Sturgeon sounds (via BBC News 24 live) as if she wants to ratchet up income taxes, and talking up case for living wage in private sector in Scotland. Why not just go the whole hog and set up an incomes policy. Back to the 70s with the SNP's socialist nationalism.
Fertile grounds for a Tory revival in Scotland? (I live in hope).
Hard to work out how risk and reward will work for Scotland with her in charge. Sounded as if she wants to push up taxes regardless of impact on revenues, growth and the health of the private sector. Sound as if she wanted to be more redistributive than SLAB, and The Scottish Greens.
Oh yes I know Marvel comic's version of Odin wasn't terribly true to the legend. He was though a war-god, and as such I'm not going to quibble about what he might wear in his spare time.
If somehow we could talk to a real person of wisdom in times past (say Plato) that they'd surprise us enormously with their views. I don't believe in any god, but if one happened to actually exist I'm sure he'd surprise his happy believers on a few things too.
There's quite a lot of stuff though that if the gods concerned insisted upon once they'd made themselves known in some manifestation that'd lose them support. The human race does have some standards that a god must fulfil - otherwise he just becomes an inconvenient imposter.
Personally I can't see that I would call anything a God that would have any interest in me doing so.
Peter Hitchens had a barney with Benjamin Zephaniah about "what would Jesus do?" regarding the occupation around St Pauls a couple of years ago on QT
BZ said he would be out there with Jenny Jones etc, PH said he wouldn't get involved
Jesus did smash up the moneychangers' tables, but he didn't desecrate the Temple, so he probably wouldn't have got involved. Jesus didn't actually show interest in those able to work, but in those unable to work e.g. blind, lepers, etc.
Not sure if I'm reading it properly, but the Comres numbers imply a 2.5% swing among the sample, with the Lab percentage unchanged from 2010 and the Tories down 5.
So, equivalent to a national vote of Tory 31.9, Lab 29.7 ??
A new poll conducted by ComRes for ITV News reveals that Labour retains its lead over the Conservatives in the forty most marginal seats where the two parties are fighting head-to-head against each other ahead of the General Election next year.
However, Labour’s lead falls from 11 points in September to eight points now. Its potential vote share has fallen two points to 39%, while the Conservatives are on 31%. At the General Election in 2010, the two main parties were tied on 37% across these seats.
The Liberal Democrats are now on 7%, while UKIP are in third place on 18% – suggesting Nigel Farage’s party could play a significant role in determining who comes out top in these crucial battlegrounds.
Con 31% (+1)
Lab 39% (-2)
Lib Dem 7% (+1)
UKIP 18% (+1) Others 4% (-3)
(Figures in brackets show changes from October 2014)
For clarity, this is 25 most marginal (Conservative held) and 15 most marginal (Labour held) so that's something to be aware of when drawing conclusions from it.
That indicates only a 4% swing since the last GE, so not the Tory collapse we were told about a couple of days ago.
Interesting that people have taken 'Jesus' to be the moral view irrespective of their own. It's quite a relief to know that despite the rise of UKIP most people still recognize where the moral compass points.
Is there any evidence that UKIP supporters are more or less religious than other cohorts?
The rise of UKIP coincided with Cameron announcing the introduction of gay "marriage". Difficult to separate things out because Osborne then had his omnishambles budget soon after.
Labour doing better this week is unlikely to be Mylene. More likely, dancing to the Ukip theme on immigration is the reason. Do you approve?
I know it was a joke against those who said it was a disaster for Ed
Did anybody actually say that? Or is it yet another example of someone making something up so they can refute it? One or two examples would be nice as all I can remember is people laughing at Ed 's ineptness.
Funny how this poll and everyone else is talking about Jesus in the past tense. Christians believe that he is of course very much alive, though not 'around' in the corporeal sense.
And England fall short as predicted with poor Bopara once again trying and failing to make up for the fact that 3 of the top 5 batsmen did not get near the required strike rate. Cook really needs to be dropped from this format of the game and be replaced by Hales.
A new poll conducted by ComRes for ITV News reveals that Labour retains its lead over the Conservatives in the forty most marginal seats where the two parties are fighting head-to-head against each other ahead of the General Election next year.
However, Labour’s lead falls from 11 points in September to eight points now. Its potential vote share has fallen two points to 39%, while the Conservatives are on 31%. At the General Election in 2010, the two main parties were tied on 37% across these seats.
The Liberal Democrats are now on 7%, while UKIP are in third place on 18% – suggesting Nigel Farage’s party could play a significant role in determining who comes out top in these crucial battlegrounds.
Con 31% (+1)
Lab 39% (-2)
Lib Dem 7% (+1)
UKIP 18% (+1) Others 4% (-3)
(Figures in brackets show changes from October 2014)
For clarity, this is 25 most marginal (Conservative held) and 15 most marginal (Labour held) so that's something to be aware of when drawing conclusions from it.
That indicates only a 4% swing since the last GE, so not the Tory collapse we were told about a couple of days ago.
The LDs getting 7% in these ConLab marginals is bad news for the LDs. They would hope to be getting a lot lower than the "average" national polling that they are getting to enable them to have much larger shares where it matters.
Funny how this poll and everyone else is talking about Jesus in the past tense. Christians believe that he is of course very much alive, though not 'around' in the corporeal sense.
Jesus, the historical character who lived around 2,000 years ago, is dead. The question is asking people of today what they think said historical character would have thought.
I don't think you can interpret the question any other way.
Funny how this poll and everyone else is talking about Jesus in the past tense. Christians believe that he is of course very much alive, though not 'around' in the corporeal sense.
Jesus, the historical character who lived around 2,000 years ago, is dead. The question is asking people of today what they think said historical character would have thought.
