Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now the focus is on post-Rochester. Will there be more defe

2»

Comments

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,147
    edited November 2014
    FalseFlag said:

    Itajai said:


    A cathedral gets desecrated in Moscow and the perpetrators are heroines.
    Bacon is attached to doors outside a mosque in Scotland and you get sent down.

    Except Pussy Riot did do time in a penal colony, while I'm sure plenty of types of a certain political persuasion think bacon boy is a hero. Where's the double standard?
    We have a penal colony?

    I thought they were lauded by the lefty media-political establishment.
    Not sure what point you're trying to make.
    Mine was that there is no double standard, except in the minds of whiny reactionaries.
  • Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    @NickP and @Socrates

    I know a few former Brethren. They do disapprove of "marrying out", as does Judaism.

    They may even shun those who leave. No "honour" killings though, or Rotherham style scandals.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    FalseFlag said:

    Itajai said:


    A cathedral gets desecrated in Moscow and the perpetrators are heroines.
    Bacon is attached to doors outside a mosque in Scotland and you get sent down.

    Except Pussy Riot did do time in a penal colony, while I'm sure plenty of types of a certain political persuasion think bacon boy is a hero. Where's the double standard?
    We have a penal colony?

    I thought they were lauded by the lefty media-political establishment.
    Not sure what point you're trying to make.
    Mine was that there is no double standard, except in the minds of whiny reactionaries.
    Mind your own business and don't concern yourself with other people's affairs, they don't like it and normally outsiders get it wrong.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?

    Tesco Alfresco ?
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic I think it is true that UKIP's work in eliminating the fruitcake wing of the Tory party is not yet done. Whether this will result in sundry MPs jumping ship is harder to judge. These fruitcakes have a strong sense of self preservation.

    How much does it trouble you that the fruitcake MPs take the fruitcake vote with them when they leave? There may be a childish satisfaction in saying "good riddance", but it ain't no way to win an election.

    Its a tricky one and I don't dispute it. UK politics encourages a broad church and excommunication is a risk. But I think (and it may be wishful thinking) that a tory party without such a fringe can gain more than equivalent support from the lib dems and the centre ground. This theory may self destruct in under 6 months.
    Matches my 'UKIP detoxifying Tories' theory well.
    In the same way that Labour detoxified the Liberals after 1916,

    I'm genuinely mystified by the mentality that thinks that losing support is good in the long run.
    How about attacking your own supporters as a route to popularity?

    How about being rude to people as a way to get them to vote for you?

    How about breaking promises to those already sceptical about you?

    How about pandering to those who would never vote for you?

    How about all this coming from people who studied politics at university?

    You're mystified? Get in the queue.
  • Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?
    Wait Rose?
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221
    Rochester was Labour until 2010 right? If they lose more share than Tories then whatever the media say, I believe that will be a bigger long shock. In 2005, Labour got 42% of the vote, Tories got 49% in 2010, Labour 28%, Libs 16%. I've no idea of the forecast result to be honest.
  • Early I'm a Celeb thoughts, think Melanie Sykes will do well and Michael Beurk also.
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?
    Wait Rose?
    Waite, Rose and Taylor, actually.

    Founded in Acton High Street. Not far from Ting Tong Thai.

    Bronze plaque in pavement to commemorate it.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/growth-without-gain-faltering-living-standards-people-low-middle-incomes/

    Interesting that living standards begun their precipitous decline with the advent of mass immigration, the financial crisis and austerity perhaps being falsely scapegoated? Backs up the study last week or so about the enormous financial cost of immigration (120bn been the best case scenario ignoring many obvious costs).
  • Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic I think it is true that UKIP's work in eliminating the fruitcake wing of the Tory party is not yet done. Whether this will result in sundry MPs jumping ship is harder to judge. These fruitcakes have a strong sense of self preservation.

    How much does it trouble you that the fruitcake MPs take the fruitcake vote with them when they leave? There may be a childish satisfaction in saying "good riddance", but it ain't no way to win an election.

    Its a tricky one and I don't dispute it. UK politics encourages a broad church and excommunication is a risk. But I think (and it may be wishful thinking) that a tory party without such a fringe can gain more than equivalent support from the lib dems and the centre ground. This theory may self destruct in under 6 months.
    Matches my 'UKIP detoxifying Tories' theory well.
    In the same way that Labour detoxified the Liberals after 1916,

    I'm genuinely mystified by the mentality that thinks that losing support is good in the long run.
    As Matthew Parris showed, many Establishment Tories hate the people who vote Conservative.

    The repeated and desperate attempts by Establishment Tories to get middle class leftists to vote for them, even though middle class leftists make no secret about how much they hate Establishment Tories, is another aspect of this.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?
    Wait Rose?
    Pity they have gone, but Safe Way
  • DavidL said:

    On topic I think it is true that UKIP's work in eliminating the fruitcake wing of the Tory party is not yet done. Whether this will result in sundry MPs jumping ship is harder to judge. These fruitcakes have a strong sense of self preservation.

    Forty years ago Scottish Tories like yourself were saying much the same thing about the SNP taking their 'fruitcake wing'.
  • philiph said:

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?
    Wait Rose?
    Pity they have gone, but Safe Way
    "This isn't just any orgy. This is an S & M orgy."
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    DavidL said:

    On topic I think it is true that UKIP's work in eliminating the fruitcake wing of the Tory party is not yet done. Whether this will result in sundry MPs jumping ship is harder to judge. These fruitcakes have a strong sense of self preservation.

    Forty years ago Scottish Tories like yourself were saying much the same thing about the SNP taking their 'fruitcake wing'.
    40 years? I was barely in my teens for years ago. But yes, you have a point.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    I leave you tonight with the bizarre news that Romania has elected a German as it's president thanks to votes from 4 million Romanian immigrants mostly in Germany.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30076716

    Goodnight.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    philiph said:

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.
    A fiddle in Lidl...?
    Wait Rose?
    Pity they have gone, but Safe Way
    "This isn't just any orgy. This is an S & M orgy."
    And just who is Morris on?

    (Not MD I add)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,821
    Socrates said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    Insane and barbaric?

