Isam when you say great bet this is paddy power who are a joke !!
Agreed. Since my handsome winnings at the 2011 Holyrood elections they have limited my max stake to a pathetic sum. Last time I tried to place a long-odds bet they allowed me 89 p. Eighty flippin nine new pence. What a bunch of jokers.
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
Well, it's not entirely unusual that British football fans take an interest in continental football.
But what is laugh out loud funny about your post is that it imagines a Britain completely free of EU immigrants and their descendants.
How did Napoli do, BTW?
I have no idea how Napoli did and I don't care. Do you really think that the British Broadcasting Corporation should be giving more attention to the Italian club scores than the England youth teams? Or even giving them any attention at all? We have immigrants from probably every country in the world, should the BBC devote resources to reporting the football results from all of them?
Well, they are paying for their licence free like (almost) everyone else.
It seems multicultural Britain isn't to your taste when it is your interests that are affected.
So you actually think that the BBC should cover the sport from every home nation of every single license payer?
That's an utterly insane idea.
I should add that if they can do it for free by letting foreign sports fans update their foreign sports pages, I'd be quite happy for that to happen.
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
Well, it's not entirely unusual that British football fans take an interest in continental football.
But what is laugh out loud funny about your post is that it imagines a Britain completely free of EU immigrants and their descendants.
How did Napoli do, BTW?
I have no idea how Napoli did and I don't care. Do you really think that the British Broadcasting Corporation should be giving more attention to the Italian club scores than the England youth teams? Or even giving them any attention at all? We have immigrants from probably every country in the world, should the BBC devote resources to reporting the football results from all of them?
Well, they are paying for their licence free like (almost) everyone else.
It seems multicultural Britain isn't to your taste when it is your interests that are affected.
So you actually think that the BBC should cover the sport from every home nation of every single license payer?
That's an utterly insane idea.
There are more than enough immigrants in this country that would be interested, thanks to an immigration policy you support.
Obolition of the BBC would solve any problems, of course.
Which immigration policy have you decided that I support?
I've been very open on here about my difficulties with supporting and opposing the immigration policies of all the parties. I don't want want open borders, but if we had the sort of points system I might support then most of the friends I've made over the last seven years in London wouldn't be here. I'm confused about it all.
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
I noticed last week that the BBC didn't bother to even show the live scores of the England u18, u19, and u20 games going on that night. But they do manage to keep us up to date with the Greek and Finnish league games. WTF?
Do they still cover African football in depth? Just to make themselves feel better and "with it".
They don't seem to cover any of their club football, thankfully, but I'm pretty sure they'll go big on the Africa Nations Cup. At least that's international football, but why should it get better coverage than the England youth teams?
Because England youth football is crap, and boring, and generally speaking, unnewsworthy.
Dianne Abbott is standing as independent for London Mayor on a ticket of sticking up for immigrants according to LBC. I guess she'll pick up a chunk of the Labour vote and the Tory will win. Hope so...
Diane Abbott says she is intending to put herself forward to become Labour's candidate for Mayor of London in 2016.
The MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington told ITV London she would run as a "genuinely independent candidate" who would oppose "anti-immigrant propaganda".
Dianne Abbott is standing as independent for London Mayor on a ticket of sticking up for immigrants according to LBC. I guess she'll pick up a chunk of the Labour vote and the Tory will win. Hope so...
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
Well, it's not entirely unusual that British football fans take an interest in continental football.
But what is laugh out loud funny about your post is that it imagines a Britain completely free of EU immigrants and their descendants.
How did Napoli do, BTW?
I have no idea how Napoli did and I don't care. Do you really think that the British Broadcasting Corporation should be giving more attention to the Italian club scores than the England youth teams? Or even giving them any attention at all? We have immigrants from probably every country in the world, should the BBC devote resources to reporting the football results from all of them?
Well, they are paying for their licence free like (almost) everyone else.
It seems multicultural Britain isn't to your taste when it is your interests that are affected.
So you actually think that the BBC should cover the sport from every home nation of every single license payer?
That's an utterly insane idea.
It coves foreign sport which is of interest to its readers, like the rest of the media does.
Likewise it covers foreign news which is of interest to its readers.
... the effects of immigrants... on the potential wage rates of the unemployed and who is benefiting from this lower cost... globalisation was mentioned... We can only charge our UK rate in export markets if we continue to be ahead in the technology race... the general standard of UK graduates is declining along with the standard of UK education, whilst that those from Asia is increasing...
Education & Immigration issues reflect a fundamental dilemma. Long-term vs short-term, and which to prioritise.
I suggest that long term, globalised markets benefit the most people worldwide. Technological, educational & industrial gaps narrow, increasing efficiencies, creating wealth. Developing countries are improving rapidly.
But the process is highly disruptive. Whether defined narrowly (companies), broadly (sectors), or more broadly (nations & demographic groups), protectionist policies (e.g. restricting immigration) are of short-term benefit to vested interests. So UKIP has an audience.
Longer term, the pressure should wash out as the cohort changes. However, "in the long-term everyone's dead"! Politicians face short terms of office with short-term electoral pressures. Also, goverments arguably have a duty to the current electorate as well as to the long-term future of the country.
But protectionism is damaging, reducing incentives for the population to change to match prevailing conditions, reducing long-term ability to generate wealth. This would be fine if every country did likewise (effectively creating hundreds of mini-worlds) but the material & human resources we need to maintain our current way of life are spread globally. Increasing global economic interaction is inevitable; we cannot escape that. The more it's delayed, the worse the outcome. This is your point on education, writ large.
But long-termism is cold comfort to those suffering now. UKIP's immigration policy could alleviate current distress at the expense of rebalancing. There are dog whistles to their appeal too, but the overt protectionism is still the most broadly seductive.
Labour has a tendency to intervene more widely than Tories & LibDems, but all three have moved to a broadly liberalised economic approach with their differences being far less than their agreement. At least, when compared to UKIP or the Greens. The established parties are correct in that, but I don't know how to sell such a long-term solution to the significant minority of the electorate who don't think they feel the benefits of globalisation. They're there - they wouldn't have the same material comforts & quality of life without it - but there's also real pressure.
Public spending was the narcotic to manage the transition but deficits mean that it's wearing off. I hope that the centre of political gravity remains in favour of liberalisation for long enough for the benefits to re-establish themselves.
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
Well, it's not entirely unusual that British football fans take an interest in continental football.
But what is laugh out loud funny about your post is that it imagines a Britain completely free of EU immigrants and their descendants.
How did Napoli do, BTW?
I have no idea how Napoli did and I don't care. Do you really think that the British Broadcasting Corporation should be giving more attention to the Italian club scores than the England youth teams? Or even giving them any attention at all? We have immigrants from probably every country in the world, should the BBC devote resources to reporting the football results from all of them?
Well, they are paying for their licence free like (almost) everyone else.
It seems multicultural Britain isn't to your taste when it is your interests that are affected.
So you actually think that the BBC should cover the sport from every home nation of every single license payer?
That's an utterly insane idea.
I should add that if they can do it for free by letting foreign sports fans update their foreign sports pages, I'd be quite happy for that to happen.
Very big of you.
Now return their licence fees.
That's just nonsense, and you must know it.
Why should immigrants have an equal say over the news of the nation they've moved to? If it applies to sport it should equally to every other bit of news. The news would go on forever.
If you want italian football, or any other news, google it yourself. FFS if we follow your argument why shouldn't the BBC news be read in the language of every immigrant who's paid a license fee?
JonnyJim NI payments go into the tax pot which provides revenue for state pensions and JSA, but everyone who has contributed NI is entitled to revenue from that tax pot
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
Well, it's not entirely unusual that British football fans take an interest in continental football.
But what is laugh out loud funny about your post is that it imagines a Britain completely free of EU immigrants and their descendants.
How did Napoli do, BTW?
I have no idea how Napoli did and I don't care. Do you really think that the British Broadcasting Corporation should be giving more attention to the Italian club scores than the England youth teams? Or even giving them any attention at all? We have immigrants from probably every country in the world, should the BBC devote resources to reporting the football results from all of them?
Well, they are paying for their licence free like (almost) everyone else.
It seems multicultural Britain isn't to your taste when it is your interests that are affected.
So you actually think that the BBC should cover the sport from every home nation of every single license payer?
That's an utterly insane idea.
It coves foreign sport which is of interest to its readers, like the rest of the media does.
Likewise it covers foreign news which is of interest to its readers.
What's the problem with that ?
Finnish league football, but not english (or welsh, Scottish, or n.irish) youth football?
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
I suspect this will be absurdly cheap television for the BBC.
Danny565 The Tory seat of Dumfrieshire, the only 1 in Scotland is by no means superwealthy but full of farmers, the Tory Scottish vote is based on rural areas not the very rich otherwise central Edinburgh would still have a Tory seat. Indeed, multimillionaire Scots like Sir George Mathewson and Brian Souter now vote SNP
Anyone know how many people in Dumfriesshire constituency either come from or work in England ?
On both counts it must have one of the highest percentages in Scotland and both groups would certainly be more favourable to the Conservatives than the average Scottish voter.
Dianne Abbott is standing as independent for London Mayor on a ticket of sticking up for immigrants according to LBC. I guess she'll pick up a chunk of the Labour vote and the Tory will win. Hope so...
So that's Tessa Jowell, Saddiq Khan and Dianne Abbott.
Blimey. There's not much unity in the London Labour party.
JonnyJim NI payments go into the tax pot which provides revenue for state pensions and JSA, but everyone who has contributed NI is entitled to revenue from that tax pot
Wouldn't it be more sensible if those NI payments were going into an actual pot to pay for what they're meant to pay for, rather than being just a part of general taxation?
If they're not going in to a real pot then it would be far more honest to call NI what it is - income tax, and to abolish employers' NI which is just a tax on employment.
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
Well, it's not entirely unusual that British football fans take an interest in continental football.
But what is laugh out loud funny about your post is that it imagines a Britain completely free of EU immigrants and their descendants.
How did Napoli do, BTW?
?
Well, they are paying for their licence free like (almost) everyone else.
It seems multicultural Britain isn't to your taste when it is your interests that are affected.
So you actually think that the BBC should cover the sport from every home nation of every single license payer?
That's an utterly insane idea.
There are more than enough immigrants in this country that would be interested, thanks to an immigration policy you support.