I don't think you can interpret the question any other way.
In any case, Jesus' will is exercised by the Lords Spiritual in the other place.
Interesting that people have taken 'Jesus' to be the moral view irrespective of their own. It's quite a relief to know that despite the rise of UKIP most people still recognize where the moral compass points.
Is there any evidence that UKIP supporters are more or less religious than other cohorts?
The rise of UKIP coincided with Cameron announcing the introduction of gay "marriage". Difficult to separate things out because Osborne then had his omnishambles budget soon after.
Although one of the most prominent 'kippers on this site is also the most strident atheist.
I have one Presbyterian friend who is a UKIP supporter because he believes the EU is Popish, and will attempt to force Catholicism on the UK.
Mitting J will be giving judgment tomorrow at not before 2pm in the joint trial of preliminary issues in the following actions: Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd (TLJ/14/0554) and Rowland v Mitchell MP (TLJ/14/0554). The judgment will determine the meaning of the statements impugned in both actions, the justification defences pleaded by NGN and Mitchell in each action, and the claim pleaded by the claimant in the second action that at all material times Mr Mitchell knew that the allegations complained of by PC Rowland were baseless. It should be noted that even if NGN lose tomorrow, they can still win in the libel action, if their Reynolds defence succeeds. That defence will be tried at a later date, if need be.
Meanwhile the government has become even more authoritarian with the publication of the so-called Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill today. The Bill is full of patronising drivel, including permitting the creation of 'support panels' for individuals 'likely to be drawn into terrorism' (Part 5 , Chapter 2). Other Orwellian provisions are actually despotic. Clause 9(1) of the Bill makes it an offence for a British subject that the Secretary of State doesn't like to return to the United Kingdom. The government is seeking to introduce a power to exile British subjects; a truly outrageous measure. There was a time when the likes of @RichardNabavi used to pretend that this government took the liberty of the subject seriously. No man who values individual liberty can in good conscience vote Conservative.
Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”
“Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.
St. Matthew was a tax collector, St. Luke a doctor. Jesus was a teacher, while Peter, James, John, etc were all in the agricultural sector.
Perfect combination of public and private sector.
James and John were fishermen. Peter's brother, Andrew, was fisherman.
So, hardly agriculture.
agriculture:
"the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products."
Sounds perfectly legitimate to categorise fishing as an agricultural industry.
Funny how this poll and everyone else is talking about Jesus in the past tense. Christians believe that he is of course very much alive, though not 'around' in the corporeal sense.
Jesus, the historical character who lived around 2,000 years ago, is dead. The question is asking people of today what they think said historical character would have thought.
I don't think you can interpret the question any other way.
In any case, Jesus' will is exercised by the Lords Spiritual in the other place.
Interesting that people have taken 'Jesus' to be the moral view irrespective of their own. It's quite a relief to know that despite the rise of UKIP most people still recognize where the moral compass points.
Is there any evidence that UKIP supporters are more or less religious than other cohorts?
The rise of UKIP coincided with Cameron announcing the introduction of gay "marriage". Difficult to separate things out because Osborne then had his omnishambles budget soon after.
Although one of the most prominent 'kippers on this site is also the most strident atheist.
I have one Presbyterian friend who is a UKIP supporter because he believes the EU is Popish, and will attempt to force Catholicism on the UK.
It takes all sorts.
Probably not helped by the appearance of the Pope at the EU parliament yesterday
Interesting that people have taken 'Jesus' to be the moral view irrespective of their own. It's quite a relief to know that despite the rise of UKIP most people still recognize where the moral compass points.
Is there any evidence that UKIP supporters are more or less religious than other cohorts?
YouGov says UKIP supporters are much like the general population.
Interesting that people have taken 'Jesus' to be the moral view irrespective of their own. It's quite a relief to know that despite the rise of UKIP most people still recognize where the moral compass points.
Is there any evidence that UKIP supporters are more or less religious than other cohorts?
The rise of UKIP coincided with Cameron announcing the introduction of gay "marriage". Difficult to separate things out because Osborne then had his omnishambles budget soon after.
Although one of the most prominent 'kippers on this site is also the most strident atheist.
I have one Presbyterian friend who is a UKIP supporter because he believes the EU is Popish, and will attempt to force Catholicism on the UK.
It takes all sorts.
Interestingly, there were parts of New England that supported the American Revolution because they thought the UK government was Popish and could force Catholicism on them.
Not sure if I'm reading it properly, but the Comres numbers imply a 2.5% swing among the sample, with the Lab percentage unchanged from 2010 and the Tories down 5.
So, equivalent to a national vote of Tory 31.9, Lab 29.7 ??
No, they show Lab 2 points up and Con 6 points down, a 4% swing, equivalent to national shares of Lab 31, Con 30.
A new poll conducted by ComRes for ITV News reveals that Labour retains its lead over the Conservatives in the forty most marginal seats where the two parties are fighting head-to-head against each other ahead of the General Election next year.
However, Labour’s lead falls from 11 points in September to eight points now. Its potential vote share has fallen two points to 39%, while the Conservatives are on 31%. At the General Election in 2010, the two main parties were tied on 37% across these seats.
The Liberal Democrats are now on 7%, while UKIP are in third place on 18% – suggesting Nigel Farage’s party could play a significant role in determining who comes out top in these crucial battlegrounds.
Con 31% (+1)
Lab 39% (-2)
Lib Dem 7% (+1)
UKIP 18% (+1) Others 4% (-3)
(Figures in brackets show changes from October 2014)
For clarity, this is 25 most marginal (Conservative held) and 15 most marginal (Labour held) so that's something to be aware of when drawing conclusions from it.
