Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The extraordinary impact of Lord Ashcroft’s two stage votin

1235»

Comments

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    Plato said:

    I thought Baby On Board signs were to warn other vehicles that the car driver in front may be distracted by wailing or fighting small children.

    I think we are talking about signs on your personage not your vehicle. FWIW I once had this argument with my wife about car stickers saying 'baby on board' I thought they were perfectly reasonable in the sense that you cannot see a small child or baby in the back from a car behind and maybe it you do see people in the back seat it makes you back off slightly . I said anything to reduce tailgating is good but my wife said people were just showing off
    I thought it just showing off the little prince/princess.

    But then I thought - what about an accident...does it show/prompt the emergency services (such that still exist given the huge spending cuts) that there might be a child also in the vehicle which might not otherwise be as visible?

    @TwistedFireStopper‌?
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    I presume that there are no posters here that have worked in a restaurant?

    Breastfeeding in a restaurant is a flagrant breach of the 'no own food' rule.

    If I brought my own sandwiches to Claridge's, they'd stop me eating them in the restaurant.
  • Ninoinoz said:

    I presume that there are no posters here that have worked in a restaurant?

    Breastfeeding in a restaurant is a flagrant breach of the 'no own food' rule.

    If I brought my own sandwiches to Claridge's, they'd stop me eating them in the restaurant.

    Breast is best, Nino!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    Interesting piece about the current oil price and how it is likely to rise in 2015. (You may need to register to complete it).

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/2730125-oil-markets-sentiment-and-lame-thinking-are-currently-in-the-drivers-seat

    It seems Saudi may be getting its way in squeezing out US marginal fields:

    "In fact, the rapid decline has already started. First, the Energy Information Administration said yesterday U.S. crude-oil supplies declined 3.7 million barrels on the week ended Nov. 28. Analysts surveyed by Platts had expected crude inventories to increase by 380,000 barrels on the week. According also to today's news from Seeking Alpha, new permits, which outline what drilling rigs will be doing 60-90 days in the future, showed heavy declines for the first time this year across the top three U.S. onshore fields: the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford and Bakken shale. Specifically, there is an almost 40% decline in new well permits issued across the U.S. in November 2014, with only 4,520 new well permits approved last month, down from 7,227 in October 2014."

    I was in Houston and Dallas the week before last, and met a bunch of energy companies.

    Let me contrast new US tight oil plays (the Bakken, the Permian and the Eagle Ford), with traditional oil and gas fields.

    Traditional, first: let's say you discover 100m of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. You have to organise a drilling programme (perhaps it'll require 20 wells), water injection, water separation, storage, an FPSO, etc. The total you'll spend will be north of $1bn. But once the big money has been spent, you'll produce oil - at a slowly declining rate as water cut increases - for a decade or more. But here's the thing: you need to be sure of the long-term price of oil before you'll commit the money, but once the money has been committed... the oil is coming on stream, irrespective of whether the oil price is $40, $70, $100 or $150.

    Now, tight oil. You have rights over 100s of miles of Texan or North Dakotan land. And if you have $10m to spend, you can drill a horizontal well and hydraulically fracture it. The oil comes through quickly at first, but the production rate rapidly declines - in other words, you have very fast payback.

    If the oil price is $50, you don't drill. If it's $80, you drill.

    The oil isn't going away, if the oil price edges back up, then the EOGs, the Apache's, the Concho's, and 100 other small oil and gas companies will call out the rigs and drill.

    And this is why Saudi Arabia refused to cut production. Because cutting production wouldn't raise the oil price, it would simply cede market share to the US.

    But it also means - assuming geopolitics remains stable - that it's hard for the oil price to shoot back up ($90, sure - $110, much harder), because as the oil price rises, then US production will start to roar back.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    Cyclefree said:

    Having just been to the pub for lunch with a lady who was gratuitously and flagrantly breast-feeding, can I say that it is a hideous act that should be banned with immediate effect.

    (If only because it prevents me bottle-feeding the little mite, a wonderful experience).

    Farage was silly to use the word 'ostentatious', and it will do his standing amongst women no good at all. But he has a point: establishments should be free to ask women to breast-feed in a room. But that room should not just be a toilet or changing-room (given some of the changing rooms I've seen recently), and it should be publicised that 'public' feeding is not allowed, so women and families can make a choice not to attend that establishment.

    Are you now a dad JJ? And if so many congratulations!