Obolition of the BBC would solve any problems, of course.
Which immigration policy have you decided that I support?
I've been very open on here about my difficulties with supporting and opposing the immigration policies of all the parties. I don't want want open borders, but if we had the sort of points system I might support then most of the friends I've made over the last seven years in London wouldn't be here. I'm confused about it all.
Hopefully you can explain to me what I believe.
Well, you've upset the ethnic minority kipper support on this site and those kippers who have ethnic minority wives and mixed race children with your smearing last night.
Today's sample of wisdom is taxing ethnic minorities for broadcasting services and begrudging them a few football results from back home.
If you want to make friends with foreigners try visiting their home countries, rather than saying how wonderful it is that they've displaced the natives in London.
You seem to not care about the native victims of such policies until you become such a victim yourself. Your comments on football results, though admittedly trivial, show this attitude.
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
I suspect this will be absurdly cheap television for the BBC.
Would it cost them much to report on the home nations' international youth teams?
But the absurd cheapness of the exercise doesn't explain why the main feature on the BBC home page is all about foreign football. In what way is that servicing this nation's broadcasting needs?
JonnyJim NI payments go into the tax pot which provides revenue for state pensions and JSA, but everyone who has contributed NI is entitled to revenue from that tax pot
Wouldn't it be more sensible if those NI payments were going into an actual pot to pay for what they're meant to pay for, rather than being just a part of general taxation?
If they're not going in to a real pot then it would be far more honest to call NI what it is - income tax, and to abolish employers' NI which is just a tax on employment.
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
Well, it's not entirely unusual that British football fans take an interest in continental football.
But what is laugh out loud funny about your post is that it imagines a Britain completely free of EU immigrants and their descendants.
How did Napoli do, BTW?
I have no idea how Napoli did and I don't care. Do you really think that the British Broadcasting Corporation should be giving more attention to the Italian club scores than the England youth teams? Or even giving them any attention at all? We have immigrants from probably every country in the world, should the BBC devote resources to reporting the football results from all of them?
Well, they are paying for their licence free like (almost) everyone else.
It seems multicultural Britain isn't to your taste when it is your interests that are affected.
So you actually think that the BBC should cover the sport from every home nation of every single license payer?
That's an utterly insane idea.
I should add that if they can do it for free by letting foreign sports fans update their foreign sports pages, I'd be quite happy for that to happen.
Very big of you.
Now return their licence fees.
That's just nonsense, and you must know it.
Why should immigrants have an equal say over the news of the nation they've moved to? If it applies to sport it should equally to every other bit of news. The news would go on forever.
If you want italian football, or any other news, google it yourself. FFS if we follow your argument why shouldn't the BBC news be read in the language of every immigrant who's paid a license fee?
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
Well, it's not entirely unusual that British football fans take an interest in continental football.
But what is laugh out loud funny about your post is that it imagines a Britain completely free of EU immigrants and their descendants.
How did Napoli do, BTW?
I have no idea how Napoli did and I don't care. Do you really think that the British Broadcasting Corporation should be giving more attention to the Italian club scores than the England youth teams? Or even giving them any attention at all? We have immigrants from probably every country in the world, should the BBC devote resources to reporting the football results from all of them?
Well, they are paying for their licence free like (almost) everyone else.
It seems multicultural Britain isn't to your taste when it is your interests that are affected.
So you actually think that the BBC should cover the sport from every home nation of every single license payer?
That's an utterly insane idea.
It coves foreign sport which is of interest to its readers, like the rest of the media does.
Likewise it covers foreign news which is of interest to its readers.
What's the problem with that ?
Finnish league football, but not english (or welsh, Scottish, or n.irish) youth football?
I think that's a problem.
If the BBC are going to give the results of some European leagues they might as well do them all. It probably helps with their worldwide reach or 'ambassador for Britain' image.
Now if you're saying that the BBC should give UK youth football results as well you may have a point.
But I don't see what's to be gained by the BBC providing less info than it does at present.
Well, you've upset the ethnic minority kipper support on this site and those kippers who have ethnic minority wives and mixed race children with your smearing last night.
Today's sample of wisdom is taxing ethnic minorities for broadcasting services and begrudging them a few football results from back home.
If you want to make friends with foreigners try visiting their home countries, rather than saying how wonderful it is that they've displaced the natives in London.
You seem to not care about the native victims of such policies until you become such a victim yourself. Your comments on football results, though admittedly trivial, show this attitude.
If pointing out that racists are most likely to support UKIP these days upsets anyone then they ought to grow more of a spine and be a little less naive.
If pointing out that CREAM count second generation immigrants as immigrants until their sixteenth birthday is upsetting anyone then ditto.
When have I said that immigrants displacing London natives is wonderful? I just said that most of my friends I met in London were immigrants.
I think you're another of those ashamed that the party you support is now the home of BNP racists. You're going to have to get used to that if you're going to stay a kipper.
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
Well, it's not entirely unusual that British football fans take an interest in continental football.
But what is laugh out loud funny about your post is that it imagines a Britain completely free of EU immigrants and their descendants.
How did Napoli do, BTW?
I have no idea how Napoli did and I don't care. Do you really think that the British Broadcasting Corporation should be giving more attention to the Italian club scores than the England youth teams? Or even giving them any attention at all? We have immigrants from probably every country in the world, should the BBC devote resources to reporting the football results from all of them?
Well, they are paying for their licence free like (almost) everyone else.
It seems multicultural Britain isn't to your taste when it is your interests that are affected.
So you actually think that the BBC should cover the sport from every home nation of every single license payer?
That's an utterly insane idea.
It coves foreign sport which is of interest to its readers, like the rest of the media does.
Likewise it covers foreign news which is of interest to its readers.
What's the problem with that ?
Finnish league football, but not english (or welsh, Scottish, or n.irish) youth football?
I think that's a problem.
If the BBC are going to give the results of some European leagues they might as well do them all. It probably helps with their worldwide reach or 'ambassador for Britain' image.
Now if you're saying that the BBC should give UK youth football results as well you may have a point.
But I don't see what's to be gained by the BBC providing less info than it does at present.
I criticised the BBC for having European club football as its main homepage story, and then I raised the fact that they gave the Finnish and Greek leagues prominence over home nations' youth teams.
Are either of those unreasonable criticisms of the BBC?
Well, you've upset the ethnic minority kipper support on this site and those kippers who have ethnic minority wives and mixed race children with your smearing last night.
Today's sample of wisdom is taxing ethnic minorities for broadcasting services and begrudging them a few football results from back home.
If you want to make friends with foreigners try visiting their home countries, rather than saying how wonderful it is that they've displaced the natives in London.
You seem to not care about the native victims of such policies until you become such a victim yourself. Your comments on football results, though admittedly trivial, show this attitude.
If pointing out that racists are most likely to support UKIP these days upsets anyone then they ought to grow more of a spine and be a little less naive.
If pointing out that CREAM count second generation immigrants as immigrants until their sixteenth birthday is upsetting anyone then ditto.
When have I said that immigrants displacing London natives is wonderful? I just said that most of my friends I met in London were immigrants.
I think you're another of those ashamed that the party you support is now the home of BNP racists. You're going to have to get used to that if you're going to stay a kipper.
I was in the Yougov survey on the children of immigrants. The choice was: immigrant, British or both. I went for both.
Clearly Ninoinoz feels dual heritage, and I do too concerning my migrant grandparents. I see this as an addition rather than a subtraction.
AnotherRichard Indeed, it has no secret that Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, another rural, borders seat was the other Scottish constituency gained by the Tories since 1997
"I wonder what Labour's election strategy in Scotland will be."
A tricky one as the SNP have stolen all Labour's clothes and decided that centre left is what the Scots like so that's what they'll be. Their positioning for the referendum was masterful. A campaign that Mandelson Campbell and Gould couldn't have bettered at the height of their powers.
In terms of strategy it's difficult. My own feeling is that Nicola has one or two weaknesses that a new front line Labour leader might be able to expose.
"Their positioning for the referendum was masterful. A campaign that Mandelson Campbell and Gould couldn't have bettered at the height of their powers."
So good in fact, that they lost
I disagree. A year from the referendum, nobody would have given the YES 45%.
But the slight uptick in SCON fortunes has probably resulted from Sturgeon parking her tanks in George Square.
Er, what uptick, please? The time-averaged data shown here the other day showed a decline in SCON vote polling from about 21 to 17 or 18% since the summer - which surprised me, I stress.
JonnyJimmy I agree, NI should be ringfenced back to its original purpose but if you merged it into income tax you would have to make a requirement that those who have contributed above a certain threshold of income tax only get the state pension and contributory JSA
Time to delurk Will be classed as PB Tory Born raised Edinburgh...now in Yorkshire Psychiatrist by trade...some PBers pique my professional interest!
SNP are and will remain strong in NE Scotland a No area.Do not think anyone will have them losing any of their current seats. Bar Kennedy and Orkney SNP likely to sweep all LD Scottish seats. SNP likely to be ahead in votes at GE but not by current margin...Murphy is competent first rank politician and will rally SLAB to a modest extent. SNP and SLAB will have similar seat numbers. Tories have shot at couple of gains in Scotland eg Borders,Aberdeenshire, Edinburgh West.
Anyone too rude to me liable to be sectioned!
Greetings!
Not convinced by Norman Lambs mental health promises, or just dreading the cosh of targets that hits the rest of us?
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
Well, it's not entirely unusual that British football fans take an interest in continental football.
But what is laugh out loud funny about your post is that it imagines a Britain completely free of EU immigrants and their descendants.
How did Napoli do, BTW?
I have no idea how Napoli did and I don't care. Do you really think that the British Broadcasting Corporation should be giving more attention to the Italian club scores than the England youth teams? Or even giving them any attention at all? We have immigrants from probably every country in the world, should the BBC devote resources to reporting the football results from all of them?
Well, they are paying for their licence free like (almost) everyone else.
It seems multicultural Britain isn't to your taste when it is your interests that are affected.
So you actually think that the BBC should cover the sport from every home nation of every single license payer?
That's an utterly insane idea.
It coves foreign sport which is of interest to its readers, like the rest of the media does.
Likewise it covers foreign news which is of interest to its readers.
What's the problem with that ?
Finnish league football, but not english (or welsh, Scottish, or n.irish) youth football?