That indicates only a 4% swing since the last GE, so not the Tory collapse we were told about a couple of days ago.
So yet again we get a poll of marginals showing an identical result to national polls - yet lots of people keep getting excited about marginals polling!
NB. That is if the national polls show a Lab lead of 1% - arguably the Lab lead was potentially a bit higher than 1% when SOME of this polling was done due to the UKIP Rochester bounce - if the three polls which came out on Monday were really accurate and not just outliers.
Plus we also don't know that the national position is now back to a 1% Lab lead - we can't be sure of that based on just last night's YouGov - which is only one poll.
Jesus wouldn't get involved in any of these political issues, seeing that he made a point of not getting involved in the politics of his time, when there were much more controversial topics - notably the Roman occupation of Judea - on the table.
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and Render unto God what is God's."
Actually he specifically rebuked the Pharisees and their belief the Messiah would be a violent bloodthirsty liberator and conqueror. Indeed Jesus was far more concerned with defeating the Pharisees than the Romans.
The Pharisees had hoped to trick Jesus with the render question however his reply neither violated Roman nor religious law, being open to interpretation.
Other Orwellian provisions are actually despotic. Clause 9(1) of the Bill makes it an offence for a British subject that the Secretary of State doesn't like to return to the United Kingdom. The government is seeking to introduce a power to exile British subjects; a truly outrageous measure. There was a time when the likes of @RichardNabavi used to pretend that this government took the liberty of the subject seriously. No man who values individual liberty can in good conscience vote Conservative.
For whom should one vote if one takes civil liberties seriously?
Historically, one could hold one's nose and vote Liberal (pre 1983, that is). But now the big parties (and I include UKIP) seem to compete to be 'toughest on terrorism'. I think was a lonely voice of one arguing that the UK government could not - by the merest will of the Home Secretary - strip its citizens of their citizenship.
A new poll conducted by ComRes for ITV News reveals that Labour retains its lead over the Conservatives in the forty most marginal seats where the two parties are fighting head-to-head against each other ahead of the General Election next year.
However, Labour’s lead falls from 11 points in September to eight points now. Its potential vote share has fallen two points to 39%, while the Conservatives are on 31%. At the General Election in 2010, the two main parties were tied on 37% across these seats.
The Liberal Democrats are now on 7%, while UKIP are in third place on 18% – suggesting Nigel Farage’s party could play a significant role in determining who comes out top in these crucial battlegrounds.
Con 31% (+1)
Lab 39% (-2)
Lib Dem 7% (+1)
UKIP 18% (+1) Others 4% (-3)
(Figures in brackets show changes from October 2014)
For clarity, this is 25 most marginal (Conservative held) and 15 most marginal (Labour held) so that's something to be aware of when drawing conclusions from it.
Really it would be better concentrating on the 40 con held marginals which will presumably much closer.
Anyone know what the 25 con held ones show in this?
I agree. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question. Even if we could break it down out of this poll, perhaps the sample size wouldn't be big enough to draw any meaningful conclusions from. I
A new poll conducted by ComRes for ITV News reveals that Labour retains its lead over the Conservatives in the forty most marginal seats where the two parties are fighting head-to-head against each other ahead of the General Election next year.
However, Labour’s lead falls from 11 points in September to eight points now. Its potential vote share has fallen two points to 39%, while the Conservatives are on 31%. At the General Election in 2010, the two main parties were tied on 37% across these seats.
The Liberal Democrats are now on 7%, while UKIP are in third place on 18% – suggesting Nigel Farage’s party could play a significant role in determining who comes out top in these crucial battlegrounds.
Con 31% (+1)
Lab 39% (-2)
Lib Dem 7% (+1)
UKIP 18% (+1) Others 4% (-3)
(Figures in brackets show changes from October 2014)
For clarity, this is 25 most marginal (Conservative held) and 15 most marginal (Labour held) so that's something to be aware of when drawing conclusions from it.
That indicates only a 4% swing since the last GE, so not the Tory collapse we were told about a couple of days ago.
This poll isn't great news for the Tories, but it's not a disaster either. They could lose up to 20 of their most marginal seats held over Labour and, provided they make decent gains from the Lib Dems, stay in government.
Not sure if I'm reading it properly, but the Comres numbers imply a 2.5% swing among the sample, with the Lab percentage unchanged from 2010 and the Tories down 5.
So, equivalent to a national vote of Tory 31.9, Lab 29.7 ??
No, they show Lab 2 points up and Con 6 points down, a 4% swing, equivalent to national shares of Lab 31, Con 30.
Much the same as the latest YG, in fact.
Nick - it's actually equivalent to Lab 32, Con 31 (the GB GE was 37-30).
The poll shows "certainty to vote" as 100% among all 134 UKIP supporters. I'm sceptical - a little random variation is normal. It shows Labour doing better (bigger swing and even a bigger lead) in Tory-held seats than Labour-held seats
Note it's taken over Nov 15-24, so isn't particularly current.
Nick Clegg talking about EU immigrants would need to work for a set amount of time before earning benefits. Presumably this applies to the most expensive benefit of all: the NHS.
Nick Clegg talking about EU immigrants would need to work for a set amount of time before earning benefits. Presumably this applies to the most expensive benefit of all: the NHS.
The poll shows "certainty to vote" as 100% among all 134 UKIP supporters. I'm sceptical - a little random variation is normal. It shows Labour doing better (bigger swing and even a bigger lead) in Tory-held seats than Labour-held seats
Note it's taken over Nov 15-24, so isn't particularly current.
The ultra marginals are still seemingly ultra marginal.