    Yes, and thanks. It's the main reason I disappeared from view on here a few months back - life got a little hectic!

    Mrs J's gone back to work, and so I've chucked in contracting to look after him. It's been a wonderful experience so far, but tiring. I think the last five months have been more tiring than any long walk I've ever done ...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited December 2014

    isam said:

    talking of adult /kid manners , here is one for you:-

    I do the Saturday morning Parkruns and am in the err 45-50 age group. Kids also do the runs from about age 8 and naturally you want to encourage them and give them confidence in the worthwhile pursuit of fitness.

    However when I am approaching the finishing line I often hear the scampering patter of children's feet rapidly approaching me . Some days I turn evil inside and launch into a sprint to deny them an extra place and sometimes I am good (or knackered) and allow them to pass to gain a place.

    Over to you what shall I do tomorrow?

    Not in Harrow Lodge Park in Hornchurch??
    no in Rushcliffe usually -although I may try Colwick Park tomorrow (less women breastfeeding by the side of the paths imo)
    I do the ParkRun and last week was over taken 3/4 of the way round by a couple of blokes who must have been mid to late 60s.. on the final turn I saw they were flagging, put in a bit of extra effort and picked them off close home

    A mixture of embarrassment and satisfaction
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    edited December 2014
    TOPPING said:

    Plato said:

    I thought Baby On Board signs were to warn other vehicles that the car driver in front may be distracted by wailing or fighting small children.

    I think we are talking about signs on your personage not your vehicle. FWIW I once had this argument with my wife about car stickers saying 'baby on board' I thought they were perfectly reasonable in the sense that you cannot see a small child or baby in the back from a car behind and maybe it you do see people in the back seat it makes you back off slightly . I said anything to reduce tailgating is good but my wife said people were just showing off
    I thought it just showing off the little prince/princess.

    But then I thought - what about an accident...does it show/prompt the emergency services (such that still exist given the huge spending cuts) that there might be a child also in the vehicle which might not otherwise be as visible?

    @TwistedFireStopper‌?
    It's standard procedure to check the car and surrounding area, as people can get thrown out, run off or wander off in a confusion. We use a thermal image camera as well, as if the seat has been recently occupied, it will still have a heat signature on it.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Interesting piece about the current oil price and how it is likely to rise in 2015. (You may need to register to complete it).

    It seems Saudi may be getting its way in squeezing out US marginal fields:

    "In fact, the rapid decline has already started. First, the Energy Information Administration said yesterday U.S. crude-oil supplies declined 3.7 million barrels on the week ended Nov. 28. Analysts surveyed by Platts had expected crude inventories to increase by 380,000 barrels on the week. According also to today's news from Seeking Alpha, new permits, which outline what drilling rigs will be doing 60-90 days in the future, showed heavy declines for the first time this year across the top three U.S. onshore fields: the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford and Bakken shale. Specifically, there is an almost 40% decline in new well permits issued across the U.S. in November 2014, with only 4,520 new well permits approved last month, down from 7,227 in October 2014."

    I was in Houston and Dallas the week before last, and met a bunch of energy companies.

    Let me contrast new US tight oil plays (the Bakken, the Permian and the Eagle Ford), with traditional oil and gas fields.

    Traditional, first: let's say you discover 100m of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. You have to organise a drilling programme (perhaps it'll require 20 wells), water injection, water separation, storage, an FPSO, etc. The total you'll spend will be north of $1bn. But once the big money has been spent, you'll produce oil - at a slowly declining rate as water cut increases - for a decade or more. But here's the thing: you need to be sure of the long-term price of oil before you'll commit the money, but once the money has been committed... the oil is coming on stream, irrespective of whether the oil price is $40, $70, $100 or $150.

    Now, tight oil. You have rights over 100s of miles of Texan or North Dakotan land. And if you have $10m to spend, you can drill a horizontal well and hydraulically fracture it. The oil comes through quickly at first, but the production rate rapidly declines - in other words, you have very fast payback.

    If the oil price is $50, you don't drill. If it's $80, you drill.

    The oil isn't going away, if the oil price edges back up, then the EOGs, the Apache's, the Concho's, and 100 other small oil and gas companies will call out the rigs and drill.

    And this is why Saudi Arabia refused to cut production. Because cutting production wouldn't raise the oil price, it would simply cede market share to the US.