    You are such an expert on the region I am sure you are aware the Church of Christ the Saviour was demolished by the Bolsheviks, but was rebuilt by public subscription in the 90s when Russians were starving in the streets, so it occupies a particularly sacred position in Russian life. I am sure you have been to the Church so you are also aware that a woman must wear a shawl when entering, similarly I am sure you are aware how deeply outraged Russians were but this disgusting publicity stunt.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/23/the-secret-history-of-pussy-riot/
    And people in the southern United States were outraged by black men kissing white women. Outrage does not justify sending people to do hard labour for a song that did no physical damage. If someone did some obscene gesture on top of the cenotaph, that would be incredibly offensive to me, but it doesn't mean they should get shipped off to the gulags for it. It's a community service type offence, at worst. Putin's regime was brutal because they were criticising him, just like they have killed various other critics over the years. He is an evil man leading an evil regime.
    Sorry, but this is very sloppily buying into a very obvious media agenda. These women did what they did to cause an outrage - they caused one. Mission accomplished. No use whining about the outcome. The chorus of outrage from Western governments and celebs did them more harm than good, because if the court had given them a non-custodial sentence it would have demonstrated weakness in the face of foreign pressure. The outcry was entirely manufactured and it was entirely aimed at isolating Putin's Government -disgustingly hypocritical when our reaction to a *real* evil regime that hangs gay people is this:

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00353/116100073_353237c.jpg

    I also note that you're more than happy to treat conspiracy theories as proven fact when discussing someone you don't like, but tried to haul me over the coals for the view that 9-11 is not all it seems. You're too much of a smart cookie for this pish.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Pussy Riot do make some interesting political statements, but their music is truly awful!
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic I think it is true that UKIP's work in eliminating the fruitcake wing of the Tory party is not yet done. Whether this will result in sundry MPs jumping ship is harder to judge. These fruitcakes have a strong sense of self preservation.

    How much does it trouble you that the fruitcake MPs take the fruitcake vote with them when they leave? There may be a childish satisfaction in saying "good riddance", but it ain't no way to win an election.

    Its a tricky one and I don't dispute it. UK politics encourages a broad church and excommunication is a risk. But I think (and it may be wishful thinking) that a tory party without such a fringe can gain more than equivalent support from the lib dems and the centre ground. This theory may self destruct in under 6 months.
    Matches my 'UKIP detoxifying Tories' theory well.
    In the same way that Labour detoxified the Liberals after 1916,

    I'm genuinely mystified by the mentality that thinks that losing support is good in the long run.
    As Matthew Parris showed, many Establishment Tories hate the people who vote Conservative.

    The repeated and desperate attempts by Establishment Tories to get middle class leftists to vote for them, even though middle class leftists make no secret about how much they hate Establishment Tories, is another aspect of this.
    It was cringeworthy to watch Dave actively looking to be endorsed and validated by the Toynbees and BBC types. Even tomorrow, hasnt he wrote an artilce for the Guardian?

    They despise him and everthing he stands for. Yet he seeks their approval.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    notme said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic I think it is true that UKIP's work in eliminating the fruitcake wing of the Tory party is not yet done. Whether this will result in sundry MPs jumping ship is harder to judge. These fruitcakes have a strong sense of self preservation.

    How much does it trouble you that the fruitcake MPs take the fruitcake vote with them when they leave? There may be a childish satisfaction in saying "good riddance", but it ain't no way to win an election.

    Its a tricky one and I don't dispute it. UK politics encourages a broad church and excommunication is a risk. But I think (and it may be wishful thinking) that a tory party without such a fringe can gain more than equivalent support from the lib dems and the centre ground. This theory may self destruct in under 6 months.
    Matches my 'UKIP detoxifying Tories' theory well.
    In the same way that Labour detoxified the Liberals after 1916,

    I'm genuinely mystified by the mentality that thinks that losing support is good in the long run.
    As Matthew Parris showed, many Establishment Tories hate the people who vote Conservative.

    The repeated and desperate attempts by Establishment Tories to get middle class leftists to vote for them, even though middle class leftists make no secret about how much they hate Establishment Tories, is another aspect of this.
    It was cringeworthy to watch Dave actively looking to be endorsed and validated by the Toynbees and BBC types. Even tomorrow, hasnt he wrote an artilce for the Guardian?

    They despise him and everthing he stands for. Yet he seeks their approval.
    Better to address those who disagree rather than ignore them.
  • kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:



    In the same way that Labour detoxified the Liberals after 1916,

    I'm genuinely mystified by the mentality that thinks that losing support is good in the long run.

    Desperation. If it were replaced by other support that would be fine, but where's it going to come from? Former LDs? Overwhelmingly to Labour or Greens, not enough to make up for what is lost. Other non-aligned centrist voters? Doesn't seem to be that many around thesedays as what was the centre has shifted, and in any case the Labour brand is still more liked than the Tory one, so odds are they are more likely break for the former than the latter.

    Moreover, the Tories are simultaneously losing a whole section of support, even as many of their MPs and candidates - and with less genuine enthusiasm, the leadership to a certain degree - are trying to ramp up their positions to appeal to those who are on their way out the door. Maybe some will end up coming back to them, but as far as I can see, the Tories are losing 'toxic' support - of considerable size - while intensifying the very policies and language which made the Tories 'toxic' to many in the first place.

    That is, if those leaving for UKIP were to be the sign of the Tories purging the toxic from the party and being seen as a viable option by many others as a result, it won't work very well considering half the Tory party seems to want to be UKIP, and stresses how much they have in common and should be working together all the time.

    Edit: That said, all I ever seem to hear from the Tories is how they are obsessed with not being seen as toxic or nasty, which just perpetuates it - they don't seem any more nasty to me than any other party - as they seem to believe it as much as other parties/ Now, given there is definitely a major anti-Tory bias in parts of the country which goes beyond the rational and which is more significant than the anti-Labour vote, I'm not sure how they resolve it. Huge parts of the country would never vote Tory even if they supported their policies, so the Tories acknowledge they are hated and try to change to fix it, which just reminds people all over again how the Tories are toxic and need to be fixed, so they gain little benefit.
    A very good post.

    I'd add that the combination of lickspittle loyalty and hatred of others shown by many PB Tories is not a good advertisement for the Conservative party either.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Socrates said:



    I
    To detach the issue from the ethnic context, there is a group of a few hundred people who used to operate a school in my constituency for the Brethren, who are I believe are essentially the Open Plymouth Brethren (I think it's moved now). They don't vote, but they're interested in public affairs, so they asked if they could visit Parliament. I said sure, and showed them round, then offered them tea and biscuits. They were horrified: "We do not eat or have other social contact with non-members, and only wished you to show us the premises". They were all white British. They seemed pretty harmless, but they certainly appeared to "believe you shouldn't be friends with people of other religions".

    I guess you wouldn't favour expelling them. But would you forbid them from bringing in members of the sect from other countries? It's an example of a peculiar exclusive belief which is legal and doesn't do obvious harm, so imposing restrictions on them seems rather illiberal. But if you wouldn't, how would you distinguish from members of a group who disapproved of mingling with non-Muslims?

    When they start attempting to bomb public transport and machete serving soldiers, then yes i will disapprove.

  • @NickP and @Socrates

    I know a few former Brethren. They do disapprove of "marrying out", as does Judaism.

    They may even shun those who leave. No "honour" killings though, or Rotherham style scandals.