I think that's a problem.
If the BBC are going to give the results of some European leagues they might as well do them all. It probably helps with their worldwide reach or 'ambassador for Britain' image.
Now if you're saying that the BBC should give UK youth football results as well you may have a point.
But I don't see what's to be gained by the BBC providing less info than it does at present.
I criticised the BBC for having European club football as its main homepage story, and then I raised the fact that they gave the Finnish and Greek leagues prominence over home nations' youth teams.
Are either of those unreasonable criticisms of the BBC?
The main story right now is Man City's win over Southampton.
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
If it's any consolation, English football is big news in pretty nationalist countries like China, where I've often been asked which team I support. Countries reporting on each others' sporting events seems a pretty mild form of multiculturalism, costing I'd guess about 1p/year per viewer.
Time to delurk Will be classed as PB Tory Born raised Edinburgh...now in Yorkshire Psychiatrist by trade...some PBers pique my professional interest!
SNP are and will remain strong in NE Scotland a No area.Do not think anyone will have them losing any of their current seats. Bar Kennedy and Orkney SNP likely to sweep all LD Scottish seats. SNP likely to be ahead in votes at GE but not by current margin...Murphy is competent first rank politician and will rally SLAB to a modest extent. SNP and SLAB will have similar seat numbers. Tories have shot at couple of gains in Scotland eg Borders,Aberdeenshire, Edinburgh West.
Anyone too rude to me liable to be sectioned!
Greetings!
Not convinced by Norman Lambs mental health promises, or just dreading the cosh of targets that hits the rest of us?
I skimmed that as "Norman Lambs mental health problems" and did a double-take! Was thinking of Norman Baker, of course.
Ideally Jim Murphy would like to enter the Scottish parliament before 2016 and have a by-election to coincide with the May general election. It's not ideal for him to be in Westminster for the next 17 months given Scottish politics right now. There's been some speculation that Ken MacIntosh MSP for Eastwood could make way and try to swap roles with Jim - they cover corresponding patches in both parliaments. However the trouble is that MacIntosh only beat the Conservatives here by 2000 in 2011 and the SNP were about 4900 behind and would be in contention.
The SNP would launch the mother of all assaults on an Eastwood by-election and while I'd fancy Murphy to win out, it could be too close for comfort. The idea that a new Scottish Labour leader could politically survive losing in this context is pretty much unthinkable. Jim's given up a lotat Westminster and end up with no seat at all in either parliament in just 5 years would possibly be a gamble too far. So unless he finds another more favourable seat to aim for then it'd be likely he sits in Westminster until May 2016 and rely on the climate improving.
Not just the SNP - the RIC (Greens, Socialists, etc.) would also pile in (as they did for indyref).
There is of course the resentment of voters at being asked to vote "unnecessarily", just to enable such a stitchup. Which could hit both Messrs Murphy and Macintosh.
And even if Mr Murphy waits till the 2016 Holyrood election, he is then in the position of asking his constituents next May 2015 to vote for someone who is likely to jack it in in a year's time.
This would also depend on his deputy in Holyrood being willing to resign - because of the requirement, de facto or de jure, of the leader being either MP or MSP, and the deputy the reverse.
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
If it's any consolation, English football is big news in pretty nationalist countries like China, where I've often been asked which team I support. Countries reporting on each others' sporting events seems a pretty mild form of multiculturalism, costing I'd guess about 1p/year per viewer.
It's very kind of you to try to console me, but it doesn't justify why the bbc's first story on its home page is European club football matches.
Nor does it explain why Finnish and Greek club games get prominence over home nations' international youth teams on the BBC website.
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
Well, it's not entirely unusual that British football fans take an interest in continental football.
But what is laugh out loud funny about your post is that it imagines a Britain completely free of EU immigrants and their descendants.
How did Napoli do, BTW?
I have no idea how Napoli did and I don't care. Do you really think that the British Broadcasting Corporation should be giving more attention to the Italian club scores than the England youth teams? Or even giving them any attention at all? We have immigrants from probably every country in the world, should the BBC devote resources to reporting the football results from all of them?
Well, they are paying for their licence free like (almost) everyone else.
It seems multicultural Britain isn't to your taste when it is your interests that are affected.
So you actually think that the BBC should cover the sport from every home nation of every single license payer?
That's an utterly insane idea.
It coves foreign sport which is of interest to its readers, like the rest of the media does.
Likewise it covers foreign news which is of interest to its readers.
What's the problem with that ?
Finnish league football, but not english (or welsh, Scottish, or n.irish) youth football?
I think that's a problem.
If the BBC are going to give the results of some European leagues they might as well do them all. It probably helps with their worldwide reach or 'ambassador for Britain' image.
Now if you're saying that the BBC should give UK youth football results as well you may have a point.
But I don't see what's to be gained by the BBC providing less info than it does at present.
I criticised the BBC for having European club football as its main homepage story, and then I raised the fact that they gave the Finnish and Greek leagues prominence over home nations' youth teams.
Are either of those unreasonable criticisms of the BBC?
The main story right now is Man City's win over Southampton.
Maybe on the sports page (depressingly for this saints fan) but not on the BBC home page
GE15 is almost impossible to call anyway. Not just SNP but also UKIP and LibDem numbers.
It's odds-on to be no overall majority and I believe it is also odds-on to be no majority with only one partner. The numbers just aren't there.
The choice is between a rainbow coalition (with SNP and LibDem ministers in order to qualify as a coalition) or a minority government. It's going to be a right mess on 8th May.
There are going to be immediate leadership bids in at least two parties but also the markets (Sterling and FTSE) are going to tank if they haven't already done so because of the uncertainty.
This is why it is impossible to call. If the LibDems and SNP have done their homework with Labour then a Labour coalition may be possible. The problem there is the delayed Clegg leadership challenge. I don't see a Conservative/UKIP/LibDem coalition being possible. My guess is a temporary Labour minority government with C&S support from SNP and LibDems until they sort themselves out.
Just back from a long weekend at the Metrocentre for Christmas shopping. Some may remember we have been doing this as a family trip for just over 20 years now.
Very mixed messages I would say. My perception is that there are currently more empty units in the Metrocentre than I have ever seen, even more than last year which was probably the previous record. Some, such as the La Senza outlet, have clearly been empty for some considerable time now.
But the footfall today in particular was incredible. It took us 1hr 20 minutes to get out of the car park in the yellow sector this afternoon, having made the mistake of parking on the top floor. Whether that footfall is generating sales is harder to judge. The Black Friday nonsense certainly gave a lot of shops the opportunities to have major sales in what is supposed to be their most profitable part of the year. There will be yet more casualties in retail in Jan/Feb as a result. Only the very strongest brands, such as Apple and Superdry were able to hold themselves aloof.
The Metrocentre has edged downmarket a little over the years with far fewer designer labels and almost no remaining free standing stores with chains completely dominant. I remember the glory days of the late 80s when boatloads of Scandinavians would indulge in feeding frenzies over designer jumpers and high quality goods. Today is nothing like that. It feels much more domestic and I would be very confident the average spend is down substantially.
A bit more money around but the lack of real wage growth is apparent. One big difference from last year is that then a remarkable number of shops were looking for staff. This year almost none.
I still wonder (hope???) that the LD's will sort out something imaginative and popular after Christmas.As someone upthread suggested, it almost seems as though they're happy to put the pedal to the metal and head straight for the wall!
Not sure what happens in England, but in Scotland, close family members have specific minimum legal rights to inherit, irrespective of the testator's wishes, though they can renounce them, or choose between their legal rights and what is on offer in the will. However, this only applies to part of the estate. Scotland was the last country in the world to abandon Norman feudal law, and there is still a distinction between heritable property (real estate, etc.) and movable (cash, chattels, etc.) as I know from recently acting as an executor. It would seem that the legal rights of children, etc., to a share of the estate only apply to moveable property, and the heritable property can be left as the testator wishes.
Politics in Scotland is even more polarised than it is in England. There are large geographical areas of Scotland where Labour has rarely been in contention out with the cities and central belt. The South of Scotland is Tory v LibDem or Tory v Labour battlegrounds. Even in 2011 the SNP couldn't displace the 2 Tory MSPs or the 1 Labour MSP.
The SNP anti-nuclear policy will hurt them in Argyll where a large part of the constituency around Helensburgh is dependent on Trident and Faslane. I would think that realistically there are around 25 seats where SLAB and the SNP will fight it out and in 5 of them, an evenly split vote will let the Tories through the middle.
In 2010 there were 412,000 Scottish Tory voters but they were too evenly spread across the country. It will be interesting to see how many LibDems who were previously Tory before 1997 or 1987 will return to the Tory fold.
Henry Manson talked about Jim Murphy serving 15 months as an MP. The view is that if Jim wins the leadership in a fortnight, he will stand down in May and then spend a year outside Parliament working to win the 2016 election.
There would be a huge risk in him and Ken MacIntosh trying to swap seats. For a start they are now very different seats. In 2011 most people expected Jackson Carlaw to retake the Holyrood seat because Barrhead, the strongest Labour part of the seat had been removed and put into one of the Renfrewshire seats. I have lots of friends and family who live in the seat and they all see both Murphy and MacIntosh as basically Tories in a Labour wrapping. In 1992 it was the safest Tory seat with a majority of over 11,000 and would have remained Tory had the local association not descended into rather nasty infighting.
The SNP land reform plans are out and out class warfare. Pure and simple. They see landowners as evil and plan to have 1 million acres taken into public ownership by 2020.
Most of Scotland's large estates are located in the Highlands and Islands or the Southern Uplands. They are one of the largest sources of employment and a key to the survival of fragile, isolated rural estates. In recent years they have been diversifying by building small hydro electric power schemes, wind farms and tourism (especially eco-tourism) businesses. These estates need to continue to pass to a sole heir, regardless of what the politically correct think. A great many which remain in the hands of the same families who have administered them since the time of David I simply cannot be sustainable unless the unit size remains large. You rarely hear the locals demand them be broken up. Indeed recently the SNP got a bloody nose when its footsoldiers pushed and pushed for estates owned by the Queen's cousin Earl Granville to be compulsory purchased. When it came to the vote forced on the local tenants, they voted substantially to keep the status quo. He happens to be a very good landlord as indeed most all.
