link to a copy of your last tax return, and a photograph of your penis, just to emphasise the point that there is no objection whatever to third-party access to non-incriminating personal information?

Oi! No outing of MPs!

Plato

Is this your new angry meme?

You asked me something on another thread - I ignored it as I didn't think you were genuinely asking for my view/it felt passive aggressive Whataboutery.

___Bobajob___ said:

Watcher - you are asking the question. What's your view?

___Bobajob___

Ally

Avoid Camden market generally is my advice - I bike along the towpath at times and I can confirm that touristic teenagers walk even slower and are even more unaware than the domestic variety

Socrates

HurstLlama said:

Avast Cap'n Doc. I was at the Home Office in the early-mid 1990s when email was being introduced. It was made clear to all of us that email, no matter what labels were applied to the individual system, was not secure and one should never write anything on an email that one would not write on a postcard.

What has happened is that some people seem to have forgotten or never understood that electronic communication is the easiest to monitor and intrecept. People get annoyed about the idea that HMG might view their emails but seem quite happy that God knows how many people at ISPs and Network providers can do just the same and with far less restriction. Frankly, if I was in the game of wanting to know what you are writing/searching and who you are contacting I'd bung a few quid to some lowly network admin wallah at your ISP - no warrants required, no checks and balances, no articles in the Guardian.

The problem is that modern live requires communication electronically. It's impossible to opt-out: even if you use a VPN and a protected email service, your friends all use GMail so you are still not protected.

What the government should be doing to stop the sort of abuses you provide is taking very heavy action to stop private companies doing this sort of stuff, legislating to require internal security barriers in ISPs etc. But they are doing the opposite: rather than fighting abuse at the private level, they are piggybacking on it to get more information themselves. What we need is a return to traditional British liberal beliefs: an individual is considered to have a private sphere that is protected, unless there is reasonable grounds to believe that the person is connected to a crime. In those situations you go and get an individual warrant for investigating them from an independent judge. I find it amazing that we've brought back "general warrants" that were considered so intrusive by the American founding fathers.

___Bobajob___

I merely asked Watcher for his view. What it has to do with you I don't know. You chose not to answer my question, you will note I did not chase you for an answer. If you want to answer, then be my guest

Pulpstar

SeanT said:

Pulpstar said:

Actually right now Brent is at $87.20 a barrel.

Something of an uptick.

Dead cat bounce?

Oil peaked in price at $148 a barrel in 2008. Since then it has almost halved in value, sometimes plateauing, sometimes ticking back up, but, over time, inexorably declining.

When you think about the huge increase in oil and shale oil production from America, Canada, Brazil, plus the advent of shale gas - AND the massive shift to solar, and other renewables, this is actually quite unsurprising.

Some think oil prices may go down to $60. Half what Salmond was *expecting*.

http://www.mrt.com/business/article_8bc08784-5d64-11e4-a1a3-738b3f4d6578.html

$80-$100 next year is the analysts forecast. $60 could see us hit a serious deflationary spiral.

Socrates

AllyPally_Rob said:

___Bobajob___ said:

James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous
AllyPally I replied to you on the PT
Sunil I replied to you on the PT
Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."

The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.

My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!

I think you'd struggle to find places anywhere within five minutes of Oxford street where you could walk for five minutes without seeing multiple people.

isam

shadsy said:

@isam Luckily I'm prevented from laying bets via blogposts.

Yes, the limits for some of these markets are relatively low. Experience has told me to be very pessimistic of our chances of making any money on the sorts of bets you mention. Especially from people betting anonymously in shops (sometimes because they would be even more restricted on-line). So we are cautious.

I expect the answer is to get a better political odds-compiler, but in the meantime, we prefer to limit our potential liabilities this way.

It's fair enough as it is one of the few markets in betting nowadays not traced from Betfair, but even allowing for that, it seemed odd to allow a £100 liability on next defector (when someone could have inside info) but only £50 on a under/over turnout market , where no one can know more than anyone else.

How about a compromise? You ask if I can be re opened by Ladbrokes as long as I play in relatively small size on politics and nothing else?

AllyPally_Rob

Socrates said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

___Bobajob___ said:

James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous
AllyPally I replied to you on the PT
Sunil I replied to you on the PT
Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."

The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.

My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!

I think you'd struggle to find places anywhere within five minutes of Oxford street where you could walk for five minutes without seeing multiple people.

Walk North of Oxford Street on a weekend towards the BT Tower, i think you'd be pleasantly surprised. Yo u might also stumble across the Riding House Cafe which does the best breakfast in London IMHO.

dr_spyn

Apple have hacked off Daily Mail readers amongst others.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2812498/Apple-killed-iPod-Classic-lack-parts-admits-Tim-Cook-redesign-massive-task.html

Sucks in breath, sorry Sir, its a foreign model...it'll cost you...hang on I'can't get the parts...anymore...you'll have to scrap it...or buy something else. Tim Cook must have been a car mechanic or something similar. Note that The DM have stopped comments after only 2 hours.