36-37 and 36-38 in the seats with <2% lead for either Con or Lab , with UKIP polling at 17-20%.
Nick Clegg talking about EU immigrants would need to work for a set amount of time before earning benefits. Presumably this applies to the most expensive benefit of all: the NHS.
And education for their children.
Indeed. It's just another case of the Europhile side using misleading or outright lying statements. This is why they're so scared of a referendum: they know a public debate on the EU would show how, despite their claims of the opposite, it's their side that is the one that most distorts the debate.
Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”
“Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.
St. Matthew was a tax collector, St. Luke a doctor. Jesus was a teacher, while Peter, James, John, etc were all in the agricultural sector.
Perfect combination of public and private sector.
James and John were fishermen. Peter's brother, Andrew, was fisherman.
So, hardly agriculture.
agriculture:
"the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products."
Sounds perfectly legitimate to categorise fishing as an agricultural industry.
Soil, crops, animals, farming.
Ager, agri (L) : Field.
Do you decide to disagree and then post any old crap?
Sounds like another transfer payment from us to everyone else. The EU gets more costly every year.
Although it is worth remembering the EU is putting in €16bn, they expect private companies to stump up the other €290-odd billion.
And that €16bn is over five years.
So, we're really talking about €3bn/year. And that depends on finding matching private sector funds.
I am happy to bet they get less than €50bn in total spent, and manage to spend less than €3bn over five years.
Knowing the EU, it will end up with the EU budget - and ultimately the British taxpayer - making up for any shortfall in the private sector contribution.
Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”
“Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.
St. Matthew was a tax collector, St. Luke a doctor. Jesus was a teacher, while Peter, James, John, etc were all in the agricultural sector.
Perfect combination of public and private sector.
James and John were fishermen. Peter's brother, Andrew, was fisherman.
So, hardly agriculture.
agriculture:
"the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products."
Sounds perfectly legitimate to categorise fishing as an agricultural industry.
Soil, crops, animals, farming.
Ager, agri (L) : Field.
Do you decide to disagree and then post any old crap?
I try to Although I concede in the restrictive sense it would probably only apply to fish farms, which probably weren't around back then.
Nick Clegg talking about EU immigrants would need to work for a set amount of time before earning benefits. Presumably this applies to the most expensive benefit of all: the NHS.
It's all rubbish because this would have to apply to UK citizens as well. So if they're going to do it, our welfare system would have to move to a largely contributory system. I just don't see our politicians doing this.
What Clegg won't admit to is that the principles of the EU mean that a British government cannot favour British citizens over citizens of other EU countries. UKIP's world view is that a British government should (and should be able to) favour its citizens over those of other countries. I think that most people in this country would probably think that - certainly for some things, even if they do not support UKIP,
So if we want to make EU citizens work for 5 years (or whatever period is being proposed) before being entitled to in-work benefits, we will have to do the same for British people.
Are Clegg, Cameron, Milliband going to propose that? No. So all their talk on this topic is so much hot air.
Sounds like another transfer payment from us to everyone else. The EU gets more costly every year.
Although it is worth remembering the EU is putting in €16bn, they expect private companies to stump up the other €290-odd billion.
And that €16bn is over five years.
So, we're really talking about €3bn/year. And that depends on finding matching private sector funds.
I am happy to bet they get less than €50bn in total spent, and manage to spend less than €3bn over five years.
Knowing the EU, it will end up with the EU budget - and ultimately the British taxpayer - making up for any shortfall in the private sector contribution.
That's not how this works.
Simplifying slightly, the EIB funds infrastructure projects, using money it borrows from the private sector. For a subset of these, provided it has found adequate outside capital, it can get a subsidy from the EU. The EIB was used heavily to fund infrastructure projects in Eastern Europe following the fall of Communism. In recent years, it has however, failed to find many projects to invest in. (Anyone who's been to Spain, Portugal or Ireland recently will admit that there are few new highways that need building.)
I can't imagine there are that many projects that didn't make sense at £100 cost, which now make sense at £95.
Sounds like another transfer payment from us to everyone else. The EU gets more costly every year.
Although it is worth remembering the EU is putting in €16bn, they expect private companies to stump up the other €290-odd billion.
And that €16bn is over five years.
So, we're really talking about €3bn/year. And that depends on finding matching private sector funds.
I am happy to bet they get less than €50bn in total spent, and manage to spend less than €3bn over five years.
Knowing the EU, it will end up with the EU budget - and ultimately the British taxpayer - making up for any shortfall in the private sector contribution.
That's not how this works.
Simplifying slightly, the EIB funds infrastructure projects, using money it borrows from the private sector. For a subset of these, provided it has found adequate outside capital, it can get a subsidy from the EU. The EIB was used heavily to fund infrastructure projects in Eastern Europe following the fall of Communism. In recent years, it has however, failed to find many projects to invest in. (Anyone who's been to Spain, Portugal or Ireland recently will admit that there are few new highways that need building.)
I can't imagine there are that many projects that didn't make sense at £100 cost, which now make sense at £95.
Nick Clegg talking about EU immigrants would need to work for a set amount of time before earning benefits. Presumably this applies to the most expensive benefit of all: the NHS.
It's all rubbish because this would have to apply to UK citizens as well. So if they're going to do it, our welfare system would have to move to a largely contributory system. I just don't see our politicians doing this.
What Clegg won't admit to is that the principles of the EU mean that a British government cannot favour British citizens over citizens of other EU countries. UKIP's world view is that a British government should (and should be able to) favour its citizens over those of other countries. I think that most people in this country would probably think that - certainly for some things, even if they do not support UKIP,
So if we want to make EU citizens work for 5 years (or whatever period is being proposed) before being entitled to in-work benefits, we will have to do the same for British people.