Henry Manson talked about Jim Murphy serving 15 months as an MP. The view is that if Jim wins the leadership in a fortnight, he will stand down in May and then spend a year outside Parliament working to win the 2016 election. [...]
On one point please: does not the Scottish Labour leader have to be a MP or MSP? IN which case standing down from Parliament would automatically disqualify him.
GE15 is almost impossible to call anyway. Not just SNP but also UKIP and LibDem numbers.
It's odds-on to be no overall majority and I believe it is also odds-on to be no majority with only one partner. The numbers just aren't there.
The choice is between a rainbow coalition (with SNP and LibDem ministers in order to qualify as a coalition) or a minority government. It's going to be a right mess on 8th May.
There are going to be immediate leadership bids in at least two parties but also the markets (Sterling and FTSE) are going to tank if they haven't already done so because of the uncertainty.
This is why it is impossible to call. If the LibDems and SNP have done their homework with Labour then a Labour coalition may be possible. The problem there is the delayed Clegg leadership challenge. I don't see a Conservative/UKIP/LibDem coalition being possible. My guess is a temporary Labour minority government with C&S support from SNP and LibDems until they sort themselves out.
"GE15 is almost impossible to call anyway. Not just SNP but also UKIP and LibDem numbers.
It's odds-on to be no overall majority and I believe it is also odds-on to be no majority with only one partner. The numbers just aren't there."
Agreed. We will have a PR result with FPTP. The biggest party to govern as a minority ?
Election again in October or in one year ?
The elephant in the room will be another recession or even deflation !
Mr Lamb is a well meaning nice gentlemam who appears to forget he is the Minister responsible for mental health.
Instances only marginally less extreme than the young lady in police custody for 48hrs awaiting a bed are commonplace daily in relation to mental health services and the search for inpatient beds. Distress is compounded for individuals and their families when they are sent hundreds of miles from home.
Greetings!
Not convinced by Norman Lambs mental health promises, or just dreading the cosh of targets that hits the rest of us?
Carnyx He is asking to be elected leader of Scottish Labour ie representing both Westminster and Holyrood MPs and MSPs, so he can legitimately stand for Westminster first in 2015 then Holyrood in 2016. As the seats is basically the same for both he will still have most of the same constituents
GE15 is almost impossible to call anyway. Not just SNP but also UKIP and LibDem numbers.
It's odds-on to be no overall majority and I believe it is also odds-on to be no majority with only one partner. The numbers just aren't there.
The choice is between a rainbow coalition (with SNP and LibDem ministers in order to qualify as a coalition) or a minority government. It's going to be a right mess on 8th May.
There are going to be immediate leadership bids in at least two parties but also the markets (Sterling and FTSE) are going to tank if they haven't already done so because of the uncertainty.
This is why it is impossible to call. If the LibDems and SNP have done their homework with Labour then a Labour coalition may be possible. The problem there is the delayed Clegg leadership challenge. I don't see a Conservative/UKIP/LibDem coalition being possible. My guess is a temporary Labour minority government with C&S support from SNP and LibDems until they sort themselves out.
"GE15 is almost impossible to call anyway. Not just SNP but also UKIP and LibDem numbers.
It's odds-on to be no overall majority and I believe it is also odds-on to be no majority with only one partner. The numbers just aren't there."
Agreed. We will have a PR result with FPTP. The biggest party to govern as a minority ?
Election again in October or in one year ?
The elephant in the room will be another recession or even deflation !
The real opposition is now made up of UKIP, the SNP and the Greens, Labour is becoming ever more irrelevant and boring.
Carnyx He is asking to be elected leader of Scottish Labour ie representing both Westminster and Holyrood MPs and MSPs, so he can legitimately stand for Westminster first in 2015 then Holyrood in 2016. As the seats is basically the same for both he will still have most of the same constituents
I think you may have misunderstood my point (or I was not clear enough). Mr Easterross seemed to raise the possibility that Mr Murphy stands down at GE2015 as a MP, and then stands for election at Holyrood in May 2016. But losing his MP (edit: or MSP), for a year, status would automatically disqualify him as SLAB leader, no?
Is the ComRes phone poll for November still missing in action? There's less than three hours to go!
It should be out tomorrow, technically it will be a November poll as the fieldwork ends tonight.
Thanks!
The average of the other phone polls for November gives the Conservatives a slender lead, so I've been impatiently waiting for ComRes to complete the set for the month.
Not sure what happens in England, but in Scotland, close family members have specific minimum legal rights to inherit, irrespective of the testator's wishes, though they can renounce them, or choose between their legal rights and what is on offer in the will. However, this only applies to part of the estate. Scotland was the last country in the world to abandon Norman feudal law, and there is still a distinction between heritable property (real estate, etc.) and movable (cash, chattels, etc.) as I know from recently acting as an executor. It would seem that the legal rights of children, etc., to a share of the estate only apply to moveable property, and the heritable property can be left as the testator wishes.
I still wonder (hope???) that the LD's will sort out something imaginative and popular after Christmas.As someone upthread suggested, it almost seems as though they're happy to put the pedal to the metal and head straight for the wall!
Yes, it does seem bizarre. Almost suicidal. The irony is that they still cling to the belief that they will keep 40 seats. I think it will be more like 25.
But the LDs are losing because of their part in the coalition. Nobody is thanking them except bizarrely by their biggest enemy, the Tories. Yet, if it had not been for UKIP, the Tories would be looking for their elusive majority.
So why does joining the coalition hurt the Lib Dems but not the Tories ? Why is Clegg such a teflon character. I saw Kennedy on QT the other day. A Giant amongst pygmies in that party.
Is the ComRes phone poll for November still missing in action? There's less than three hours to go!
It should be out tomorrow, technically it will be a November poll as the fieldwork ends tonight.
Thanks!
The average of the other phone polls for November gives the Conservatives a slender lead, so I've been impatiently waiting for ComRes to complete the set for the month.
I'm really looking forward to this ComRes phone poll, it should be the first ComRes phone poll to prompt for UKIP.
GE15 is almost impossible to call anyway. Not just SNP but also UKIP and LibDem numbers.
It's odds-on to be no overall majority and I believe it is also odds-on to be no majority with only one partner. The numbers just aren't there.
The choice is between a rainbow coalition (with SNP and LibDem ministers in order to qualify as a coalition) or a minority government. It's going to be a right mess on 8th May.
There are going to be immediate leadership bids in at least two parties but also the markets (Sterling and FTSE) are going to tank if they haven't already done so because of the uncertainty.
This is why it is impossible to call. If the LibDems and SNP have done their homework with Labour then a Labour coalition may be possible. The problem there is the delayed Clegg leadership challenge. I don't see a Conservative/UKIP/LibDem coalition being possible. My guess is a temporary Labour minority government with C&S support from SNP and LibDems until they sort themselves out.
"GE15 is almost impossible to call anyway. Not just SNP but also UKIP and LibDem numbers.
It's odds-on to be no overall majority and I believe it is also odds-on to be no majority with only one partner. The numbers just aren't there."
Agreed. We will have a PR result with FPTP. The biggest party to govern as a minority ?
Election again in October or in one year ?
The elephant in the room will be another recession or even deflation !
The real opposition is now made up of UKIP, the SNP and the Greens, Labour is becoming ever more irrelevant and boring.
Carnyx He is asking to be elected leader of Scottish Labour ie representing both Westminster and Holyrood MPs and MSPs, so he can legitimately stand for Westminster first in 2015 then Holyrood in 2016. As the seats is basically the same for both he will still have most of the same constituents
The seats are now nowhere near the same. Remember in Scotland we have 59 Westminster FPTP seats and 73 Holyrood FPTP seats.
If Murphy sought re-election in May and then stood down a year later, the constituents would be pretty pissed off.
I think Henry Manson's tip some weeks ago may prove a good one. Neil Findlay has the solid union support and his manifesto is unreconstructed old Labour, promising nationalisation of the railways and goodness knows what else.
Two interesting new posters on the same thread. Good to see.
I think if he wins Jim Murphy really has to find a way into Holyrood. He needs to be seen to be challenging Sturgeon on a level playing field as soon as possible. There are also quite a number of difficult issues for the SNP which were put into the long grass during the never ending referendum. Some difficult choices will need to be made and the Labour leader really has to be there to challenge those choices.
Carnyx He is asking to be elected leader of Scottish Labour ie representing both Westminster and Holyrood MPs and MSPs, so he can legitimately stand for Westminster first in 2015 then Holyrood in 2016. As the seats is basically the same for both he will still have most of the same constituents
The seats are now nowhere near the same. Remember in Scotland we have 59 Westminster FPTP seats and 73 Holyrood FPTP seats.
If Murphy sought re-election in May and then stood down a year later, the constituents would be pretty pissed off.
I think Henry Manson's tip some weeks ago may prove a good one. Neil Findlay has the solid union support and his manifesto is unreconstructed old Labour, promising nationalisation of the railways and goodness knows what else.
Murphy has a big lead among MPs and MSPs, Findlay has a big lead in recommendations (not necessarily votes) from the unions. Hard to predict the membership but without any great insight personally I expect Murphy to win by a clear margin.
While we're talking about Scotland. I still really don't understand how the SNP's heartland of heartlands is the North East of Scotland, when that is one of the most anti-independence regions? Surely anti-Tory tactical voting can only explain part of it.
Carnyx He is asking to be elected leader of Scottish Labour ie representing both Westminster and Holyrood MPs and MSPs, so he can legitimately stand for Westminster first in 2015 then Holyrood in 2016. As the seats is basically the same for both he will still have most of the same constituents
The seats are now nowhere near the same. Remember in Scotland we have 59 Westminster FPTP seats and 73 Holyrood FPTP seats.
If Murphy sought re-election in May and then stood down a year later, the constituents would be pretty pissed off.
I think Henry Manson's tip some weeks ago may prove a good one. Neil Findlay has the solid union support and his manifesto is unreconstructed old Labour, promising nationalisation of the railways and goodness knows what else.
Would it have not made sense for all Westminster MPs to have also been MSPs with everything else PR/List or whatever? I guess there is a good constitutional reason why, but given the already half baked devolution I can't see that it matters much. It must be something :abour are regretting now.
GE15 is almost impossible to call anyway. Not just SNP but also UKIP and LibDem numbers.