    No Rotherham-style child abuse scandals that we know of. But what the Catholic church and the BBC were doing and covering up was probably also happening in other inward-looking hierarchical organisations.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    philiph said:

    notme said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic I think it is true that UKIP's work in eliminating the fruitcake wing of the Tory party is not yet done. Whether this will result in sundry MPs jumping ship is harder to judge. These fruitcakes have a strong sense of self preservation.

    How much does it trouble you that the fruitcake MPs take the fruitcake vote with them when they leave? There may be a childish satisfaction in saying "good riddance", but it ain't no way to win an election.

    Its a tricky one and I don't dispute it. UK politics encourages a broad church and excommunication is a risk. But I think (and it may be wishful thinking) that a tory party without such a fringe can gain more than equivalent support from the lib dems and the centre ground. This theory may self destruct in under 6 months.
    Matches my 'UKIP detoxifying Tories' theory well.
    In the same way that Labour detoxified the Liberals after 1916,

    I'm genuinely mystified by the mentality that thinks that losing support is good in the long run.
    As Matthew Parris showed, many Establishment Tories hate the people who vote Conservative.

    The repeated and desperate attempts by Establishment Tories to get middle class leftists to vote for them, even though middle class leftists make no secret about how much they hate Establishment Tories, is another aspect of this.
    It was cringeworthy to watch Dave actively looking to be endorsed and validated by the Toynbees and BBC types. Even tomorrow, hasnt he wrote an artilce for the Guardian?

    They despise him and everthing he stands for. Yet he seeks their approval.
    Better to address those who disagree rather than ignore them.
    True, but best not to focus on fixing a papercut when you've been stabbed, if you'll forgive a lame metaphor. I'd applaud Cameron reaching out to others, I for one find him more agreeable politically than I would otherwise as a result of it, but as others have pointed out, doing so has not gained him enough to compensate for what he has lost. That said, it's the only option open to him now. Those gone are gone forever - or certainly until May 2015, which is forever as far as Cameron as PM goes unless his gamble has paid off unexpectedly - and so I don't begrudge his efforts to attract from other areas now, even though I think it futile of him,
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:



    In the same way that Labour detoxified the Liberals after 1916,

    I'm genuinely mystified by the mentality that thinks that losing support is good in the long run.

    Desperation. If it .
    A very good post.

    I'd add that the combination of lickspittle loyalty and hatred of others shown by many PB Tories is not a good advertisement for the Conservative party either.
    Perhaps. I suspect that sort of behaviour is a natural reaction to one's tribe being under attack though, and some Cameroons are at least trying to fight back against the threat though, which although it won't entice many back is at least better than the other Tory strategy of showing their bellies to UKIP by trying to do everything UKIP want, and if Labour or other parties were facing such an existential threat to their identity, the loyalists would react in much the same way. The LDs probably would do, but their position is so dire I think they skipped much of that phase.

    Night all.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    edited November 2014
    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    @NickP and @Socrates

    I know a few former Brethren. They do disapprove of "marrying out", as does Judaism.

    They may even shun those who leave. No "honour" killings though, or Rotherham style scandals.

    No Rotherham-style child abuse scandals that we know of. But what the Catholic church and the BBC were doing and covering up was probably also happening in other inward-looking hierarchical organisations.
    There certainly are allegations concerning Brethren:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268926/I-raped-leader-Exclusive-Brethren-Shock-testimony-man-alleges-abused-child-Big-Jim-Taylor-rocks-churchs-claim-charitable-status.html

    A lot of patriarchal religions have this as a problem. Sexual abuse, incest and rape are as much about power, control and aggressive dominance as about sexual gratification..
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited November 2014

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    So we have:

    Dave No Direction
    Ed Wrong Solution
    Nige One Direction
    Nick Any Direction
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

  • TapestryTapestry Posts: 153

    @NickP and @Socrates

    I know a few former Brethren. They do disapprove of "marrying out", as does Judaism.

    They may even shun those who leave. No "honour" killings though, or Rotherham style scandals.

    No Rotherham-style child abuse scandals that we know of. But what the Catholic church and the BBC were doing and covering up was probably also happening in other inward-looking hierarchical organisations.
    There certainly are allegations concerning Brethren:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268926/I-raped-leader-Exclusive-Brethren-Shock-testimony-man-alleges-abused-child-Big-Jim-Taylor-rocks-churchs-claim-charitable-status.html

    A lot of patriarchal religions have this as a problem. Sexual abuse, incest and rape are as much about power, control and aggressive dominance as about sexual gratification..
    The evidence that forced Pope Ratzinger to resign has just been published.
    http://tapnewswire.com/?p=10687
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    If he was a throwback to 1950's Toryism, then there would be no need of kipperism.

    The problem many kippers have with him is precisely that he does not want a return to the 1950's...
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    In the real world, not one where we worry about dumb tory backbenchers defecting to a blatantly race obsessed party, then the prospects for election year according to BoE and IMF forcasts make interesting reading.

    Growth next year at 2.9%
    Unemployment, now 6% , falling to 5.4% then 5%.
    Inflation 1%
    Wage growth 3.2%
    Food and petrol prices falling; household energy inflation slowed.
    Productivity on a slow increase - 1.5% in 2016

    The IMF say the cyclically-adjusted deficit has come down from 10.3% of gross domestic product in 2009 to 4.1% this year. Osborne has in fact toughened his own target, aiming for an overall budget surplus in the next parliament rather than just eliminating the current deficit. And he did not kill the recovery with more cuts when the world economy slowed and the Euro crisis hit. He accepted the cyclical regulators were not part of reducing the structural deficit.
    Lower inflation (a good thing) will of course depress tax receipts like VAT (a bad thing in the circumstances).

    All this from a party that promises a referendum in 2017. What might Mrs Thatcher say? ''U turn if you want to Mr Reckless...''
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-quarter-scots-never-4640537


    found 14 per cent want one immediately and 21 per cent want it before 2019.

    But 13 per cent say it should be held between 2019 and 2024, 12 per cent after 2024 and 28 per cent, never. Eleven per cent say they’re not sure.


  • perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    Is it UKIP's fault that you're losing support?
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10 - they hate the lot of 'em equally the same. They just want Nige.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TGOHF said:

    14 per cent want one immediately and 21 per cent want it before 2019.

    But 13 per cent say it should be held between 2019 and 2024, 12 per cent after 2024 and 28 per cent, never. Eleven per cent say they’re not sure.

    @euanmccolm: 3000% of scots have now been asked their opinion of independence.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10
    Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    Twitter
    Murdo Fraser ‏@murdo_fraser 9m9 minutes ago
    Scots STILL say NO to independence: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-quarter-scots-never-4640537
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917

    In the real world, not one where we worry about dumb tory backbenchers defecting to a blatantly race obsessed party, then the prospects for election year according to BoE and IMF forcasts make interesting reading.