Are Clegg, Cameron, Milliband going to propose that? No. So all their talk on this topic is so much hot air.
Nick Clegg used to pride himself on being the honest politician, but when it comes to the EU, he just uses every lie and distortion in the book. He doesn't do that for civil liberties or welfare spending, but is prepared to do it for the EU. I'm sure it's not unrelated that he has a six figure EU pension at risk.
Jesus sounds like a classic LD to Labour switcher, so according to our very own OGH the keys to the next election could be in the son of God's hands! The God of the Old Testament though would have certainly switched from the Tories to UKIP!
Mind you, as railways were not even invented when he was on earth and he allowed himself to suffer the death penalty to save all mankind the answers to those questions are a bit perplexing
Judging by the 5.5% swing to Labour in Tory marginals that comres is showing that would give Labour around 315-320 seats without scotland, very close to a majority without any scottish seats.
Judging by the 5.5% swing to Labour in Tory marginals that comres is showing that would give Labour around 315-320 seats without scotland, very close to a majority without any scottish seats.
Jesus sounds like a classic LD to Labour switcher, so according to our very own OGH the keys to the next election could be in the son of God's hands!
Mind you, as railways were not even invented when he was on earth and he allowed himself to suffer the death penalty to save all mankind the answers to those questions are a bit perplexing
It's fascinating that rudimentary forms of both the railway and the steam engine were invented in ancient Greece. Unfortunately, they failed to combine the two.
I’ve spent the afternoon taking the temperature of Labour MPs after their party’s decision to back 100 per cent devolution of income tax to Holyrood. I think it’s fair to say the temperature is at morgue chiller levels.
I have never heard such unremitting gloom from every wing of the Labour Party: front bench, shadow cabinet, backbench, Scottish and English.
Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”
“Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.
St. Matthew was a tax collector, St. Luke a doctor. Jesus was a teacher, while Peter, James, John, etc were all in the agricultural sector.
Perfect combination of public and private sector.
James and John were fishermen. Peter's brother, Andrew, was fisherman.
So, hardly agriculture.
agriculture:
"the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products."
Sounds perfectly legitimate to categorise fishing as an agricultural industry.
Soil, crops, animals, farming.
Ager, agri (L) : Field.
Do you decide to disagree and then post any old crap?
Aquaculture is an important source of protein supply, and is classified (in my industry at least - and I spend a huge amount of time with protein companies) as an agricultural business
From the comres constituency poll, the most significant bit is this:
Tory Held seats: 2010: CON 30, LAB 27, LD 15, did not vote 16 Excluding did not vote: CON 36, LAB 32, LD 18
Now: LAB 39, CON 32, LD 9, UKIP 16
A 5.5% swing to Labour in Tory held seats.
Interestingly in Labour marginals UKIP is doing better, while there isn't much difference with Tory marginals with the big 2 parties:
2010 excluding did not votes: LAB 39, CON 33, LD 13
Now :LAB 40, CON 31, LD 4, UKIP 21
Only a 1.5% swing to Labour in Labour marginals.
Enough for about 37 gains off the Tories I think. Add in 10 Lib Dems and they'd be over 300 MPs. But what about Scotland?
I made the calculation already, they will be very close to a majority even if they don't get a single scottish seat. Fancy Labour winning a majority without scotland will really ruin the SNP's chances for power or influence.
Sounds like another transfer payment from us to everyone else. The EU gets more costly every year.
Although it is worth remembering the EU is putting in €16bn, they expect private companies to stump up the other €290-odd billion.
And that €16bn is over five years.
So, we're really talking about €3bn/year. And that depends on finding matching private sector funds.
I am happy to bet they get less than €50bn in total spent, and manage to spend less than €3bn over five years.
Knowing the EU, it will end up with the EU budget - and ultimately the British taxpayer - making up for any shortfall in the private sector contribution.
That's not how this works.
Simplifying slightly, the EIB funds infrastructure projects, using money it borrows from the private sector. For a subset of these, provided it has found adequate outside capital, it can get a subsidy from the EU. The EIB was used heavily to fund infrastructure projects in Eastern Europe following the fall of Communism. In recent years, it has however, failed to find many projects to invest in. (Anyone who's been to Spain, Portugal or Ireland recently will admit that there are few new highways that need building.)
I can't imagine there are that many projects that didn't make sense at £100 cost, which now make sense at £95.
Can they build HS2 for us? That'd be a boon!
The UK was the fifth largest benificiary of EIB loans (behind Germany, Italy, Spain and France, IIRC) in 2013. And as far as I understand it, there is nothing about the current "plan" (being generous in calling it a plan, tbh) that restricts subsidised projects to Eurozone members, so it is by no means impossible that some of this money does get used for HS2.
However, it's important to remember that all the EIB does is *lend* money for infrastructure projects. It might be slightly more generous in terms of interest rate than Lloyds, but it's still a lender at heart. (I'd also point out the EIB makes a 12% return on deployed equity - rather better than RBS, for example.)
Basically, the Juncker plan is a headline grab to divert attention away from his Luxembourg tax issues. The chances are that the EIB will lend about the same amount in 2015 and 2016 as it did in 2012 and 2013, and that very little EU money will actually be used.
Frankly, a much more sensible thing to have done would have been to have forced the EIB to use its substantial profits (it made €2.5bn last year) to lever up and fund more projects. But that wouldn't have garnered Mr Juncker any headlines.
Jesus sounds like a classic LD to Labour switcher, so according to our very own OGH the keys to the next election could be in the son of God's hands! The God of the Old Testament though would have certainly switched from the Tories to UKIP!