It's odds-on to be no overall majority and I believe it is also odds-on to be no majority with only one partner. The numbers just aren't there.
The choice is between a rainbow coalition (with SNP and LibDem ministers in order to qualify as a coalition) or a minority government. It's going to be a right mess on 8th May.
There are going to be immediate leadership bids in at least two parties but also the markets (Sterling and FTSE) are going to tank if they haven't already done so because of the uncertainty.
This is why it is impossible to call. If the LibDems and SNP have done their homework with Labour then a Labour coalition may be possible. The problem there is the delayed Clegg leadership challenge. I don't see a Conservative/UKIP/LibDem coalition being possible. My guess is a temporary Labour minority government with C&S support from SNP and LibDems until they sort themselves out.
"GE15 is almost impossible to call anyway. Not just SNP but also UKIP and LibDem numbers.
It's odds-on to be no overall majority and I believe it is also odds-on to be no majority with only one partner. The numbers just aren't there."
Agreed. We will have a PR result with FPTP. The biggest party to govern as a minority ?
Election again in October or in one year ?
The elephant in the room will be another recession or even deflation !
The real opposition is now made up of UKIP, the SNP and the Greens, Labour is becoming ever more irrelevant and boring.
.......And in government !
The LibDems, who you voted for in 2010 and will no doubt vote for again in 2015, are in government. There's a decent chance that the UK will never have to endure a Labour government ever again.
Cracking first post, ChokinVase! Agree with every word.
On this morning's post, the important issue is to distinguish where UKIP support has come from with where they would be in the absence of UKIP. Specifically: both big parties have different layers of support. Think of them like the traditional concept of electrons around an atom. The outermost shell is the most floaty of their support and the easiest to pull away; the innermost comprise the core vote.
Last time around, the Labour atom was denuded to its innermost shell. UKIP pulling 'electrons' away from that implies that it's drawing some of the most aligned Labour core. This is a direct cost to Labour by UKIP.
The Conservative atom had some outermost shells consisting of the floatier 'electrons' - albeit not as much as they'd wanted (some of the floatier 'electrons' were trapped by the roaming Lib Dem atom, but have since undergone a major ionisation process!). In the absence of the UKIP atom attracting them, it would be assumed that the floatier 'electrons' would have diffused back to the Labour atom. This is viewed as a cost to the Conservatives by UKIP (2010 Conservative support -> UKIP), but is arguably a cost to Labour.
There's also certainly an effect of UKIP pulling 'electrons' from the Conservative core shells as well, which is correctly viewed as a cost to the Conservatives.
The trick, however, is on judging the level of effect of the middle of these. We view only the first as a cost to Labour and the second and third together as a cost to the Tories; in reality, only the first and third should be assigned directly - the middle one is highly arguable.
Nick there is no doubt Jim Murphy would be Nicola Sturgeon's most formidable opponent from among the 3 SLAB candidates. However he is widely regarded as a red Tory and I suspect he would not win back to Labour those who voted YES and those from Labour's bedrock support who have flocked to the SNP since 18th September.
Remember 1 in 50 Scots is now a member of the SNP and those 80,000 new recruits have not come from among former Tory voters who voted 98+% NO.
I still wonder (hope???) that the LD's will sort out something imaginative and popular after Christmas.As someone upthread suggested, it almost seems as though they're happy to put the pedal to the metal and head straight for the wall!
Yes, it does seem bizarre. Almost suicidal. The irony is that they still cling to the belief that they will keep 40 seats. I think it will be more like 25.
But the LDs are losing because of their part in the coalition. Nobody is thanking them except bizarrely by their biggest enemy, the Tories. Yet, if it had not been for UKIP, the Tories would be looking for their elusive majority.
So why does joining the coalition hurt the Lib Dems but not the Tories ? Why is Clegg such a teflon character. I saw Kennedy on QT the other day. A Giant amongst pygmies in that party.
I think that it has hurt the Tories too, the right of the Tories is breaking away to UKIP as treacherous pig-dogs both in and out of the party.
If the public are going to punish both coalition partners in such a way then anything other than a working majority is going to be chaos next year. It is much safer to stand in the saloon bar pint in hand sniping ayt the government, than be the ones burning the midnight oil to keep government functioning.
I'm guessing from my earlier brief reprisal of my argument last night that BNP racists will be voting kipper and from the lack of vitriolic reaction to it, that our resident kippers have realised and accepted that they are now the natural home for the uk's white racists.
For the record again, I still don't think that UKIP is a racist party, nor am I accusing any of the kippers here of being racist.
I would though be interested to know if you're all yet comfortable with that fact. FFS Nick Griffin is now, as far as it matters, a recruiting sergeant for your party. Has Nige yet told him to eff off?
Mr Lamb is a well meaning nice gentlemam who appears to forget he is the Minister responsible for mental health.
Instances only marginally less extreme than the young lady in police custody for 48hrs awaiting a bed are commonplace daily in relation to mental health services and the search for inpatient beds. Distress is compounded for individuals and their families when they are sent hundreds of miles from home.
Greetings!
Not convinced by Norman Lambs mental health promises, or just dreading the cosh of targets that hits the rest of us?
Just back from a long weekend at the Metrocentre for Christmas shopping. Some may remember we have been doing this as a family trip for just over 20 years now.
Very mixed messages I would say. My perception is that there are currently more empty units in the Metrocentre than I have ever seen, even more than last year which was probably the previous record. Some, such as the La Senza outlet, have clearly been empty for some considerable time now.
But the footfall today in particular was incredible. ....
Fair points. But how good a judge is it? (leaving aside 'freaky fridays') If we are not waiting in at home for a delivery we are collecting things for neighbours. In an increasingly on-line age are 'metrocentres' past their sell by date? Retail outlets may not be, but they are different. My sister is still waxing lyrical about buying a £60 coat in Atlantic Village for £4 and seeing it somewhere else for £25 a few weeks later. I gather the body count at Bicester Village last week has been downgraded to only 95.
I live near the largest mall south of DC and east of Dallas. My wife tried to drive past it this morning and even the interstate exit was backed up with mall traffic. Black Friday traffic was even worse by all accounts.
I make it a rule never to go to a mall between Thanksgiving and New Year.
If the public are going to punish both coalition partners in such a way then anything other than a working majority is going to be chaos next year. It is much safer to stand in the saloon bar pint in hand sniping ayt the government, than be the ones burning the midnight oil to keep government functioning.
Great isn't it? I'm hoping for a Labour-SNP coalition.
I still wonder (hope???) that the LD's will sort out something imaginative and popular after Christmas.As someone upthread suggested, it almost seems as though they're happy to put the pedal to the metal and head straight for the wall!
Yes, it does seem bizarre. Almost suicidal. The irony is that they still cling to the belief that they will keep 40 seats. I think it will be more like 25.
But the LDs are losing because of their part in the coalition. Nobody is thanking them except bizarrely by their biggest enemy, the Tories. Yet, if it had not been for UKIP, the Tories would be looking for their elusive majority.
So why does joining the coalition hurt the Lib Dems but not the Tories ? Why is Clegg such a teflon character. I saw Kennedy on QT the other day. A Giant amongst pygmies in that party.
I think that it has hurt the Tories too, the right of the Tories is breaking away to UKIP as treacherous pig-dogs both in and out of the party.
If the public are going to punish both coalition partners in such a way then anything other than a working majority is going to be chaos next year. It is much safer to stand in the saloon bar pint in hand sniping ayt the government, than be the ones burning the midnight oil to keep government functioning.
The possibilities are:
Con, LD: I believe no chance of a majority
Con, UKIP, DUP. Only if the numbers add up. But the inner tension [ between LD and COn ] will assert itself this time. Last time the coalition became an issue after the elections.
Lab, LD: I believe no chance of a majority
Lab, LD, [ Green, SDLP ] with SNP support: Theoretically possible but the SNP as the only real winner. Even demanding another referendum date which Labour will have to say No.
That will be music to Sturgeon in the Labour heartlands portraying Labour in the same way as the Tories were portrayed a quarter of a century back. The English party !
She might even call for an unilateral referendum. This time naming Euro as the alternative currency. Sterling will have taken a tumble by then.
Grand coalition ? We do not have the precedent except in war time. But the public may demand one and get to like it. The Germans only have Grand coalitions when they have no other alternative.
I'm guessing from my earlier brief reprisal of my argument last night that BNP racists will be voting kipper and from the lack of vitriolic reaction to it, that our resident kippers have realised and accepted that they are now the natural home for the uk's white racists.
For the record again, I still don't think that UKIP is a racist party, nor am I accusing any of the kippers here of being racist.
I would though be interested to know if you're all yet comfortable with that fact. FFS Nick Griffin is now, as far as it matters, a recruiting sergeant for your party. Has Nige yet told him to eff off?
Easterross The seats overlap and Murphy could be an MP and an MSP until 2020. If voters want a left of SNP party they will vote Green, if voters want a nationalist party they will vote SNP, Labour needs to be the main party of unionists as the Liberals became in Quebec
Charles Kennedy's towering reputation and respect among opponents of the LDs isn't universally shared within the party. He was a reasonable Party President and the only SDP MP to publicly endorse the Merger. I entertained big hopes for him as a future leader and actually had a pleasant drink with him one evening at Conference in the mid-90s.
I was delighted to vote for Charles as Leader in 1999 - he was the obvious choice. His tenure looks to be successful on the surface but for much of the leadership and certainly from 2002 onward we only had one policy - opposition to the Iraq War. It was the right policy then and was a welcome contrast to the Conservatives under IDS who were even more pro-war than Blair's Labour Party. Policy development in other areas atrophied or drifted into a benign acceptance of the Blairite consensus.
The Tories walked to the edge of the abyss in October 2003 but unfortunately stepped back by dumping IDS and choosing Howard who did nothing other than rally the core Conservative vote which meant in 2005 the LDs didn't get much return from our opposition to Iraq.
And then came Cameron and to be honest the LDs had no answer to his telegenic family man who suddenly started sounding, well, liberal. After the easy ride from the likes of IDS, Howard and Hague, the LDs had a real threat in a Conservative leader who sounded like a Lib Dem and frankly the party panicked.