    Growth next year at 2.9%
    Unemployment, now 6% , falling to 5.4% then 5%.
    Inflation 1%
    Wage growth 3.2%
    Food and petrol prices falling; household energy inflation slowed.
    Productivity on a slow increase - 1.5% in 2016

    The IMF say the cyclically-adjusted deficit has come down from 10.3% of gross domestic product in 2009 to 4.1% this year. Osborne has in fact toughened his own target, aiming for an overall budget surplus in the next parliament rather than just eliminating the current deficit. And he did not kill the recovery with more cuts when the world economy slowed and the Euro crisis hit. He accepted the cyclical regulators were not part of reducing the structural deficit.
    Lower inflation (a good thing) will of course depress tax receipts like VAT (a bad thing in the circumstances).

    All this from a party that promises a referendum in 2017. What might Mrs Thatcher say? ''U turn if you want to Mr Reckless...''

    That all may well be, but the electorate aren't listening. Not an opinion, simply the facts.
    https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m37pv1U2Ve1qh1l3k.jpg
  • TGOHF said:

    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10
    Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.

    Is it UKIP's fault that you are losing support?
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    TGOHF said:

    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10
    Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.
    To them, modern Britain is already ruined.
  • In the real world, not one where we worry about dumb tory backbenchers defecting to a blatantly race obsessed party, then the prospects for election year according to BoE and IMF forcasts make interesting reading.

    Growth next year at 2.9%
    Unemployment, now 6% , falling to 5.4% then 5%.
    Inflation 1%
    Wage growth 3.2%
    Food and petrol prices falling; household energy inflation slowed.
    Productivity on a slow increase - 1.5% in 2016

    The IMF say the cyclically-adjusted deficit has come down from 10.3% of gross domestic product in 2009 to 4.1% this year. Osborne has in fact toughened his own target, aiming for an overall budget surplus in the next parliament rather than just eliminating the current deficit. And he did not kill the recovery with more cuts when the world economy slowed and the Euro crisis hit. He accepted the cyclical regulators were not part of reducing the structural deficit.
    Lower inflation (a good thing) will of course depress tax receipts like VAT (a bad thing in the circumstances).

    All this from a party that promises a referendum in 2017. What might Mrs Thatcher say? ''U turn if you want to Mr Reckless...''

    I've said previously that Osborne has done a superb job with the economy, and that Gove was the best education secretary for a generation.

    But Gove was sacked, if the referendum actually happens the Tories will vote to stay in. I've never voted Tory, in fact the only way I ever would is if I lived in Broxtowe, but these are my personal wishes:

    Out of the EU
    Return to grammar schools

    I see the election as Common Sense v Common Purpose and I know which side I am on.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    edited November 2014

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    If he was a throwback to 1950's Toryism, then there would be no need of kipperism.

    The problem many kippers have with him is precisely that he does not want a return to the 1950's...
    By 1950s I reaklly meant pre-Thatcher era consensus, being a good caretaker managing the decline.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    In the real world, not one where we worry about dumb tory backbenchers defecting to a blatantly race obsessed party, then the prospects for election year according to BoE and IMF forcasts make interesting reading.

    Growth next year at 2.9%
    Unemployment, now 6% , falling to 5.4% then 5%.
    Inflation 1%
    Wage growth 3.2%
    Food and petrol prices falling; household energy inflation slowed.
    Productivity on a slow increase - 1.5% in 2016

    The IMF say the cyclically-adjusted deficit has come down from 10.3% of gross domestic product in 2009 to 4.1% this year. Osborne has in fact toughened his own target, aiming for an overall budget surplus in the next parliament rather than just eliminating the current deficit. And he did not kill the recovery with more cuts when the world economy slowed and the Euro crisis hit. He accepted the cyclical regulators were not part of reducing the structural deficit.
    Lower inflation (a good thing) will of course depress tax receipts like VAT (a bad thing in the circumstances).

    All this from a party that promises a referendum in 2017. What might Mrs Thatcher say? ''U turn if you want to Mr Reckless...''

    GDP per capita is still carp and a failure to fully grasp the nettle on immigration means Cameron has only slowed the decline begun by Labour.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10
    Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.
    To them, modern Britain is already ruined.
    Why don't you piss off to Marbella or Gibraltar then ?
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721

    Itajai said:


    A cathedral gets desecrated in Moscow and the perpetrators are heroines.
    Bacon is attached to doors outside a mosque in Scotland and you get sent down.

    Except Pussy Riot did do time in a penal colony, while I'm sure plenty of types of a certain political persuasion think bacon boy is a hero. Where's the double standard?
    Some desecrations are more equal than others.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Is Hammond on manoeuvres ? Recently, he is becoming ever so slightly a loose cannon. His pronouncements on the EU on immigration raises discussions which, I think, is deliberate.

    That would be out of character for someone quite sure-footed.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10
    Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.
    To them, modern Britain is already ruined.
    Why don't you piss off to Marbella or Gibraltar then ?
    I didn't say 'me' - I said 'them'. Mind your language.
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    Perhaps you can explain what physical damage was done by the bacon.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10
    Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.

    Is it UKIP's fault that you are losing support?
    Suspect Cons will match or exceed 2010 vote share Sunil. And the kippers will have two turncoats, not be part of the coalition and as relevant as Mark Reckless to the running of the country.

    Heh.
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    Ninoinoz said:

    Socrates said:

    The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

    It was the second time they had done it.

    Pussy Riot is itself a swear word in Russian.

    One wore a slogan from the Spanish Civil War, with all its slaughter of priests, in a church only just re-built after being razed by the Communists.

    What they did would be illegal in this country under at least four difference offences.

    I agree, though, that their detention was too long.

    But that hardly entitles them to be feted on a visit to this country.
    Maybe they should try and do the same in a mosque in London during their visit. Wonder if the same lefty metropolitan establishment will come riding to their defence.
  • TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10
    Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.

    Is it UKIP's fault that you are losing support?
    Suspect Cons will match or exceed 2010 vote share Sunil. And the kippers will have two turncoats, not be part of the coalition and as relevant as Mark Reckless to the running of the country.

    Heh.
    If that's what you predict, then why are you so afraid of UKIP "letting Labour ruin it again" as you claim.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10
    Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.
    To them, modern Britain is already ruined.
    Why don't you piss off to Marbella or Gibraltar then ?
    Two quite splendid places, to be fair.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    In the real world, not one where we worry about dumb tory backbenchers defecting to a blatantly race obsessed party, then the prospects for election year according to BoE and IMF forcasts make interesting reading.

    Growth next year at 2.9%
    Unemployment, now 6% , falling to 5.4% then 5%.
    Inflation 1%
    Wage growth 3.2%
    Food and petrol prices falling; household energy inflation slowed.
    Productivity on a slow increase - 1.5% in 2016

    The IMF say the cyclically-adjusted deficit has come down from 10.3% of gross domestic product in 2009 to 4.1% this year. Osborne has in fact toughened his own target, aiming for an overall budget surplus in the next parliament rather than just eliminating the current deficit. And he did not kill the recovery with more cuts when the world economy slowed and the Euro crisis hit. He accepted the cyclical regulators were not part of reducing the structural deficit.
    Lower inflation (a good thing) will of course depress tax receipts like VAT (a bad thing in the circumstances).