    But it also means - assuming geopolitics remains stable - that it's hard for the oil price to shoot back up ($90, sure - $110, much harder), because as the oil price rises, then US production will start to roar back.
    Excellent and very informative post. Thank you.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    TOPPING said:

    Plato said:

    I thought Baby On Board signs were to warn other vehicles that the car driver in front may be distracted by wailing or fighting small children.

    I think we are talking about signs on your personage not your vehicle. FWIW I once had this argument with my wife about car stickers saying 'baby on board' I thought they were perfectly reasonable in the sense that you cannot see a small child or baby in the back from a car behind and maybe it you do see people in the back seat it makes you back off slightly . I said anything to reduce tailgating is good but my wife said people were just showing off
    I thought it just showing off the little prince/princess.

    But then I thought - what about an accident...does it show/prompt the emergency services (such that still exist given the huge spending cuts) that there might be a child also in the vehicle which might not otherwise be as visible?

    @TwistedFireStopper‌?
    It's standard procedure to check the car and surrounding area, as people can get thrown out, run off or wander off in a confusion. We use a thermal image camera as well, as if the seat has been recently occupied, it will still have a heat signature on it.
    thx yes I had no doubt that you were thorough.

    So the sign? Helpful? Superfluous?
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    @JosiasJessop

    "Having just been to the pub for lunch..."

    Good for you, Mr. Jessop! I thought such outings were very much frowned upon in today's workforce and its good to see a gentleman keeping up the old traditions and supporting local businesses. Mind you I notice your post was timed at 13:41, a bit early to be back from the boozer I would have thought - never came back before 14:00 myself and 15:00 (if at all) on a Friday.
  • Bobajob_Bobajob_ Posts: 195

    @JosiasJessop

    "Having just been to the pub for lunch..."

    Good for you, Mr. Jessop! I thought such outings were very much frowned upon in today's workforce and its good to see a gentleman keeping up the old traditions and supporting local businesses. Mind you I notice your post was timed at 13:41, a bit early to be back from the boozer I would have thought - never came back before 14:00 myself and 15:00 (if at all) on a Friday.

    Indeed I would consider it ungentlemanly in the extreme to return from a Friday luncheon. A decent chap asks his guests to clear their diaries in the afternoon!
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818
    edited December 2014
    isam said:

    isam said:

    talking of adult /kid manners , here is one for you:-

    I do the Saturday morning Parkruns and am in the err 45-50 age group. Kids also do the runs from about age 8 and naturally you want to encourage them and give them confidence in the worthwhile pursuit of fitness.

    However when I am approaching the finishing line I often hear the scampering patter of children's feet rapidly approaching me . Some days I turn evil inside and launch into a sprint to deny them an extra place and sometimes I am good (or knackered) and allow them to pass to gain a place.

    Over to you what shall I do tomorrow?

    Not in Harrow Lodge Park in Hornchurch??
    no in Rushcliffe usually -although I may try Colwick Park tomorrow (less women breastfeeding by the side of the paths imo)
    I do the ParkRun and last week was over taken 3/4 of the way round by a couple of blokes who must have been mid to late 60s.. on the final turn I saw they were flagging, put in a bit of extra effort and picked them off close home

    A mixture of embarrassment and satisfaction
    for me running 3.1 miles (or 5k) is too hard to think about it all the way around so I like to have evil thoughts ,especially on the second lap to entertain myself. I like to select a 'victim' who is usually about 100 yards ahead of me with half a mile to go and looking a bit tired. I then make it a mission to overtake them more or less on the line . If they are about aged 70 ,again it gives that mixture you talk about of satisfaction and embarrassment
  • taffys said:

    Whether or no the BBC overstepped the mark you can't call the IFS biased. ....

    1. The IFS has argued that there should be no Inheritance Tax allowance. All gifts should be subject to the personal allowance of the recipient. Reference the Mirlees review which Paul Johnson edited.
    2. The IFS is an institute funded by research grants (mainly tax money) and is therefore funded by the state.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    rcs1000 said:


    Traditional, first: let's say you discover 100m of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. You have to organise a drilling programme (perhaps it'll require 20 wells), water injection, water separation, storage, an FPSO, etc. The total you'll spend will be north of $1bn. But once the big money has been spent, you'll produce oil - at a slowly declining rate as water cut increases - for a decade or more. But here's the thing: you need to be sure of the long-term price of oil before you'll commit the money, but once the money has been committed... the oil is coming on stream, irrespective of whether the oil price is $40, $70, $100 or $150.