Kennedy became in short order a liability and the party's response to a liberal-sounding young Conservative was to go for an older conservative-sounding liberal in Sir Menzies Campbell. Oddly enough, this was probably a good response but the Party didn't have the courage to give Campbell enough time to settle into the role. Ultimately, the feeling was we had to out-Cameron Cameron and to that question Nick Clegg was the only answer.
I'm increasingly of the view the party could and should have stuck with Sir Menzies. There'd have been no Cleggasm but Sir Menzies brought gravitas to the table and I think would have been a better leader in 2010 - could he have done a deal with Cameron ? Many will say he would naturally have sided with Brown but I'm not convinced.
It's a counterfactual I might one day explore on alternatehistory.com ("For Want of A Pension", I might call it) but one thing Campbell did do was to revive the Party's policy-making process and for all that he failed to sparkle initially at PMQs, as William Hague's experience showed, that doesn't always matter.
Diane Abbott says she is intending to put herself forward to become Labour's candidate for Mayor of London in 2016.
The MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington told ITV London she would run as a "genuinely independent candidate" who would oppose "anti-immigrant propaganda".
JonnyJimmy I agree, NI should be ringfenced back to its original purpose but if you merged it into income tax you would have to make a requirement that those who have contributed above a certain threshold of income tax only get the state pension and contributory JSA
You have to pay NI to actually qualify for benefits, but pension payments - I think - are still legally bound to come out of NI contributions. Pension payments are paid out of the contributions with a further fund which varies in size to smooth out the ups and downs of this.
So to a degree the NI is already 'ringfenced'. I am not so sure it is a good idea to simply put the NI payments intpo 'txation'.
Just being listening to R5 all about Philip Hughes. The clip of Michael Clarke emotinally talking about him has made me choke up every time.
But.. I don't think it's a reason to change any of the rules of cricket. My dad's a spine surgeon and he's told me that the injury Hughes suffered is only recorded about 100 times in the world every year, and never before in cricket.
I remember enjoying Harmison cutting Ponting's face in 2005 and I wouldn't want the game to lose that because of a freak accident. People die in rugby union scrums far more often (and I nearly did playing hooker for Marlborough town 2nds against Earlstoke prison when I was 18) but I'd never want them banned.
More people die doing three day eventing than do playing cricket, and we cricket fans need to do all we can to ensure that the rules aren't changed
GE15 is almost impossible to call anyway. Not just SNP but also UKIP and LibDem numbers.
It's odds-on to be no overall majority and I believe it is also odds-on to be no majority with only one partner. The numbers just aren't there.
The choice is between a rainbow coalition (with SNP and LibDem ministers in order to qualify as a coalition) or a minority government. It's going to be a right mess on 8th May.
There are going to be immediate leadership bids in at least two parties but also the markets (Sterling and FTSE) are going to tank if they haven't already done so because of the uncertainty.
This is why it is impossible to call. If the LibDems and SNP have done their homework with Labour then a Labour coalition may be possible. The problem there is the delayed Clegg leadership challenge. I don't see a Conservative/UKIP/LibDem coalition being possible. My guess is a temporary Labour minority government with C&S support from SNP and LibDems until they sort themselves out.
"GE15 is almost impossible to call anyway. Not just SNP but also UKIP and LibDem numbers.
It's odds-on to be no overall majority and I believe it is also odds-on to be no majority with only one partner. The numbers just aren't there."
Agreed. We will have a PR result with FPTP. The biggest party to govern as a minority ?
Election again in October or in one year ?
The elephant in the room will be another recession or even deflation !
The real opposition is now made up of UKIP, the SNP and the Greens, Labour is becoming ever more irrelevant and boring.
.......And in government !
The LibDems, who you voted for in 2010 and will no doubt vote for again in 2015, are in government. There's a decent chance that the UK will never have to endure a Labour government ever again.
I have changed my mind completely now on this. I will not vote Lib Dem even tactically. Their cowardice during the Gaza massacre was the final straw.
I will vote Labour. If that means a Tory MP, then so be it. Not much of a difference ! In 10 years, this can be a Labour seat.
I'm guessing from my earlier brief reprisal of my argument last night that BNP racists will be voting kipper and from the lack of vitriolic reaction to it, that our resident kippers have realised and accepted that they are now the natural home for the uk's white racists.
For the record again, I still don't think that UKIP is a racist party, nor am I accusing any of the kippers here of being racist.
I would though be interested to know if you're all yet comfortable with that fact. FFS Nick Griffin is now, as far as it matters, a recruiting sergeant for your party. Has Nige yet told him to eff off?
I'm guessing from my earlier brief reprisal of my argument last night that BNP racists will be voting kipper and from the lack of vitriolic reaction to it, that our resident kippers have realised and accepted that they are now the natural home for the uk's white racists.
For the record again, I still don't think that UKIP is a racist party, nor am I accusing any of the kippers here of being racist.
I would though be interested to know if you're all yet comfortable with that fact. FFS Nick Griffin is now, as far as it matters, a recruiting sergeant for your party. Has Nige yet told him to eff off?
Just being listening to R5 all about Philip Hughes. The clip of Michael Clarke emotinally talking about him has made me choke up every time.
But.. I don't think it's a reason to change any of the rules of cricket. My dad's a spine surgeon and he's told me that the injury Hughes suffered is only recorded about 100 times in the world every year, and never before in cricket.
I remember enjoying Harmison cutting Ponting's face in 2005 and I wouldn't want the game to lose that because of a freak accident. People die in rugby union scrums far more often (and I nearly did playing hooker for Marlborough town 2nds against Earlstoke prison when I was 18) but I'd never want them banned.
More people die doing three day eventing than do playing cricket, and we cricket fans need to do all we can to ensure that the rules aren't changed
"I nearly did playing hooker for Marlborough town 2nds against Earlstoke prison"
Just looked at the BBC's home page and their main feature on it is six pictures of foreign footballers, playing in foreign leagues, and the caption says "European Football: follow Sunday's best games".
Is this what the license fee is supposed to fund?
I suspect this will be absurdly cheap television for the BBC.
Would it cost them much to report on the home nations' international youth teams?
But the absurd cheapness of the exercise doesn't explain why the main feature on the BBC home page is all about foreign football. In what way is that servicing this nation's broadcasting needs?
It would cost peanuts... (and to be fair you were going on about the licence fee) assuming they know its taking place. Look, I am disgusted at the relatively poor coverage the BBC gives to rugby league. But as you look at the BBC's front sports page, its littered with UK sports covrage. The one non-UK item that springs out is NZ v Pakistan cricket. Frankly with the best will in the world i cannot see that as being a pandering to Pakistani Immigrants. it would be there if it was Australia v. South Africa. But if you say the BBC is too big too bloated too spendthrift and too prejudiced (in a range of issues) I would tend to sway to lean towards an inclination in that general direction.
Charles Kennedy's towering reputation and respect among opponents of the LDs isn't universally shared within the party. He was a reasonable Party President and the only SDP MP to publicly endorse the Merger. I entertained big hopes for him as a future leader and actually had a pleasant drink with him one evening at Conference in the mid-90s.
I was delighted to vote for Charles as Leader in 1999 - he was the obvious choice. His tenure looks to be successful on the surface but for much of the leadership and certainly from 2002 onward we only had one policy - opposition to the Iraq War. It was the right policy then and was a welcome contrast to the Conservatives under IDS who were even more pro-war than Blair's Labour Party. Policy development in other areas atrophied or drifted into a benign acceptance of the Blairite consensus.
The Tories walked to the edge of the abyss in October 2003 but unfortunately stepped back by dumping IDS and choosing Howard who did nothing other than rally the core Conservative vote which meant in 2005 the LDs didn't get much return from our opposition to Iraq.
And then came Cameron and to be honest the LDs had no answer to his telegenic family man who suddenly started sounding, well, liberal. After the easy ride from the likes of IDS, Howard and Hague, the LDs had a real threat in a Conservative leader who sounded like a Lib Dem and frankly the party panicked.
Kennedy became in short order a liability and the party's response to a liberal-sounding young Conservative was to go for an older conservative-sounding liberal in Sir Menzies Campbell. Oddly enough, this was probably a good response but the Party didn't have the courage to give Campbell enough time to settle into the role. Ultimately, the feeling was we had to out-Cameron Cameron and to that question Nick Clegg was the only answer.
I'm increasingly of the view the party could and should have stuck with Sir Menzies. There'd have been no Cleggasm but Sir Menzies brought gravitas to the table and I think would have been a better leader in 2010 - could he have done a deal with Cameron ? Many will say he would naturally have sided with Brown but I'm not convinced.
It's a counterfactual I might one day explore on alternatehistory.com ("For Want of A Pension", I might call it) but one thing Campbell did do was to revive the Party's policy-making process and for all that he failed to sparkle initially at PMQs, as William Hague's experience showed, that doesn't always matter.
Kennedy had the guts to carry the anti Iraq position, which was popular but anti-establishment. For all of Cleggasm, Kennedy won you 62 seats.
Menzies would not have sat with the Tories. He was a very close friend of Donald Dewar and almost joined the Labour Party.
Clegg ? A footnote in history. A person who singlehandedly destroyed a party.
Diane Abbott says she is intending to put herself forward to become Labour's candidate for Mayor of London in 2016.
The MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington told ITV London she would run as a "genuinely independent candidate" who would oppose "anti-immigrant propaganda".
Rather rude and unnecessary. She only confirmed it at today's regional conference. The Morning Star piece said this:
'LABOUR will lose the next London mayoral election if its candidate is a "glass puppet for the party machine," Diane Abbott yesterday told the Star as she prepared to announce her candidacy for mayor. The firebrand left-winger will make "a firm declaration of intent" to delegates at Labour's London regional conference tomorrow.'
Media outside the MS briefing reported it this evening.
Matthew Ford and Rob Goodwin will be interviewed on tonight's Westminster Hour on Radio 4, (which has just started).
Which got me to thinking. Radio 4 has many interesting and informative programs. Presumably this means people listen to them at home.
Here the assumption on the part of programmers is that if you're listening to radio you're in your car. The only radio I have in my house (other than my bedside satellite radio I listen to BBC World Service on) is a little tranny in my bathroom I listen to while shaving.
Surbiton I am a rare voter who has switched to the LDs, at least at local elections, now Clegg is leader, I could never have voted for a Kennedy led LDs. Clegg got the LDs into government for the first time in a century, at the end of the day that will be very significant for historians
In the past, before Brown introduced the link with the NHS, there were small changes in the rate each year to take account of actuarial changes. Now the overpayment of NICs goes straight into the Government's general account to help pay for the NHS.