    All this from a party that promises a referendum in 2017. What might Mrs Thatcher say? ''U turn if you want to Mr Reckless...''

    Ask the Democrats. 55 consecutive months of jobs growth in the US and no thanks from the electorate.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    GeoffM said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10
    Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.
    To them, modern Britain is already ruined.
    Why don't you piss off to Marbella or Gibraltar then ?
    Two quite splendid places, to be fair.
    Marbella is excellent if you like Ukrainian hookers and coke. Hey I see what you mean..
  • TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10
    Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.
    To them, modern Britain is already ruined.
    Why don't you piss off to Marbella or Gibraltar then ?
    Can't speak for Marbella, but isn't Gib UK territory, TGOHF?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    TGOHF said:

    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10
    Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.
    This quarrel between supporters of two far right parties is very enjoyable to watch.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    surbiton said:

    TGOHF said:

    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10
    Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.
    This quarrel between supporters of two far right parties is very enjoyable to watch.
    If you think the Conservatives are "far right", how anodyne do you want politics to be??!


  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    GeoffM said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10
    Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.
    To them, modern Britain is already ruined.
    Why don't you piss off to Marbella or Gibraltar then ?
    Two quite splendid places, to be fair.

    We know why the Left despises Gib. These are people who actually want to be British, don't want to vote (UK) Labour and don't want to blow themselves up on the undergorund. Tony tried to sell them out to the Spanish to show what a good European he was and was told to eff off by an "illegal" referendum. It seems the right to self determination does not apply to Gib. Although Ceuta and Melilla are "totally different" cases of course.

    I remember a puff piece from the Indy in 1989/90 on Europe in 2000- Gib would have joined Spain due to Spain's higher GDP per capita. Of course written with great glee.
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    surbiton said:

    TGOHF said:

    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10
    Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.
    This quarrel between supporters of two far right parties is very enjoyable to watch.
    If only they were!
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Wisdom of the crowd is often correct...

    I guessed 9%

    Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB)
    16/11/2014 22:26
    Final consensus in the PB Rochester by-election prediction competition is that UKIP will win with margin of 8.88% pic.twitter.com/tshw0uCzEE
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    isam said:

    Wisdom of the crowd is often correct...

    I guessed 9%

    Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB)
    16/11/2014 22:26
    Final consensus in the PB Rochester by-election prediction competition is that UKIP will win with margin of 8.88% pic.twitter.com/tshw0uCzEE

    So, deep down, we think Ashcroft/Survation overstate UKIP and underscore the Tories?

    I wonder what people think Labour will score.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014
    chestnut said:

    isam said:

    Wisdom of the crowd is often correct...

    I guessed 9%

    Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB)
    16/11/2014 22:26
    Final consensus in the PB Rochester by-election prediction competition is that UKIP will win with margin of 8.88% pic.twitter.com/tshw0uCzEE

    So, deep down, we think Ashcroft/Survation overstate UKIP and underscore the Tories?

    I wonder what people think Labour will score.

    Imagine a year ago a Tory was clinging to that to score a point!

    Yeah i said an easy Ukip win right from the start, 8-9% would be great

    Lots and lots of other posters said the Tories would win. A flick through the threads after Reckless' defection would be worth a laugh
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    isam said:

    Imagine a year ago a Tory was clinging to that to score a point!

    Yeah i said an easy Ukip win right from the start, 8-9% would be great

    I expect UKIP to win, though I actually think it could be much tighter than the polls indicate.

  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    SeanT said:

    TGOHF said:

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-quarter-scots-never-4640537


    found 14 per cent want one immediately and 21 per cent want it before 2019.

    But 13 per cent say it should be held between 2019 and 2024, 12 per cent after 2024 and 28 per cent, never. Eleven per cent say they’re not sure.


    It's a compelling clash of realities. Political reality says that independence is now pretty likely within 10-20 years, the SNP will probably win Holyrood in 2016, their new members will demand another vote, blah blah

    Yet economic reality is utterly inimical. Oil is now under $80 a barrel: destroying iScotland's putative economy. The euro is, arguably, even more f*cked than ever, so the currency issue hasn't gone away, it has got worse.

    Sturgeon, if she has any sense, will pocket Devomax then spend the rest of her time agitating for evermore independence without quite grasping the real thing. But will her eager new tartan Talibanners tolerate such equivocation re the English Kufr?
    Remind me whats the price of oil?
    Who is currently intercepting Russian bombers over the north sea?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014
    chestnut said:

    isam said:

    Imagine a year ago a Tory was clinging to that to score a point!

    Yeah i said an easy Ukip win right from the start, 8-9% would be great

    I expect UKIP to win, though I actually think it could be much tighter than the polls indicate.

    It would be quite amazing, beyond even my expectations, if we won by as much as the polls suggest
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    SeanT said:

    Sturgeon, if she has any sense, will pocket Devomax then spend the rest of her time agitating for evermore independence without quite grasping the real thing.

    A smart UK government will give her enough rope.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    surbiton said:

    TGOHF said:

    perdix said:

    Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

    That's it.

    He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

    So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

    And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

    I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10
    Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.
    This quarrel between supporters of two far right parties is very enjoyable to watch.
    Say that again because the kippers are a bit deaf
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    surbiton said:

    In the real world, not one where we worry about dumb tory backbenchers defecting to a blatantly race obsessed party, then the prospects for election year according to BoE and IMF forcasts make interesting reading.

    Growth next year at 2.9%
    Unemployment, now 6% , falling to 5.4% then 5%.
    Inflation 1%
    Wage growth 3.2%
    Food and petrol prices falling; household energy inflation slowed.
    Productivity on a slow increase - 1.5% in 2016

    The IMF say the cyclically-adjusted deficit has come down from 10.3% of gross domestic product in 2009 to 4.1% this year. Osborne has in fact toughened his own target, aiming for an overall budget surplus in the next parliament rather than just eliminating the current deficit. And he did not kill the recovery with more cuts when the world economy slowed and the Euro crisis hit. He accepted the cyclical regulators were not part of reducing the structural deficit.
    Lower inflation (a good thing) will of course depress tax receipts like VAT (a bad thing in the circumstances).

    All this from a party that promises a referendum in 2017. What might Mrs Thatcher say? ''U turn if you want to Mr Reckless...''

    Ask the Democrats. 55 consecutive months of jobs growth in the US and no thanks from the electorate.
    You may have said that before. If so it was pointless then and pointless now. Who is still President? Who will be President in 2014? A Republican? I hope so but we both know it will be Hillary. Unless Jeb runs.