Mind you, as railways were not even invented when he was on earth and he allowed himself to suffer the death penalty to save all mankind the answers to those questions are a bit perplexing
Jesus was a beard and sandals man. We all know who they vote for. Or we used to.
Judging by the 5.5% swing to Labour in Tory marginals that comres is showing that would give Labour around 315-320 seats without scotland, very close to a majority without any scottish seats.
Perhaps I'm confusing swing % with majority %?
It's very simple, a swing to the party that already holds the seat doesn't count when counting gains for that party because they already have the seat, for seat gains you should look at the swing at seats that said party doesn't hold.
Judging by the 5.5% swing to Labour in Tory marginals that comres is showing that would give Labour around 315-320 seats without scotland, very close to a majority without any scottish seats.
Nowhere near enough for Labour at this stage of the Parliament.
Jesus sounds like a classic LD to Labour switcher, so according to our very own OGH the keys to the next election could be in the son of God's hands!
Mind you, as railways were not even invented when he was on earth and he allowed himself to suffer the death penalty to save all mankind the answers to those questions are a bit perplexing
It's fascinating that rudimentary forms of both the railway and the steam engine were invented in ancient Greece. Unfortunately, they failed to combine the two.
The metallurgy of ancient Greece wasn't strong enough for that to have worked.
I’ve spent the afternoon taking the temperature of Labour MPs after their party’s decision to back 100 per cent devolution of income tax to Holyrood. I think it’s fair to say the temperature is at morgue chiller levels.
I have never heard such unremitting gloom from every wing of the Labour Party: front bench, shadow cabinet, backbench, Scottish and English.
Then why should they agree to that? The SNP will raise taxes far higher than Labour to try to implement their socialist-green-nationalist agenda anyway.
From the comres constituency poll, the most significant bit is this .........
A 5.5% swing to Labour in Tory held seats.
Only a 1.5% swing to Labour in Labour marginals.
But is that just random variation?
Tory marginals and Lab marginals will have very similar demographics and other characteristics - as their results in 2010 were very similar - only differing by a very small number of percentage points.
So is it really likely the swing will be 4% higher in one than the other?
Seems incredibly unlikely - and history also suggests not - in practice there never are such massive variations.
Anthony Wells has said repeatedly - all the marginals polling we have had shows a picture effectively identical to the national polls.
Judging by the 5.5% swing to Labour in Tory marginals that comres is showing that would give Labour around 315-320 seats without scotland, very close to a majority without any scottish seats.
Perhaps I'm confusing swing % with majority %?
It's very simple, a swing to the party that already holds the seat doesn't count when counting gains for that party because they already have the seat, for seat gains you should look at the swing at seats that said party doesn't hold.
No no I get that. But I was looking at polling report's Labour targets. They're listed by majority %.
"These seats had Labour and Conservative equal at the last election so an eight point lead here is the equivalent of a four point national swing and a one point Labour lead in national polls…pretty much exactly what the national polls have been showing lately (actually if you look at the crossbreaks of the poll they suggest a swing towards the Conservatives in the Conservative held seats, a swing towards Labour in the Labour held seats, but given the sample size of those two groups and that the poll is only weighted at the level of all forty seats I wouldn’t put too much weight on that)."
From the comres constituency poll, the most significant bit is this .........
A 5.5% swing to Labour in Tory held seats.
Only a 1.5% swing to Labour in Labour marginals.
But is that just random variation?
Tory marginals and Lab marginals will have very similar demographics and other characteristics - as their results in 2010 were very similar - only differing by a very small number of percentage points.
So is it really likely the swing will be 4% higher in one than the other?
Seems incredibly unlikely - and history also suggests not - in practice there never are such massive variations.
Anthony Wells has said repeatedly - all the marginals polling we have had shows a picture effectively identical to the national polls.
If Labour isn't rising at all in their seats, they have to rise disproportionately in seats they do not hold, in order for the national polls to be correct. Comres is showing exactly that, and the westminster by elections also show that the Labour vote is mostly stagnant in their own seats.
The UK was the fifth largest benificiary of EIB loans (behind Germany, Italy, Spain and France, IIRC) in 2013. And as far as I understand it, there is nothing about the current "plan" (being generous in calling it a plan, tbh) that restricts subsidised projects to Eurozone members, so it is by no means impossible that some of this money does get used for HS2.
However, it's important to remember that all the EIB does is *lend* money for infrastructure projects. It might be slightly more generous in terms of interest rate than Lloyds, but it's still a lender at heart. (I'd also point out the EIB makes a 12% return on deployed equity - rather better than RBS, for example.)
Basically, the Juncker plan is a headline grab to divert attention away from his Luxembourg tax issues. The chances are that the EIB will lend about the same amount in 2015 and 2016 as it did in 2012 and 2013, and that very little EU money will actually be used.
Frankly, a much more sensible thing to have done would have been to have forced the EIB to use its substantial profits (it made €2.5bn last year) to lever up and fund more projects. But that wouldn't have garnered Mr Juncker any headlines.
The fifth largest beneficiary despite being the third largest economy? Again, it just shows how we get screwed out of our fair share.
The EU is a strange game. The only way to win is not to play.
From the comres constituency poll, the most significant bit is this .........
A 5.5% swing to Labour in Tory held seats.
Only a 1.5% swing to Labour in Labour marginals.
But is that just random variation?
Tory marginals and Lab marginals will have very similar demographics and other characteristics - as their results in 2010 were very similar - only differing by a very small number of percentage points.
So is it really likely the swing will be 4% higher in one than the other?
Seems incredibly unlikely - and history also suggests not - in practice there never are such massive variations.
Anthony Wells has said repeatedly - all the marginals polling we have had shows a picture effectively identical to the national polls.