Diane Abbott says she is intending to put herself forward to become Labour's candidate for Mayor of London in 2016.
The MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington told ITV London she would run as a "genuinely independent candidate" who would oppose "anti-immigrant propaganda".
Rather rude and unnecessary. She only confirmed it at today's regional conference. The Morning Star piece said this:
'LABOUR will lose the next London mayoral election if its candidate is a "glass puppet for the party machine," Diane Abbott yesterday told the Star as she prepared to announce her candidacy for mayor. The firebrand left-winger will make "a firm declaration of intent" to delegates at Labour's London regional conference tomorrow.'
Media outside the MS briefing reported it this evening.
[Italics and bold mine]
She must be the poster child for cognitive dissonance - firebrand left winger who sent her kid to a private school.
Comments
Now return their licence fees.
I've been very open on here about my difficulties with supporting and opposing the immigration policies of all the parties. I don't want want open borders, but if we had the sort of points system I might support then most of the friends I've made over the last seven years in London wouldn't be here. I'm confused about it all.
Hopefully you can explain to me what I believe.
The MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington told ITV London she would run as a "genuinely independent candidate" who would oppose "anti-immigrant propaganda".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30268496
Likewise it covers foreign news which is of interest to its readers.
What's the problem with that ?
I suggest that long term, globalised markets benefit the most people worldwide. Technological, educational & industrial gaps narrow, increasing efficiencies, creating wealth. Developing countries are improving rapidly.
But the process is highly disruptive. Whether defined narrowly (companies), broadly (sectors), or more broadly (nations & demographic groups), protectionist policies (e.g. restricting immigration) are of short-term benefit to vested interests. So UKIP has an audience.
Longer term, the pressure should wash out as the cohort changes. However, "in the long-term everyone's dead"! Politicians face short terms of office with short-term electoral pressures. Also, goverments arguably have a duty to the current electorate as well as to the long-term future of the country.
But protectionism is damaging, reducing incentives for the population to change to match prevailing conditions, reducing long-term ability to generate wealth. This would be fine if every country did likewise (effectively creating hundreds of mini-worlds) but the material & human resources we need to maintain our current way of life are spread globally. Increasing global economic interaction is inevitable; we cannot escape that. The more it's delayed, the worse the outcome. This is your point on education, writ large.
But long-termism is cold comfort to those suffering now. UKIP's immigration policy could alleviate current distress at the expense of rebalancing. There are dog whistles to their appeal too, but the overt protectionism is still the most broadly seductive.
Labour has a tendency to intervene more widely than Tories & LibDems, but all three have moved to a broadly liberalised economic approach with their differences being far less than their agreement. At least, when compared to UKIP or the Greens. The established parties are correct in that, but I don't know how to sell such a long-term solution to the significant minority of the electorate who don't think they feel the benefits of globalisation. They're there - they wouldn't have the same material comforts & quality of life without it - but there's also real pressure.
Public spending was the narcotic to manage the transition but deficits mean that it's wearing off. I hope that the centre of political gravity remains in favour of liberalisation for long enough for the benefits to re-establish themselves.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/london-mayoral-election-2016/labours-candidate
Why should immigrants have an equal say over the news of the nation they've moved to? If it applies to sport it should equally to every other bit of news. The news would go on forever.
If you want italian football, or any other news, google it yourself. FFS if we follow your argument why shouldn't the BBC news be read in the language of every immigrant who's paid a license fee?
I think that's a problem.
On both counts it must have one of the highest percentages in Scotland and both groups would certainly be more favourable to the Conservatives than the average Scottish voter.
Blimey. There's not much unity in the London Labour party.
If they're not going in to a real pot then it would be far more honest to call NI what it is - income tax, and to abolish employers' NI which is just a tax on employment.
Today's sample of wisdom is taxing ethnic minorities for broadcasting services and begrudging them a few football results from back home.
If you want to make friends with foreigners try visiting their home countries, rather than saying how wonderful it is that they've displaced the natives in London.
You seem to not care about the native victims of such policies until you become such a victim yourself. Your comments on football results, though admittedly trivial, show this attitude.
Here's an article that may help you grow up.
http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-4/london-all-that-glisters/
But the absurd cheapness of the exercise doesn't explain why the main feature on the BBC home page is all about foreign football. In what way is that servicing this nation's broadcasting needs?
The TV Licence Fee obviously springs to mind.
Are people in Scotland not allowed to write a will?
Surely if someone wants to leave their estate to their eldest son they should be allowed to?
And if someone wants to split their estate equally between all their children they should be allowed to?
Is the law really preventing people from deciding who they wish to leave their estate to?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30268536
The one you are so keen on until it affects you.
Now if you're saying that the BBC should give UK youth football results as well you may have a point.
But I don't see what's to be gained by the BBC providing less info than it does at present.
If pointing out that CREAM count second generation immigrants as immigrants until their sixteenth birthday is upsetting anyone then ditto.
When have I said that immigrants displacing London natives is wonderful? I just said that most of my friends I met in London were immigrants.
I think you're another of those ashamed that the party you support is now the home of BNP racists. You're going to have to get used to that if you're going to stay a kipper.
Are either of those unreasonable criticisms of the BBC?
Clearly Ninoinoz feels dual heritage, and I do too concerning my migrant grandparents. I see this as an addition rather than a subtraction.
It's good to have another sensible person on the site.
Not convinced by Norman Lambs mental health promises, or just dreading the cosh of targets that hits the rest of us?
Was thinking of Norman Baker, of course.
Tinfoil Edit: http://order-order.com/2013/10/08/norman-bakers-wackiest-conspiracy-theories/
There is of course the resentment of voters at being asked to vote "unnecessarily", just to enable such a stitchup. Which could hit both Messrs Murphy and Macintosh.
And even if Mr Murphy waits till the 2016 Holyrood election, he is then in the position of asking his constituents next May 2015 to vote for someone who is likely to jack it in in a year's time.
This would also depend on his deputy in Holyrood being willing to resign - because of the requirement, de facto or de jure, of the leader being either MP or MSP, and the deputy the reverse.
But he does need to be elected leader first.
Nor does it explain why Finnish and Greek club games get prominence over home nations' international youth teams on the BBC website.
It's odds-on to be no overall majority and I believe it is also odds-on to be no majority with only one partner. The numbers just aren't there.
The choice is between a rainbow coalition (with SNP and LibDem ministers in order to qualify as a coalition) or a minority government. It's going to be a right mess on 8th May.
There are going to be immediate leadership bids in at least two parties but also the markets (Sterling and FTSE) are going to tank if they haven't already done so because of the uncertainty.
This is why it is impossible to call. If the LibDems and SNP have done their homework with Labour then a Labour coalition may be possible. The problem there is the delayed Clegg leadership challenge. I don't see a Conservative/UKIP/LibDem coalition being possible. My guess is a temporary Labour minority government with C&S support from SNP and LibDems until they sort themselves out.
Very mixed messages I would say. My perception is that there are currently more empty units in the Metrocentre than I have ever seen, even more than last year which was probably the previous record. Some, such as the La Senza outlet, have clearly been empty for some considerable time now.
But the footfall today in particular was incredible. It took us 1hr 20 minutes to get out of the car park in the yellow sector this afternoon, having made the mistake of parking on the top floor. Whether that footfall is generating sales is harder to judge. The Black Friday nonsense certainly gave a lot of shops the opportunities to have major sales in what is supposed to be their most profitable part of the year. There will be yet more casualties in retail in Jan/Feb as a result. Only the very strongest brands, such as Apple and Superdry were able to hold themselves aloof.
The Metrocentre has edged downmarket a little over the years with far fewer designer labels and almost no remaining free standing stores with chains completely dominant. I remember the glory days of the late 80s when boatloads of Scandinavians would indulge in feeding frenzies over designer jumpers and high quality goods. Today is nothing like that. It feels much more domestic and I would be very confident the average spend is down substantially.
A bit more money around but the lack of real wage growth is apparent. One big difference from last year is that then a remarkable number of shops were looking for staff. This year almost none.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2005/12/05115128/51285
This is an earlier proposal which contains a perhaps useful summary
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S2_MembersBills/Draft proposals/LegalRightsOnSuccession.pdf
Politics in Scotland is even more polarised than it is in England. There are large geographical areas of Scotland where Labour has rarely been in contention out with the cities and central belt. The South of Scotland is Tory v LibDem or Tory v Labour battlegrounds. Even in 2011 the SNP couldn't displace the 2 Tory MSPs or the 1 Labour MSP.
The SNP anti-nuclear policy will hurt them in Argyll where a large part of the constituency around Helensburgh is dependent on Trident and Faslane. I would think that realistically there are around 25 seats where SLAB and the SNP will fight it out and in 5 of them, an evenly split vote will let the Tories through the middle.
In 2010 there were 412,000 Scottish Tory voters but they were too evenly spread across the country. It will be interesting to see how many LibDems who were previously Tory before 1997 or 1987 will return to the Tory fold.
Henry Manson talked about Jim Murphy serving 15 months as an MP. The view is that if Jim wins the leadership in a fortnight, he will stand down in May and then spend a year outside Parliament working to win the 2016 election.
There would be a huge risk in him and Ken MacIntosh trying to swap seats. For a start they are now very different seats. In 2011 most people expected Jackson Carlaw to retake the Holyrood seat because Barrhead, the strongest Labour part of the seat had been removed and put into one of the Renfrewshire seats. I have lots of friends and family who live in the seat and they all see both Murphy and MacIntosh as basically Tories in a Labour wrapping. In 1992 it was the safest Tory seat with a majority of over 11,000 and would have remained Tory had the local association not descended into rather nasty infighting.
The SNP land reform plans are out and out class warfare. Pure and simple. They see landowners as evil and plan to have 1 million acres taken into public ownership by 2020.