    Now, tight oil. You have rights over 100s of miles of Texan or North Dakotan land. And if you have $10m to spend, you can drill a horizontal well and hydraulically fracture it. The oil comes through quickly at first, but the production rate rapidly declines - in other words, you have very fast payback.

    If the oil price is $50, you don't drill. If it's $80, you drill.

    The oil isn't going away, if the oil price edges back up, then the EOGs, the Apache's, the Concho's, and 100 other small oil and gas companies will call out the rigs and drill.

    And this is why Saudi Arabia refused to cut production. Because cutting production wouldn't raise the oil price, it would simply cede market share to the US.

    But it also means - assuming geopolitics remains stable - that it's hard for the oil price to shoot back up ($90, sure - $110, much harder), because as the oil price rises, then US production will start to roar back.

    rcs, agree with all that. What was interesting to me was the data point - that $70 oil closes down US production, never mind $50. I suspect there will be considerable wariness at $80, and it may be that oil prices reach a balance point somewhere a little north of $80 Brent.

  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,034
    You know, with this "going back to the 1930s in terms of proportion of GDP spent by Government" thing - which is admittedly a little unwieldy and doesn't really say much to me, I wondered what it meant in terms of pounds spent on things.

    Of course, it'd be wrong to do it in nominal figures -inflation is important. Fortunately, the MeasuringWorth site has GDP figures back along way in nominal, real, and per capita.


    So, with the Guardian helpfully supplying figures for proportion of GDP on public spending back to the Sixties, the data is there.

    Conclusion: in 2013 pounds, assuming 2.5% economic growth, 35.6% of GDP equates to...

    641bn
    That figure compares with 631bn for 2006 and 654.6bn for 2007 (remember that this is adjusting for inflation using the appropriate GDP deflator)

    To be fair, that's not the whole picture. Population has increased. Assuming it continues increasing at the same rate as the past four years, real GDP per capita in four years would be:

    £8798.51.
    That does take us further back. In 2003 it was £8547.93; in 2004 it was £9053.87.

    So, based on purchasing power of Government spending (the amount of inflation-adjusted pounds it spends), we're actually going back to the early-to-mid Noughties. You know: the Blair years. When Brown was Chancellor, and regarded as being excellent.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Socrates said:

    Gadfly said:

    Socrates said:

    Gadfly said:

    Farage takes the view that if certain sections of society are uncomfortable with something, then the rest of society needs to consider this and bend accordingly.

    My mother's generation seem to be pretty uncomfortable with a whole bunch of things, ranging from gay marriage to foreigners in general. Does this mean the rest of us have to consider these views, pack away all that libertarian stuff, and start voting UKIP?

    Every country in the world has certain manners that are commonly understood.
    Manners do not replace the law. The Equality Act 2010 has made it illegal for anyone to ask a breastfeeding woman to leave a public place such as a cafe, shop or public transport.

    Surely asking her to cover up equates to the same thing?

    In my experience the baby's head provides more than adequate screening.
    No, covering up, which is something easy to do that most breastfeeding women do anyway, and being forced to stop your meal/purchase/commute etc are in no way the same thing.
    I am sorry old bean, but it amounts to discrimination!

    "Service providers must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding. Discrimination includes refusing to provide a service, providing a lower standard of service or providing a service on different terms."

    http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/breastfeedingpublicplace.pdf
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Plato said:

    I thought Baby On Board signs were to warn other vehicles that the car driver in front may be distracted by wailing or fighting small children.

    I think we are talking about signs on your personage not your vehicle. FWIW I once had this argument with my wife about car stickers saying 'baby on board' I thought they were perfectly reasonable in the sense that you cannot see a small child or baby in the back from a car behind and maybe it you do see people in the back seat it makes you back off slightly . I said anything to reduce tailgating is good but my wife said people were just showing off
    I thought it just showing off the little prince/princess.

    But then I thought - what about an accident...does it show/prompt the emergency services (such that still exist given the huge spending cuts) that there might be a child also in the vehicle which might not otherwise be as visible?

    @TwistedFireStopper‌?
    It's standard procedure to check the car and surrounding area, as people can get thrown out, run off or wander off in a confusion. We use a thermal image camera as well, as if the seat has been recently occupied, it will still have a heat signature on it.
    thx yes I had no doubt that you were thorough.