I'd disagree with that. It may well be that in Labour held seats there is a degree of complacency - Labour won last time, surely they could lose this time? That's a little dangerous but in Tory held seats it probably feels like all to play for.
"These seats had Labour and Conservative equal at the last election so an eight point lead here is the equivalent of a four point national swing and a one point Labour lead in national polls…pretty much exactly what the national polls have been showing lately (actually if you look at the crossbreaks of the poll they suggest a swing towards the Conservatives in the Conservative held seats, a swing towards Labour in the Labour held seats, but given the sample size of those two groups and that the poll is only weighted at the level of all forty seats I wouldn’t put too much weight on that)."
"they suggest a swing towards the Conservatives in the Conservative held seats" Has Wells done a mistake? If Labour are ahead by 7% in Tory marginals that is surely not a swing to the Tories in Tory marginals since the last election.
Sturgeon sounds (via BBC News 24 live) as if she wants to ratchet up income taxes, and talking up case for living wage in private sector in Scotland. Why not just go the whole hog and set up an incomes policy. Back to the 70s with the SNP's socialist nationalism.
Fertile grounds for a Tory revival in Scotland? (I live in hope).
Hard to work out how risk and reward will work for Scotland with her in charge. Sounded as if she wants to push up taxes regardless of impact on revenues, growth and the health of the private sector. Sound as if she wanted to be more redistributive than SLAB, and The Scottish Greens.
I’ve spent the afternoon taking the temperature of Labour MPs after their party’s decision to back 100 per cent devolution of income tax to Holyrood. I think it’s fair to say the temperature is at morgue chiller levels.
I have never heard such unremitting gloom from every wing of the Labour Party: front bench, shadow cabinet, backbench, Scottish and English.
Then why should they agree to that? The SNP will raise taxes far higher than Labour to try to implement their socialist-green-nationalist agenda anyway.
Mr Murphy is being reported today as pushing for 50% income tax top rate, even if EWNI does not. Which makes me wonder how much longer he will be the darling of some PB Tories - and of his very Tory constituency. He has to survive there one year before he can get a MSP seat, unless he engineers a resignation and by-election in Holyrood, or has one engineered for him.
Comments
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mps/?f=csv
They provide a spreadsheet with all MPs, without caveat on their usage.
Edit - updated to a better link
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GRSbr0EYYU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FC1yTKvAGQ
Well that works...
http://show.nojam.com/a66/search.php
I was hoping for more detailed info, but I guess I'll have to keep looking.
Perhaps she might care to address the issue of falling life expectancies.
Are they falling?
If somehow we could talk to a real person of wisdom in times past (say Plato) that they'd surprise us enormously with their views. I don't believe in any god, but if one happened to actually exist I'm sure he'd surprise his happy believers on a few things too.
There's quite a lot of stuff though that if the gods concerned insisted upon once they'd made themselves known in some manifestation that'd lose them support. The human race does have some standards that a god must fulfil - otherwise he just becomes an inconvenient imposter.
Personally I can't see that I would call anything a God that would have any interest in me doing so.
IDS is the new messiah? Curing the sick and making the dead attend interviews?
Or is he just a very naughty boy?
Discuss.
The office addresses and contact details should be.
MP
Palace of Westminster
London, SW1A 0AA
Scots tables. http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/life-expectancy/life-expectancy-at-scotland-level/scottish-interim-life-tables
It looks as if there has an improvement - but it is lower than rates for England.
http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//statistics/life-expectancy-areas-in-scotland/2011-2013/le-areas-scotland-2011-13.pdf
Looks as if I posted in haste. There are improvements.
So, equivalent to a national vote of Tory 31.9, Lab 29.7 ??
I don't think you can interpret the question any other way.
So, hardly agriculture.
I have one Presbyterian friend who is a UKIP supporter because he believes the EU is Popish, and will attempt to force Catholicism on the UK.
It takes all sorts.
Meanwhile the government has become even more authoritarian with the publication of the so-called Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill today. The Bill is full of patronising drivel, including permitting the creation of 'support panels' for individuals 'likely to be drawn into terrorism' (Part 5 , Chapter 2). Other Orwellian provisions are actually despotic. Clause 9(1) of the Bill makes it an offence for a British subject that the Secretary of State doesn't like to return to the United Kingdom. The government is seeking to introduce a power to exile British subjects; a truly outrageous measure. There was a time when the likes of @RichardNabavi used to pretend that this government took the liberty of the subject seriously. No man who values individual liberty can in good conscience vote Conservative.
I'll get my coat...
"the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products."
Sounds perfectly legitimate to categorise fishing as an agricultural industry.
UKIP: 50% religious, 47% not
UK: 45% religious, 51% not.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/27/ukip-greens-and-new-politics-protest/
Much the same as the latest YG, in fact.
NB. That is if the national polls show a Lab lead of 1% - arguably the Lab lead was potentially a bit higher than 1% when SOME of this polling was done due to the UKIP Rochester bounce - if the three polls which came out on Monday were really accurate and not just outliers.
Plus we also don't know that the national position is now back to a 1% Lab lead - we can't be sure of that based on just last night's YouGov - which is only one poll.
The Pharisees had hoped to trick Jesus with the render question however his reply neither violated Roman nor religious law, being open to interpretation.
Historically, one could hold one's nose and vote Liberal (pre 1983, that is). But now the big parties (and I include UKIP) seem to compete to be 'toughest on terrorism'. I think was a lonely voice of one arguing that the UK government could not - by the merest will of the Home Secretary - strip its citizens of their citizenship.
I
The poll shows "certainty to vote" as 100% among all 134 UKIP supporters. I'm sceptical - a little random variation is normal.