    All you can do is ignore the facts.
  • I'd add that the combination of lickspittle loyalty and hatred of others shown by many PB Tories is not a good advertisement for the Conservative party either.

    I can't imagine who you're thinking of, but your remark applies much more to UKIP supporters - who somehow manage to remain loyal even when their party bins its entire platform of policies - and whose hatred of others, especially David Cameron, seems to dominate their entire world-view.
  • SeanT said:

    If "Dave" has to write articles in the Guardian, can he make them readable?

    The actual piece is dreadful: turgid, cliched, repetitive, boring. Check how many times he uses the word "plan". It's like Gordon Brown on Rohypnol.

    He's addressing Guardian readers. Of course he needs to keep it simple and repeat the same thing many times. Even then they'll probably contrive to misunderstand it.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    I'd add that the combination of lickspittle loyalty and hatred of others shown by many PB Tories is not a good advertisement for the Conservative party either.

    I can't imagine who you're thinking of, but your remark applies much more to UKIP supporters - who somehow manage to remain loyal even when their party bins its entire platform of policies - and whose hatred of others, especially David Cameron, seems to dominate their entire world-view.
    Touched a nerve!
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    Well said Richard!! Its even more ironic when you have to wade through Ukippers behaving like midges around any poster who criticises UKIP on the PB threads these days.

    I'd add that the combination of lickspittle loyalty and hatred of others shown by many PB Tories is not a good advertisement for the Conservative party either.

    I can't imagine who you're thinking of, but your remark applies much more to UKIP supporters - who somehow manage to remain loyal even when their party bins its entire platform of policies - and whose hatred of others, especially David Cameron, seems to dominate their entire world-view.
  • isam said:

    I'd add that the combination of lickspittle loyalty and hatred of others shown by many PB Tories is not a good advertisement for the Conservative party either.

    I can't imagine who you're thinking of, but your remark applies much more to UKIP supporters - who somehow manage to remain loyal even when their party bins its entire platform of policies - and whose hatred of others, especially David Cameron, seems to dominate their entire world-view.
    Touched a nerve!
    No, I'm just correcting a statement which is obviously wrong.

    Anyone who thinks the Conservatives' problem is excessive loyalty, or supporters and MPs sticking too firmly to the party line, needs his head examining. It's more like herding cats.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    Where as UKIP on the other hand is now apparently the Peoples Army, a description that could not be more apt in the circumstances. Always makes me think of Korean Peoples army.....also led by an unaccountable Leader. :)

    Twitter
    Nigel Farage ‏@Nigel_Farage 11h11 hours ago
    There's never been a better time to join the People's Army. Come and sign up today: http://www.ukip.org #ukip

    isam said:

    I'd add that the combination of lickspittle loyalty and hatred of others shown by many PB Tories is not a good advertisement for the Conservative party either.

    I can't imagine who you're thinking of, but your remark applies much more to UKIP supporters - who somehow manage to remain loyal even when their party bins its entire platform of policies - and whose hatred of others, especially David Cameron, seems to dominate their entire world-view.
    Touched a nerve!
    No, I'm just correcting a statement which is obviously wrong.

    Anyone who thinks the Conservatives' problem is excessive loyalty, or supporters and MPs sticking too firmly to the party line, needs his head examining. It's more like herding cats.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited November 2014
    Twitter
    Wall Street Journal ‏@WSJ 8s9 seconds ago
    Breaking: Japan falls into recession; annualized GDP falls 1.6%, setting stage for delay in sales tax increase. http://wsj.com

    Survation. ‏@Survation now47 seconds ago
    NEW - No rush for a new #indyref, lower Euroscepticism & more +views on immigration. Survation for @daily_record http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-quarter-scots-never-4640537
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    The wage rise figure is bollocks that the tories keep spouting.

    It is quoted as wage rises since last year. It should be remembered many took a pay cut rather than have redundancies in 2008 and 2009 and a lot of that figure is some of them making headway back towards what their actual wages were in 2009.

    Take out the public sector, the minimum wage earners rises due to law and the payrises of the senior management and you would have a far different figure. One that would give the lie to rising wages
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited November 2014
    Speedy said:

    I leave you tonight with the bizarre news that Romania has elected a German as it's president thanks to votes from 4 million Romanian immigrants mostly in Germany.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30076716

    Goodnight.

    Romania is the only European country which allowed large numbers of Germans to remain in the country after the Second World War. One town in Transylvania has had an ethnically German mayor for quite a few years.

    Hang on — I think he's the same person as the guy who's won the presidential election.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    I'd add that the combination of lickspittle loyalty and hatred of others shown by many PB Tories is not a good advertisement for the Conservative party either.

    I can't imagine who you're thinking of, but your remark applies much more to UKIP supporters - who somehow manage to remain loyal even when their party bins its entire platform of policies - and whose hatred of others, especially David Cameron, seems to dominate their entire world-view.
    Touched a nerve!
    No, I'm just correcting a statement which is obviously wrong.

    Anyone who thinks the Conservatives' problem is excessive loyalty, or supporters and MPs sticking too firmly to the party line, needs his head examining. It's more like herding cats.
    You obviously missed the posts on here last night trying to deflect attention from the 80s dolphin square nonsecases

    Party loyalty seems to know no bounds
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    The Scotsman - John Swinney set to become Deputy First Minister

    "Ms Sturgeon is said to be ready to make the appointment as part of a ministerial reshuffle, in the immediate few days after she is formally voted in as First Minister at Holyrood on Wednesday. Mr Swinney, who has served as finance secretary since 2007, would be expected to stand in for Ms Sturgeon at the parliament’s First Minister’s Questions, when she is away from Scotland.

    The appointment would mean Mr Swinney was handed the role instead of the newly elected SNP deputy leader Stewart Hosie, who sits as a Nationalist MP at Westminster."
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @foxinsox

    'The problem many kippers have with him is precisely that he does not want a return to the 1950's..'

    At least there is a choice next year.

    -Back to the 50's with UKIP

    -Back to the 70's with Labour

    -Remain in the modern world with Tories & Lib Dems
    .
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    john_zims said:

    @foxinsox

    'The problem many kippers have with him is precisely that he does not want a return to the 1950's..'

    At least there is a choice next year.

    -Back to the 50's with UKIP

    -Back to the 70's with Labour

    -Remain in the modern world with Tories & Lib Dems
    .


    If the modern world includes

    spying on the innocent

    secret trials

    hmrc allowed to plunder your bank account before you make your case

    further steps to european integration such as the EAW

    further moves to lower wages in real terms by subscribing to a protectionist body such as the eu

    increase of green taxes

    more exotic laws to legislate people in the bedroom in the privacy of their own homes

    extreme nannying of the population via minimum unit pricing for alcohol

    further charity in our name when we are drowning in debt via foreign aid

    then frankly you can take the modern world you envisage and shove it up your a**e
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    fitalass said:

    The Scotsman - John Swinney set to become Deputy First Minister

    "Ms Sturgeon is said to be ready to make the appointment as part of a ministerial reshuffle, in the immediate few days after she is formally voted in as First Minister at Holyrood on Wednesday. Mr Swinney, who has served as finance secretary since 2007, would be expected to stand in for Ms Sturgeon at the parliament’s First Minister’s Questions, when she is away from Scotland.