    So the sign? Helpful? Superfluous?
    I'd note it, definitely, but wouldn't necessarily base my actions on its existence. I'd take more notice of the contents of the car, baby seat, toys, clothing, nappy changing kit, that sort of thing.
  • Bobajob_Bobajob_ Posts: 195
    taffys said:

    Funny that.

    I doubt very much whether you will find anyone who posts on here who does not believe in equal pay.

    I know I do. I've a daughter.

    But lets call a spade a spade. Equal pay plus 5 years out of your career to have kids and the massive scheduling arguments with lithuanian nannies and state nurseries that accompany them is not equal treatment.

    That is special treatment.

    To a certain degree. Although you could argue that mothers are nurturing tomorrow's workforce hence such flexibilities expected of employers are effectively a payment in kind towards that goal.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469

    @JosiasJessop

    "Having just been to the pub for lunch..."

    Good for you, Mr. Jessop! I thought such outings were very much frowned upon in today's workforce and its good to see a gentleman keeping up the old traditions and supporting local businesses. Mind you I notice your post was timed at 13:41, a bit early to be back from the boozer I would have thought - never came back before 14:00 myself and 15:00 (if at all) on a Friday.

    Unfortunately for the reasons previously alluded to I only had a miserly bitter shandy, and Mrs J only imbibed Coca Cola's finest. I can's stand our local pub (known colloquially as the Asbo Arms) for more than an hour unless I'm drinking (and for the Wednesday morning mother-and-baby group - due to me now a mother-and-baby-and-occasional-father group).

    It's improved since it's been under new management, but this lunchtime I was served by someone in a tracksuit (shudders).
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,972

    "Good manners cost nothing and they make every day life a bit more bearable for us all."

    You could always spend £30,000 a year on your child's schooling knowing that on the first day of term before the first lesson the child will be instructed as follows: Always stand when your teacher enters the classroom and only sit down when either the teacher does or you are instructed to do so by your teacher.

    At the end of every lesson say "thank you" to the teacher for the lesson.

    After leaving school and armed with this very expensive lesson in decorum I found myself in a lodge in Scotland with a few pupils from Gordonstoun. It was like being at a yoyo convention. Up and down up and down up and down.

    Eventually our hostess got so flustered she uttered these immortal words that have stayed with me to this day

    " Oh for God's sake I daren't even take a pee!"
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    DavidL said:

    Broadly agree Nick. I think the tories will recover some of the UKIP vote as might Labour but they are clearly going to get a much bigger share than ever before and they may well break through in a few seats. Or not.

    I think the Lib Dems will recover to some degree on the habit point, especially where they have a chance of winning or hold the seat. This might hurt Labour in terms of votes but not necessarily much in terms of seats.

    Clearly the SNP are going to do far better than in 2010. How much better is up for grabs but Labour should be worried.

    All in all this looks the most uncertain election I can recall. It may prove to be one where (unusually) the campaign makes a real difference. Labour will presumably hope not.

    In the absence of "events", surely the most likely thing is that current trends will continue?

    Labour/LD will continue to decline. Greens/UKIP will continue to grow. Tories will stagnate.

    http://www.mediafire.com/view/l8rd7atd257yprk/YouGov polls 12 months to 30 November inc Green 2014.jpg
    There's no such thing as momentum:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-misunderstanding-of-momentum/
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326

    Cyclefree said:

    Having just been to the pub for lunch with a lady who was gratuitously and flagrantly breast-feeding, can I say that it is a hideous act that should be banned with immediate effect.

    (If only because it prevents me bottle-feeding the little mite, a wonderful experience).

    Farage was silly to use the word 'ostentatious', and it will do his standing amongst women no good at all. But he has a point: establishments should be free to ask women to breast-feed in a room. But that room should not just be a toilet or changing-room (given some of the changing rooms I've seen recently), and it should be publicised that 'public' feeding is not allowed, so women and families can make a choice not to attend that establishment.

    Are you now a dad JJ? And if so many congratulations!

    Yes, and thanks. It's the main reason I disappeared from view on here a few months back - life got a little hectic!

    Mrs J's gone back to work, and so I've chucked in contracting to look after him. It's been a wonderful experience so far, but tiring. I think the last five months have been more tiring than any long walk I've ever done ...
    Enjoy!

    (The first 20 years are the worst.....)