Sunil_Prasannan

Pulpstar said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

___Bobajob___ said:

James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous
AllyPally I replied to you on the PT
Sunil I replied to you on the PT
Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."

Greater London - 13,466 people per sq. mile (2011)
Rest of England (including all other cities) - 901 per sq. mile (2011)

13,466 is roughly 15 x as crowded as 901.

Paris:

54,899 / sq mile !

What a dump! (only kidding!)

Well, its administrative boundary population is much less than London's:
2,249,975 in 2011. Area is only 41 sq. miles, thus resulting in the higher density.

Actually, I make it 54,877 per sq. mile.

Sunil_Prasannan

Socrates said:

HurstLlama said:

Avast Cap'n Doc. I was at the Home Office in the early-mid 1990s when email was being introduced. It was made clear to all of us that email, no matter what labels were applied to the individual system, was not secure and one should never write anything on an email that one would not write on a postcard.

What has happened is that some people seem to have forgotten or never understood that electronic communication is the easiest to monitor and intrecept. People get annoyed about the idea that HMG might view their emails but seem quite happy that God knows how many people at ISPs and Network providers can do just the same and with far less restriction. Frankly, if I was in the game of wanting to know what you are writing/searching and who you are contacting I'd bung a few quid to some lowly network admin wallah at your ISP - no warrants required, no checks and balances, no articles in the Guardian.

The problem is that modern live requires communication electronically. It's impossible to opt-out: even if you use a VPN and a protected email service, your friends all use GMail so you are still not protected.

What the government should be doing to stop the sort of abuses you provide is taking very heavy action to stop private companies doing this sort of stuff, legislating to require internal security barriers in ISPs etc. But they are doing the opposite: rather than fighting abuse at the private level, they are piggybacking on it to get more information themselves. What we need is a return to traditional British liberal beliefs: an individual is considered to have a private sphere that is protected, unless there is reasonable grounds to believe that the person is connected to a crime. In those situations you go and get an individual warrant for investigating them from an independent judge. I find it amazing that we've brought back "general warrants" that were considered so intrusive by the American founding fathers.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This was first written by Benjamin Franklin for the Pennsylvania Assembly in its Reply to the Governor (11 Nov. 1755)

___Bobajob___

Socrates - wrong. Very wrong. Try it

Socrates

SeanT said:

Pulpstar said:

Socrates said:

Flightpath said:

Mr T's point about the oil price is well made. Reports seem to be saying its going to stay like this for some time and go lower. I am sure its what many of us thought but the media seem shy of ramming it home to the SNP. For this reason alone it makes voting for them one of the most stupid things any Scotsman could think of doing since it has exposed the SNP for a huge set of bluffers and their prospectus as totally bogus.
So why are Labour seen as being in trouble?

The oil price drop is also going to have huge ramifications for international politics. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Nigeria are entirely dependent on revenue from oil & gas for their basic functioning. The advantages of democracy over authoritarian regimes will become clear shortly.

Saudi Arabia can withstand falling oil prices more than any other oil producing nation on earth.

It puts the hurt on their competitor nations, in fact the fact that OPEC hasn't cut production is interesting in of itself. My guess would be they are happy to squeeze Russia with it's vast, but more expensive to get at reserves.

"Saudi Arabia's most high-profile billionaire and foreign investor, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, has.... described the idea of the kingdom tolerating lower prices below $100 per barrel as potentially "catastrophic" for the economy of Saudi Arabia"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/commodities/11162744/Saudi-Prince-Alwaleed-says-falling-oil-prices-catastrophic.html

I know the economy of Saudi Arabia very well, and there's no way they could sustain low oil prices. Other than oil, their main industries are petrochemicals, which is again entirely dependent on the oil price, and construction, which is highly cyclical and will accentuate a downturn. They have rampant unemployment among Saudi citizens, who are disproportionately sexually repressed, religiously extremist young men. The absolute monarchy is corrupt and beyond justice, there is no clear line of succession, and the current King and heirs with the best claim are all old men. The main source of opposition is AQAP. It's going to be a clusterf###.

anotherDave

SeanT said:

Pulpstar said:

SeanT said:

Pulpstar said:

Actually right now Brent is at $87.20 a barrel.

Something of an uptick.

Dead cat bounce?

Oil peaked in price at $148 a barrel in 2008. Since then it has almost halved in value, sometimes plateauing, sometimes ticking back up, but, over time, inexorably declining.

When you think about the huge increase in oil and shale oil production from America, Canada, Brazil, plus the advent of shale gas - AND the massive shift to solar, and other renewables, this is actually quite unsurprising.

Some think oil prices may go down to $60. Half what Salmond was *expecting*.

http://www.mrt.com/business/article_8bc08784-5d64-11e4-a1a3-738b3f4d6578.html

$80-$100 next year is the analysts forecast. $60 could see us hit a serious deflationary spiral.

Oil at $60 a barrel would be a Black Swan. It would have complex and unforeseeable consequences, some good, some bad.

However I agree with the consensus, I don't think it will go that low, for what my amateur opinion is worth. But I can see it staying well under $100, for a long time. So much oil now comes from non-OPEC countries who are happy with cheapo-cheapo gasoline, and so many new sources of energy are now competing.