    The appointment would mean Mr Swinney was handed the role instead of the newly elected SNP deputy leader Stewart Hosie, who sits as a Nationalist MP at Westminster."

    I found SNP delegates wildly cheering in support of Sturgeon's opposition to Trident peculiarly reminiscent of Labour conferences of the early 1980s. The timing was also bad in view of Russia flexing its armed forces muscle all over the place even sending over obsolete Bear bombers 1980s style to test out the RAF response times.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited November 2014
    Indeed Norm, this article might be of interest on the issue of trident.
    Telegraph - SNP: No contradiction to fight Labour then prop up Ed Miliband
    "The SNP’s new deputy has yesterday insisted there would be no contradiction between his party fighting Labour in Scotland and propping up a minority Ed Miliband government at Westminster.

    Stewart Hosie said the Nationalists’ “single, sole” focus was winning next year’s general election in Scotland with the hope of holding the balance of power in another hung parliament. They currently have only six MPs compared to Scottish Labour’s 40.

    He argued the party would do a deal with anyone but the Tories in order to force UK ministers to devolve more powers to the Scottish Parliament, despite the mutual loathing between Labour and the SNP.

    But he undermined Nicola Sturgeon’s claim in her first conference speech as leader that the concessions could include removing Trident from Scotland, admitting that the votes of SNP MPs would be irrelevant if Labour and the Tories agreed to keep it on the Clyde.

    Mr Hosie, the party’s Treasury spokesman at Westminster, was also forced to deny that his status as deputy leader would be undermined if Alex Salmond confirms he intends to become an MP."
    Norm said:

    fitalass said:

    The Scotsman - John Swinney set to become Deputy First Minister

    "Ms Sturgeon is said to be ready to make the appointment as part of a ministerial reshuffle, in the immediate few days after she is formally voted in as First Minister at Holyrood on Wednesday. Mr Swinney, who has served as finance secretary since 2007, would be expected to stand in for Ms Sturgeon at the parliament’s First Minister’s Questions, when she is away from Scotland.

    The appointment would mean Mr Swinney was handed the role instead of the newly elected SNP deputy leader Stewart Hosie, who sits as a Nationalist MP at Westminster."

    I found SNP delegates wildly cheering in support of Sturgeon's opposition to Trident peculiarly reminiscent of Labour conferences of the early 1980s. The timing was also bad in view of Russia flexing its armed forces muscle all over the place even sending over obsolete Bear bombers 1980s style to test out the RAF response times.
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    fitalass said:

    Indeed Norm, this article might be of interest on the issue of trident.
    Telegraph - SNP: No contradiction to fight Labour then prop up Ed Miliband
    "The SNP’s new deputy has yesterday insisted there would be no contradiction between his party fighting Labour in Scotland and propping up a minority Ed Miliband government at Westminster.

    Stewart Hosie said the Nationalists’ “single, sole” focus was winning next year’s general election in Scotland with the hope of holding the balance of power in another hung parliament. They currently have only six MPs compared to Scottish Labour’s 40.

    He argued the party would do a deal with anyone but the Tories in order to force UK ministers to devolve more powers to the Scottish Parliament, despite the mutual loathing between Labour and the SNP.

    But he undermined Nicola Sturgeon’s claim in her first conference speech as leader that the concessions could include removing Trident from Scotland, admitting that the votes of SNP MPs would be irrelevant if Labour and the Tories agreed to keep it on the Clyde.

    Mr Hosie, the party’s Treasury spokesman at Westminster, was also forced to deny that his status as deputy leader would be undermined if Alex Salmond confirms he intends to become an MP."

    Norm said:

    fitalass said:

    The Scotsman - John Swinney set to become Deputy First Minister

    "Ms Sturgeon is said to be ready to make the appointment as part of a ministerial reshuffle, in the immediate few days after she is formally voted in as First Minister at Holyrood on Wednesday. Mr Swinney, who has served as finance secretary since 2007, would be expected to stand in for Ms Sturgeon at the parliament’s First Minister’s Questions, when she is away from Scotland.

    The appointment would mean Mr Swinney was handed the role instead of the newly elected SNP deputy leader Stewart Hosie, who sits as a Nationalist MP at Westminster."

    I found SNP delegates wildly cheering in support of Sturgeon's opposition to Trident peculiarly reminiscent of Labour conferences of the early 1980s. The timing was also bad in view of Russia flexing its armed forces muscle all over the place even sending over obsolete Bear bombers 1980s style to test out the RAF response times.
    This underlines the need for ev4el. It needs to be a discussion between all parts of the uk on devolution not some contemptible back room deal. Before anyone says don't let labour in I should say that my confidence that Cameron wouldn't sell out to the snp for another 5 years is minimal

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    edited November 2014
    OGH Posted new Survation/Daily Record poll tonight that in a revote Scots would vote No 53-47% so not much change. 28% say they never want another vote, 14% want one now, the median answer is after 2024
    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB?lang=en&lang=en&lang=en&lang=en
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    HYUFD said:

    OGH Posted new Survation/Daily Record poll tonight that in a revote Scots would vote No 53-47% so not much change. 28% say they never want another vote, 14% want one now, the median answer is after 2024
    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB?lang=en&lang=en&lang=en&lang=en

    Assuming the tales of family division are accurate (and I have no way of telling) then I would not find 28% not wanting a vote again soon surprising whatever their views on independence. Family division is never pretty and the scars take a long time to heal

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited November 2014
    Interesting — a national newspaper is saying John Baron is most likely to defect. That was my personal guess many weeks ago, not based on anything I'd read or heard elsewhere.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/535878/Six-Tory-MPs-to-defect-to-Ukip-if-it-wins-by-election
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    ZenPagan Indeed, most Scots do not want to go through it all again for at least a decade if ever
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    HYUFD said:

    ZenPagan Indeed, most Scots do not want to go through it all again for at least a decade if ever

    Indepence type referendums will always be this way. Despite its many decrier's we are attached to our "tribes" and feeling runs high. Much more so than a general election where we know the result changes every 5 years potentially.