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    rcs1000 said:


    Traditional, first: let's say you discover 100m of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. You have to organise a drilling programme (perhaps it'll require 20 wells), water injection, water separation, storage, an FPSO, etc. The total you'll spend will be north of $1bn. But once the big money has been spent, you'll produce oil - at a slowly declining rate as water cut increases - for a decade or more. But here's the thing: you need to be sure of the long-term price of oil before you'll commit the money, but once the money has been committed... the oil is coming on stream, irrespective of whether the oil price is $40, $70, $100 or $150.

    Now, tight oil. You have rights over 100s of miles of Texan or North Dakotan land. And if you have $10m to spend, you can drill a horizontal well and hydraulically fracture it. The oil comes through quickly at first, but the production rate rapidly declines - in other words, you have very fast payback.

    If the oil price is $50, you don't drill. If it's $80, you drill.

    The oil isn't going away, if the oil price edges back up, then the EOGs, the Apache's, the Concho's, and 100 other small oil and gas companies will call out the rigs and drill.

    And this is why Saudi Arabia refused to cut production. Because cutting production wouldn't raise the oil price, it would simply cede market share to the US.

    But it also means - assuming geopolitics remains stable - that it's hard for the oil price to shoot back up ($90, sure - $110, much harder), because as the oil price rises, then US production will start to roar back.

    rcs, agree with all that. What was interesting to me was the data point - that $70 oil closes down US production, never mind $50. I suspect there will be considerable wariness at $80, and it may be that oil prices reach a balance point somewhere a little north of $80 Brent.

    At $70 oil, production will still probably grow in the US - not by the 1.3m barrels achieved this year, but probably 500-600k,

    See how gas production continued to rise in the US, even as the price fell from $12mcf to under $4.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Patrick said:

    Presumably there comes a point in public service cuts where people start dying unnecessarly because of inadequate fire/paramedic etc supply?

    We are already well beyond that. There is an infinite demand for medical services. A taxpayer funded free-at-point-of-use system such as the NHS already makes very clear life and death decisions based on availability / worth. Remember all the arguments when Obamacare was introduced? People die because our NHS budget is X. Fact. But governments have to make this choice. At what point does spending more money to 'save' one more life become untenable? 'Unnecessarily' implies there is no risk / reward calculation. But there is. Is the argument for the fire service any different? I'm sure we all would like to know there is an on-duty fire engine within reasonable distance of us right now. Should we spend X to ensure there is one closer? Depends on the marginal value of a limited supply of money to make it so.

    All I'm saying is that any budget choice implies a cost / benefit decision. And it is not always to society's broader benefit to spend more money. Ask the Greek firemen.

    I'm probably boring people, but what I'm trying to say is that we're getting to the point, or will be in the near future, where fire cover, just like police and ambulance cover will be insufficient. I'm not calling for more, just enough, in the right place. We're losing that.

    Like TFS says, public services are under strain. I can tolerate cutbacks, but targets have to be cut too.

    If the number of firecrew are cut, then the response times need adjusting. Similarly if NHS budgets are cut then our targets should also be loosened.

    There needs to be fairly explicit discussions on rationing, but this is one area that politicians fear to tread.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Gadfly said:

    Socrates said:

    Gadfly said:

    Socrates said:

    Gadfly said:

    Farage takes the view that if certain sections of society are uncomfortable with something, then the rest of society needs to consider this and bend accordingly.

    My mother's generation seem to be pretty uncomfortable with a whole bunch of things, ranging from gay marriage to foreigners in general. Does this mean the rest of us have to consider these views, pack away all that libertarian stuff, and start voting UKIP?

    Every country in the world has certain manners that are commonly understood.
    Manners do not replace the law. The Equality Act 2010 has made it illegal for anyone to ask a breastfeeding woman to leave a public place such as a cafe, shop or public transport.

    Surely asking her to cover up equates to the same thing?

    In my experience the baby's head provides more than adequate screening.
    No, covering up, which is something easy to do that most breastfeeding women do anyway, and being forced to stop your meal/purchase/commute etc are in no way the same thing.
    I am sorry old bean, but it amounts to discrimination!

    "Service providers must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding. Discrimination includes refusing to provide a service, providing a lower standard of service or providing a service on different terms."

    http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/breastfeedingpublicplace.pdf
    Asking breast-feeding women to make sure their breasts are covered when they breast-feed is not discrimination, harassment, victimisation, providing a lower standard of service, or providing a service on different terms. This isn't difficult.
  • Bobajob_Bobajob_ Posts: 195

    @JosiasJessop

    "Having just been to the pub for lunch..."