Most of Scotland's large estates are located in the Highlands and Islands or the Southern Uplands. They are one of the largest sources of employment and a key to the survival of fragile, isolated rural estates. In recent years they have been diversifying by building small hydro electric power schemes, wind farms and tourism (especially eco-tourism) businesses. These estates need to continue to pass to a sole heir, regardless of what the politically correct think. A great many which remain in the hands of the same families who have administered them since the time of David I simply cannot be sustainable unless the unit size remains large. You rarely hear the locals demand them be broken up. Indeed recently the SNP got a bloody nose when its footsoldiers pushed and pushed for estates owned by the Queen's cousin Earl Granville to be compulsory purchased. When it came to the vote forced on the local tenants, they voted substantially to keep the status quo. He happens to be a very good landlord as indeed most all.
It's odds-on to be no overall majority and I believe it is also odds-on to be no majority with only one partner. The numbers just aren't there."
Agreed. We will have a PR result with FPTP. The biggest party to govern as a minority ?
Election again in October or in one year ?
The elephant in the room will be another recession or even deflation !
Instances only marginally less extreme than the young lady in police custody for 48hrs awaiting a bed are commonplace daily in relation to mental health services and the search for inpatient beds. Distress is compounded for individuals and their families when they are sent hundreds of miles from home.
Greetings!
Not convinced by Norman Lambs mental health promises, or just dreading the cosh of targets that hits the rest of us?
I'm shining a light on Warsi this evening. She deserves it.
The average of the other phone polls for November gives the Conservatives a slender lead, so I've been impatiently waiting for ComRes to complete the set for the month.
By the way has something gone wrong with this site - I have had to log in 5 times in the last hour - it's never normally like this.
But the LDs are losing because of their part in the coalition. Nobody is thanking them except bizarrely by their biggest enemy, the Tories. Yet, if it had not been for UKIP, the Tories would be looking for their elusive majority.
So why does joining the coalition hurt the Lib Dems but not the Tories ? Why is Clegg such a teflon character. I saw Kennedy on QT the other day. A Giant amongst pygmies in that party.
If Murphy sought re-election in May and then stood down a year later, the constituents would be pretty pissed off.
I think Henry Manson's tip some weeks ago may prove a good one. Neil Findlay has the solid union support and his manifesto is unreconstructed old Labour, promising nationalisation of the railways and goodness knows what else.
I think if he wins Jim Murphy really has to find a way into Holyrood. He needs to be seen to be challenging Sturgeon on a level playing field as soon as possible. There are also quite a number of difficult issues for the SNP which were put into the long grass during the never ending referendum. Some difficult choices will need to be made and the Labour leader really has to be there to challenge those choices.
I guess there is a good constitutional reason why, but given the already half baked devolution I can't see that it matters much. It must be something :abour are regretting now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30267042
On this morning's post, the important issue is to distinguish where UKIP support has come from with where they would be in the absence of UKIP. Specifically: both big parties have different layers of support. Think of them like the traditional concept of electrons around an atom. The outermost shell is the most floaty of their support and the easiest to pull away; the innermost comprise the core vote.
Last time around, the Labour atom was denuded to its innermost shell. UKIP pulling 'electrons' away from that implies that it's drawing some of the most aligned Labour core. This is a direct cost to Labour by UKIP.
The Conservative atom had some outermost shells consisting of the floatier 'electrons' - albeit not as much as they'd wanted (some of the floatier 'electrons' were trapped by the roaming Lib Dem atom, but have since undergone a major ionisation process!). In the absence of the UKIP atom attracting them, it would be assumed that the floatier 'electrons' would have diffused back to the Labour atom. This is viewed as a cost to the Conservatives by UKIP (2010 Conservative support -> UKIP), but is arguably a cost to Labour.
There's also certainly an effect of UKIP pulling 'electrons' from the Conservative core shells as well, which is correctly viewed as a cost to the Conservatives.
The trick, however, is on judging the level of effect of the middle of these. We view only the first as a cost to Labour and the second and third together as a cost to the Tories; in reality, only the first and third should be assigned directly - the middle one is highly arguable.
Remember 1 in 50 Scots is now a member of the SNP and those 80,000 new recruits have not come from among former Tory voters who voted 98+% NO.
If the public are going to punish both coalition partners in such a way then anything other than a working majority is going to be chaos next year. It is much safer to stand in the saloon bar pint in hand sniping ayt the government, than be the ones burning the midnight oil to keep government functioning.
For the record again, I still don't think that UKIP is a racist party, nor am I accusing any of the kippers here of being racist.
I would though be interested to know if you're all yet comfortable with that fact. FFS Nick Griffin is now, as far as it matters, a recruiting sergeant for your party. Has Nige yet told him to eff off?
I am rather fond of Norman Lamb.
but not so much as Liz Kendall!
If we are not waiting in at home for a delivery we are collecting things for neighbours.
In an increasingly on-line age are 'metrocentres' past their sell by date?
Retail outlets may not be, but they are different. My sister is still waxing lyrical about buying a £60 coat in Atlantic Village for £4 and seeing it somewhere else for £25 a few weeks later.
I gather the body count at Bicester Village last week has been downgraded to only 95.
I live near the largest mall south of DC and east of Dallas. My wife tried to drive past it this morning and even the interstate exit was backed up with mall traffic. Black Friday traffic was even worse by all accounts.
I make it a rule never to go to a mall between Thanksgiving and New Year.
Con, LD: I believe no chance of a majority
Con, UKIP, DUP. Only if the numbers add up. But the inner tension [ between LD and COn ] will assert itself this time. Last time the coalition became an issue after the elections.
Lab, LD: I believe no chance of a majority
Lab, LD, [ Green, SDLP ] with SNP support: Theoretically possible but the SNP as the only real winner. Even demanding another referendum date which Labour will have to say No.
That will be music to Sturgeon in the Labour heartlands portraying Labour in the same way as the Tories were portrayed a quarter of a century back. The English party !
She might even call for an unilateral referendum. This time naming Euro as the alternative currency. Sterling will have taken a tumble by then.
Grand coalition ? We do not have the precedent except in war time. But the public may demand one and get to like it. The Germans only have Grand coalitions when they have no other alternative.
One could argue you fit into this category with your not so subliminal attacks.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/is-the-criticism-of-ed-miliband-a-coded-form-of-antisemitism-9885745.html
I was delighted to vote for Charles as Leader in 1999 - he was the obvious choice. His tenure looks to be successful on the surface but for much of the leadership and certainly from 2002 onward we only had one policy - opposition to the Iraq War. It was the right policy then and was a welcome contrast to the Conservatives under IDS who were even more pro-war than Blair's Labour Party. Policy development in other areas atrophied or drifted into a benign acceptance of the Blairite consensus.
The Tories walked to the edge of the abyss in October 2003 but unfortunately stepped back by dumping IDS and choosing Howard who did nothing other than rally the core Conservative vote which meant in 2005 the LDs didn't get much return from our opposition to Iraq.
And then came Cameron and to be honest the LDs had no answer to his telegenic family man who suddenly started sounding, well, liberal. After the easy ride from the likes of IDS, Howard and Hague, the LDs had a real threat in a Conservative leader who sounded like a Lib Dem and frankly the party panicked.
Kennedy became in short order a liability and the party's response to a liberal-sounding young Conservative was to go for an older conservative-sounding liberal in Sir Menzies Campbell. Oddly enough, this was probably a good response but the Party didn't have the courage to give Campbell enough time to settle into the role. Ultimately, the feeling was we had to out-Cameron Cameron and to that question Nick Clegg was the only answer.
I'm increasingly of the view the party could and should have stuck with Sir Menzies. There'd have been no Cleggasm but Sir Menzies brought gravitas to the table and I think would have been a better leader in 2010 - could he have done a deal with Cameron ? Many will say he would naturally have sided with Brown but I'm not convinced.
It's a counterfactual I might one day explore on alternatehistory.com ("For Want of A Pension", I might call it) but one thing Campbell did do was to revive the Party's policy-making process and for all that he failed to sparkle initially at PMQs, as William Hague's experience showed, that doesn't always matter.
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/
Do try and keep up please.
So to a degree the NI is already 'ringfenced'. I am not so sure it is a good idea to simply put the NI payments intpo 'txation'.
But.. I don't think it's a reason to change any of the rules of cricket. My dad's a spine surgeon and he's told me that the injury Hughes suffered is only recorded about 100 times in the world every year, and never before in cricket.
I remember enjoying Harmison cutting Ponting's face in 2005 and I wouldn't want the game to lose that because of a freak accident. People die in rugby union scrums far more often (and I nearly did playing hooker for Marlborough town 2nds against Earlstoke prison when I was 18) but I'd never want them banned.
More people die doing three day eventing than do playing cricket, and we cricket fans need to do all we can to ensure that the rules aren't changed
I will vote Labour. If that means a Tory MP, then so be it. Not much of a difference ! In 10 years, this can be a Labour seat.
One would be a failed comedian.
I don't like Gordon Brown but that doesn't mean I'm anti-Scottish. I'm married to one.
I'm not impressed with what I hear about EdM, but that doesn't make me anti-Jewish.
It's a phony argument.
I hope you got it the right way round !
Look, I am disgusted at the relatively poor coverage the BBC gives to rugby league. But as you look at the BBC's front sports page, its littered with UK sports covrage. The one non-UK item that springs out is NZ v Pakistan cricket. Frankly with the best will in the world i cannot see that as being a pandering to Pakistani Immigrants. it would be there if it was Australia v. South Africa.
But if you say the BBC is too big too bloated too spendthrift and too prejudiced (in a range of issues) I would tend to sway to lean towards an inclination in that general direction.
Menzies would not have sat with the Tories. He was a very close friend of Donald Dewar and almost joined the Labour Party.
Clegg ? A footnote in history. A person who singlehandedly destroyed a party.
'LABOUR will lose the next London mayoral election if its candidate is a "glass puppet for the party machine," Diane Abbott yesterday told the Star as she prepared to announce her candidacy for mayor.
The firebrand left-winger will make "a firm declaration of intent" to delegates at Labour's London regional conference tomorrow.'
Media outside the MS briefing reported it this evening.
[Italics and bold mine]
Here the assumption on the part of programmers is that if you're listening to radio you're in your car. The only radio I have in my house (other than my bedside satellite radio I listen to BBC World Service on) is a little tranny in my bathroom I listen to while shaving.
See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-insurance-fund-accounts for the relevant accounts.
In the past, before Brown introduced the link with the NHS, there were small changes in the rate each year to take account of actuarial changes. Now the overpayment of NICs goes straight into the Government's general account to help pay for the NHS.