It shows Labour doing better (bigger swing and even a bigger lead) in Tory-held seats than Labour-held seats
Note it's taken over Nov 15-24, so isn't particularly current.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30205776
Sounds like another transfer payment from us to everyone else. The EU gets more costly every year.
36-37 and 36-38 in the seats with <2% lead for either Con or Lab , with UKIP polling at 17-20%.
Ager, agri (L) : Field.
Do you decide to disagree and then post any old crap?
And that €16bn is over five years.
So, we're really talking about €3bn/year. And that depends on finding matching private sector funds.
I am happy to bet they get less than €50bn in total spent, and manage to spend less than €3bn over five years.
What Clegg won't admit to is that the principles of the EU mean that a British government cannot favour British citizens over citizens of other EU countries. UKIP's world view is that a British government should (and should be able to) favour its citizens over those of other countries. I think that most people in this country would probably think that - certainly for some things, even if they do not support UKIP,
So if we want to make EU citizens work for 5 years (or whatever period is being proposed) before being entitled to in-work benefits, we will have to do the same for British people.
Are Clegg, Cameron, Milliband going to propose that? No. So all their talk on this topic is so much hot air.
SW Devon: Win Scutt
C Devon: Andy Williamson
Newton Abbot: Steven Smyth-Bonfield
twitter.com/bigbuzzard/status/537639725688160256?cn=cmVwbHk%3D
http://www.facebook.com/SouthDevonGreenParty
Simplifying slightly, the EIB funds infrastructure projects, using money it borrows from the private sector. For a subset of these, provided it has found adequate outside capital, it can get a subsidy from the EU. The EIB was used heavily to fund infrastructure projects in Eastern Europe following the fall of Communism. In recent years, it has however, failed to find many projects to invest in. (Anyone who's been to Spain, Portugal or Ireland recently will admit that there are few new highways that need building.)
I can't imagine there are that many projects that didn't make sense at £100 cost, which now make sense at £95.
Tory Held seats:
2010: CON 30, LAB 27, LD 15, did not vote 16
Excluding did not vote:
CON 36, LAB 32, LD 18
Now: LAB 39, CON 32, LD 9, UKIP 16
A 5.5% swing to Labour in Tory held seats.
Interestingly in Labour marginals UKIP is doing better, while there isn't much difference with Tory marginals with the big 2 parties:
2010 excluding did not votes:
LAB 39, CON 33, LD 13
Now :LAB 40, CON 31, LD 4, UKIP 21
Only a 1.5% swing to Labour in Labour marginals.
and a Good Evening to all PB's irrespective of party.
Did we ever find out commissioned it?
Mind you, as railways were not even invented when he was on earth and he allowed himself to suffer the death penalty to save all mankind the answers to those questions are a bit perplexing
Fancy Labour winning a majority without scotland will really ruin the SNP's chances for power or influence.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2850589/Controversial-columnist-Katie-Hopkins-sparks-new-wave-revulsion-saying-police-officer-shot-Ferguson-teenager-Michael-Brown-medal.html
However, it's important to remember that all the EIB does is *lend* money for infrastructure projects. It might be slightly more generous in terms of interest rate than Lloyds, but it's still a lender at heart. (I'd also point out the EIB makes a 12% return on deployed equity - rather better than RBS, for example.)
Basically, the Juncker plan is a headline grab to divert attention away from his Luxembourg tax issues. The chances are that the EIB will lend about the same amount in 2015 and 2016 as it did in 2012 and 2013, and that very little EU money will actually be used.
Frankly, a much more sensible thing to have done would have been to have forced the EIB to use its substantial profits (it made €2.5bn last year) to lever up and fund more projects. But that wouldn't have garnered Mr Juncker any headlines.
Then why should they agree to that?
The SNP will raise taxes far higher than Labour to try to implement their socialist-green-nationalist agenda anyway.
Tory marginals and Lab marginals will have very similar demographics and other characteristics - as their results in 2010 were very similar - only differing by a very small number of percentage points.
So is it really likely the swing will be 4% higher in one than the other?
Seems incredibly unlikely - and history also suggests not - in practice there never are such massive variations.
Anthony Wells has said repeatedly - all the marginals polling we have had shows a picture effectively identical to the national polls.
"These seats had Labour and Conservative equal at the last election so an eight point lead here is the equivalent of a four point national swing and a one point Labour lead in national polls…pretty much exactly what the national polls have been showing lately (actually if you look at the crossbreaks of the poll they suggest a swing towards the Conservatives in the Conservative held seats, a swing towards Labour in the Labour held seats, but given the sample size of those two groups and that the poll is only weighted at the level of all forty seats I wouldn’t put too much weight on that)."
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Comres is showing exactly that, and the westminster by elections also show that the Labour vote is mostly stagnant in their own seats.
The EU is a strange game. The only way to win is not to play.
"they suggest a swing towards the Conservatives in the Conservative held seats"
Has Wells done a mistake? If Labour are ahead by 7% in Tory marginals that is surely not a swing to the Tories in Tory marginals since the last election.
The SNP will raise taxes far higher than Labour to try to implement their socialist-green-nationalist agenda anyway.
Mr Murphy is being reported today as pushing for 50% income tax top rate, even if EWNI does not. Which makes me wonder how much longer he will be the darling of some PB Tories - and of his very Tory constituency. He has to survive there one year before he can get a MSP seat, unless he engineers a resignation and by-election in Holyrood, or has one engineered for him.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/murphy-vows-to-increase-taxes-on-the-rich-if-he-becomes-fm.25965709
http://wingsoverscotland.com/another-rise-in-inflation/