Incidentally, I can remember tim pooh-poohing the notion, that I first bruited on here, that shale gas would mean cheaper energy and cheaper oil. He derided me, and said that as America could not export the gas ("there are no pipelines") it would have no effect on energy prices elsewhere. He *forgot* that shale would mean America importing less energy, so OPEC would have to drop prices to sell more, to make up the shortfall.

Tim was, in many ways, a halfwit.

We had cheap oil during the Clinton years. It was good!

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'd prefer Salmond to just bugger off. A very capable politician, but arguably even more irritating than Balls.

nigel4england

SeanT said:

Pulpstar said:

SeanT said:

Pulpstar said:

Actually right now Brent is at $87.20 a barrel.

Something of an uptick.

Dead cat bounce?

Oil peaked in price at $148 a barrel in 2008. Since then it has almost halved in value, sometimes plateauing, sometimes ticking back up, but, over time, inexorably declining.

When you think about the huge increase in oil and shale oil production from America, Canada, Brazil, plus the advent of shale gas - AND the massive shift to solar, and other renewables, this is actually quite unsurprising.

Some think oil prices may go down to $60. Half what Salmond was *expecting*.

http://www.mrt.com/business/article_8bc08784-5d64-11e4-a1a3-738b3f4d6578.html

$80-$100 next year is the analysts forecast. $60 could see us hit a serious deflationary spiral.

Oil at $60 a barrel would be a Black Swan. It would have complex and unforeseeable consequences, some good, some bad.

However I agree with the consensus, I don't think it will go that low, for what my amateur opinion is worth. But I can see it staying well under $100, for a long time. So much oil now comes from non-OPEC countries who are happy with cheapo-cheapo gasoline, and so many new sources of energy are now competing.

Incidentally, I can remember tim pooh-poohing the notion, that I first bruited on here, that shale gas would mean cheaper energy and cheaper oil. He derided me, and said that as America could not export the gas ("there are no pipelines") it would have no effect on energy prices elsewhere. He *forgot* that shale would mean America importing less energy, so OPEC would have to drop prices to sell more, to make up the shortfall.

Tim was, in many ways, a halfwit.

Was?

HurstLlama

Socrates said:

HurstLlama said:

Avast Cap'n Doc. I was at the Home Office in the early-mid 1990s when email was being introduced. It was made clear to all of us that email, no matter what labels were applied to the individual system, was not secure and one should never write anything on an email that one would not write on a postcard.

What has happened is that some people seem to have forgotten or never understood that electronic communication is the easiest to monitor and intrecept. People get annoyed about the idea that HMG might view their emails but seem quite happy that God knows how many people at ISPs and Network providers can do just the same and with far less restriction. Frankly, if I was in the game of wanting to know what you are writing/searching and who you are contacting I'd bung a few quid to some lowly network admin wallah at your ISP - no warrants required, no checks and balances, no articles in the Guardian.

The problem is that modern live requires communication electronically. It's impossible to opt-out: even if you use a VPN and a protected email service, your friends all use GMail so you are still not protected.

What the government should be doing to stop the sort of abuses you provide is taking very heavy action to stop private companies doing this sort of stuff, legislating to require internal security barriers in ISPs etc. But they are doing the opposite: rather than fighting abuse at the private level, they are piggybacking on it to get more information themselves. What we need is a return to traditional British liberal beliefs: an individual is considered to have a private sphere that is protected, unless there is reasonable grounds to believe that the person is connected to a crime. In those situations you go and get an individual warrant for investigating them from an independent judge. I find it amazing that we've brought back "general warrants" that were considered so intrusive by the American founding fathers.

I am not aware we have brought back "General Warrants" or anything like them. In fact as far as HMG is concerned the rules around surveillance and the interception of data have never been so strict (please remember the situation before the RIPA - it was a mish-mash combined with a free for all).

As for the position of the "freelancer", I am sure a person's conditions of employment involve all sorts of confidentiality clauses and that a network administrator who betrayed a client's trust by divulging the contents of emails, searches etc. would be dismissed and possibly prosecuted. It is still the way I would go after that sort of data if I wanted to. You might get excited about some civil servant reading your emails but make no objection about an employee of your ISP or any of the, potentially, dozens of network people being able to do the same.

Socrates

AllyPally_Rob said:

Socrates said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

___Bobajob___ said:

James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous
AllyPally I replied to you on the PT
Sunil I replied to you on the PT
Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."

The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.

My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!

I think you'd struggle to find places anywhere within five minutes of Oxford street where you could walk for five minutes without seeing multiple people.

Walk North of Oxford Street on a weekend towards the BT Tower, i think you'd be pleasantly surprised. Yo u might also stumble across the Riding House Cafe which does the best breakfast in London IMHO.

To take a random street round there, here's Cleveland street on Google maps

http://tinyurl.com/kgea8ly

Here's Great Titchfield Street where your cafe is:

http://tinyurl.com/l7z2kca

The idea that you're walking around here without seeing people is nonsense.