    Though I would not describe myself as a nationalist or a patriot I know the urge rises to defend my homeland whenever I hear criticism of it no matter how well founded and rational

  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited November 2014
    Believe me, this Indy Referendum caused very real divisions in some families in the latter stages of the campaign. And the result either way was never going to heal the wounds caused by this divisive referendum any time soon.
    ZenPagan said:

    HYUFD said:

    OGH Posted new Survation/Daily Record poll tonight that in a revote Scots would vote No 53-47% so not much change. 28% say they never want another vote, 14% want one now, the median answer is after 2024
    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB?lang=en&lang=en&lang=en&lang=en

    Assuming the tales of family division are accurate (and I have no way of telling) then I would not find 28% not wanting a vote again soon surprising whatever their views on independence. Family division is never pretty and the scars take a long time to heal

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Zen/fitalass Indeed, referendums can be emotionally draining which is probably why most Scots want a rest for now, night
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited November 2014
    Its Sturgeon who has made herself a hostage to fortune by stating clearly that she would not do any deals with the Conservatives in the future at Westminster. Lets hope that she doesn't have to approach or rely on the Scottish Conservatives after the next Holyrood elections as a Leader of a minority SNP administration. If I was Ruth Davidson, I would certainly make it a condition on the part of the Scots Tories that there is some kind of official Coalition agreement rather than a confidence and supply one whereby the SNP can then pretend they managed to govern all on their lonesome like they did last time.

    If the Libdems or the Greens don't improve their respective presentation at Holyrood, then I suspect that the Labour party if they improve, are going to do so solely at the expense of the SNP rather than the Tories. I am sure that the SNP will benefit from Labour voters who voted Yes in the Indy Referendum, but I suspect that they are going to lose far more of those 2011 tactical voters who helped them win a majority, and who then voted No in that very divisive referendum. That is why things could get very interesting after the Scottish elections in 2016.

    The Scots voters are used to fixed term Parliaments, and they have been become extremely canny at tactically voting for different outcomes at both Westminster and Holyrood. I would treat the current SNP surge in the Scottish polls with extreme caution right now, especially bearing in mind the recent media build up to the change of SNP Leader and FM. Its the polls in the spring of 2015 and 2016 as those Westminster and Holyrood election campaigns get under way that will give us a far better idea of the voting mood of the Scots when it matters.
    ZenPagan said:

    fitalass said:

    Indeed Norm, this article might be of interest on the issue of trident.
    Telegraph - SNP: No contradiction to fight Labour then prop up Ed Miliband
    SNIP

    This underlines the need for ev4el. It needs to be a discussion between all parts of the uk on devolution not some contemptible back room deal. Before anyone says don't let labour in I should say that my confidence that Cameron wouldn't sell out to the snp for another 5 years is minimal

  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    fitalass said:

    Its Sturgeon who has made herself a hostage to fortune by stating clearly that she would not do any deals with the Conservatives in the future at Westminster. Lets hope that she doesn't have to approach or rely on the Scottish Conservatives after the next Holyrood elections and Leader of a minority SNP administration. If I was Ruth Davidson, I would certainly make it a condition on the part of the Scots Tories that there is some kind of official Coalition agreement rather than a confidence and supply one whereby the SNP now pretend they managed to govern all on their lonesome last time.

    If the Libdems or the Greens don't improve their respective presentation at Holyrood, then I suspect that the Labour party if they improve, are going to do so solely at the expense of the SNP rather than the Tories. I am sure that the SNP will benefit from Labour voters who voted Yes in the Indy Referendum, but I suspect that they are going to lose far more of those 2011 tactical voters who helped them win a majority, and who then voted No in that very divisive referendum. That is why things could get very interesting after the Scottish elections in 2016.

    The Scots voters are used to fixed term Parliaments, and they have been become extremely canny at tactically voting for different outcomes at both Westminster and Holyrood. I would treat the current SNP surge in the Scottish polls with extreme caution right now bearing in mind the recent media build up to the change of SNP Leader and FM. Its the polls in the spring of 2015 and 2016 as those Westminster and Holyrood election campaigns get under way that will give us a far better idea of voting mood of the Scots when it matters.



    This underlines the need for ev4el. It needs to be a discussion between all parts of the uk on devolution not some contemptible back room deal. Before anyone says don't let labour in I should say that my confidence that Cameron wouldn't sell out to the snp for another 5 years is minimal

    While this no doubt all is true, I have no clear idea of scottish politics. My objections are based solely on the fact that a small part of the UK should not be defining how we move into a more federal structure. Devolution affects every man woman and child of the UK. We should all therefore get a say in the form it takes.

    I fear the snp propping up anyone would result in something advantageous for Scotland (and I would be the first to agree that the scots politicians should be arguing for that) but not so much for wales, northern ireland and england. I do not want any political party selling the rest of the uk down the river for short term advantage. This is not a party issue but a national issue

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    The money has almost dried up completely as far as betting on the Tories in Rochester is concerned:

    http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.115707446
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    I agree with you on this issue, and I understand your frustration as a result. But I would also suggest that until England grasps the nettle and starts becoming far more proactive in the march to an ever more devolved UK, its no surprise that others elsewhere in the UK are going to continue to lead the way by trying to set the terms for their own areas. And I say that as someone who voted No to Devolution back in the 90's as well as No to Independence back in September.
    ZenPagan said:

    fitalass said:

    Its Sturgeon who has made herself a hostage to fortune by stating clearly that she would not do any deals with the Conservatives in the future at Westminster. Lets hope that she doesn't have to approach or rely on the Scottish Conservatives after the next Holyrood elections and Leader of a minority SNP administration. If I was Ruth Davidson, I would certainly make it a condition on the part of the Scots Tories that there is some kind of official Coalition agreement rather than a confidence and supply one whereby the SNP now pretend they managed to govern all on their lonesome last time.

    If the Libdems or the Greens don't improve their respective presentation at Holyrood, then I suspect that the Labour party if they improve, are going to do so solely at the expense of the SNP rather than the Tories. I am sure that the SNP will benefit from Labour voters who voted Yes in the Indy Referendum, but I suspect that they are going to lose far more of those 2011 tactical voters who helped them win a majority, and who then voted No in that very divisive referendum. That is why things could get very interesting after the Scottish elections in 2016.

    The Scots voters are used to fixed term Parliaments, and they have been become extremely canny at tactically voting for different outcomes at both Westminster and Holyrood. I would treat the current SNP surge in the Scottish polls with extreme caution right now bearing in mind the recent media build up to the change of SNP Leader and FM. Its the polls in the spring of 2015 and 2016 as those Westminster and Holyrood election campaigns get under way that will give us a far better idea of voting mood of the Scots when it matters.

    While this no doubt all is true, I have no clear idea of scottish politics. My objections are based solely on the fact that a small part of the UK should not be defining how we move into a more federal structure. Devolution affects every man woman and child of the UK. We should all therefore get a say in the form it takes.

    I fear the snp propping up anyone would result in something advantageous for Scotland (and I would be the first to agree that the scots politicians should be arguing for that) but not so much for wales, northern ireland and england. I do not want any political party selling the rest of the uk down the river for short term advantage. This is not a party issue but a national issue
This discussion has been closed.