    Good for you, Mr. Jessop! I thought such outings were very much frowned upon in today's workforce and its good to see a gentleman keeping up the old traditions and supporting local businesses. Mind you I notice your post was timed at 13:41, a bit early to be back from the boozer I would have thought - never came back before 14:00 myself and 15:00 (if at all) on a Friday.

    Unfortunately for the reasons previously alluded to I only had a miserly bitter shandy, and Mrs J only imbibed Coca Cola's finest. I can's stand our local pub (known colloquially as the Asbo Arms) for more than an hour unless I'm drinking (and for the Wednesday morning mother-and-baby group - due to me now a mother-and-baby-and-occasional-father group).

    It's improved since it's been under new management, but this lunchtime I was served by someone in a tracksuit (shudders).
    Congrats Josias!
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Congratulations.

    Cyclefree said:

    Having just been to the pub for lunch with a lady who was gratuitously and flagrantly breast-feeding, can I say that it is a hideous act that should be banned with immediate effect.

    (If only because it prevents me bottle-feeding the little mite, a wonderful experience).

    Farage was silly to use the word 'ostentatious', and it will do his standing amongst women no good at all. But he has a point: establishments should be free to ask women to breast-feed in a room. But that room should not just be a toilet or changing-room (given some of the changing rooms I've seen recently), and it should be publicised that 'public' feeding is not allowed, so women and families can make a choice not to attend that establishment.

    Are you now a dad JJ? And if so many congratulations!

    Yes, and thanks. It's the main reason I disappeared from view on here a few months back - life got a little hectic!

    Mrs J's gone back to work, and so I've chucked in contracting to look after him. It's been a wonderful experience so far, but tiring. I think the last five months have been more tiring than any long walk I've ever done ...
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818
    edited December 2014

    @JosiasJessop

    "Having just been to the pub for lunch..."

    Good for you, Mr. Jessop! I thought such outings were very much frowned upon in today's workforce and its good to see a gentleman keeping up the old traditions and supporting local businesses. Mind you I notice your post was timed at 13:41, a bit early to be back from the boozer I would have thought - never came back before 14:00 myself and 15:00 (if at all) on a Friday.

    Unfortunately for the reasons previously alluded to I only had a miserly bitter shandy, and Mrs J only imbibed Coca Cola's finest. I can's stand our local pub (known colloquially as the Asbo Arms) for more than an hour unless I'm drinking (and for the Wednesday morning mother-and-baby group - due to me now a mother-and-baby-and-occasional-father group).

    It's improved since it's been under new management, but this lunchtime I was served by someone in a tracksuit (shudders).
    In mother and occasional father baby groups it is useful for the occasional father to know that none of the ladies expect him to sing ,beyond the odd mumble, the nursery rhymes . TOP TIP
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited December 2014

    DavidL said:

    Broadly agree Nick. I think the tories will recover some of the UKIP vote as might Labour but they are clearly going to get a much bigger share than ever before and they may well break through in a few seats. Or not.

    I think the Lib Dems will recover to some degree on the habit point, especially where they have a chance of winning or hold the seat. This might hurt Labour in terms of votes but not necessarily much in terms of seats.

    Clearly the SNP are going to do far better than in 2010. How much better is up for grabs but Labour should be worried.

    All in all this looks the most uncertain election I can recall. It may prove to be one where (unusually) the campaign makes a real difference. Labour will presumably hope not.

    In the absence of "events", surely the most likely thing is that current trends will continue? Labour/LD will continue to decline. Greens/UKIP will continue to grow. Tories will stagnate.
    http://www.mediafire.com/view/l8rd7atd257yprk/YouGov polls 12 months to 30 November inc Green 2014.jpg
    errrr no. Voters will start to firm up their voting intention on who they want to run the Govt. Ed or Dave.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,567



    no in Rushcliffe usually -although I may try Colwick Park tomorrow (less women breastfeeding by the side of the paths imo)

    Try Beeston sometime, perhaps?

    http://www.parkrun.org.uk/beeston/

    - it's co-organised by an energetic fitness fanatic friend who recently qualified in the Iron Man event in Spain.

    (He's standing in our borough council by-election next week - a man of many parts.)


  • no in Rushcliffe usually -although I may try Colwick Park tomorrow (less women breastfeeding by the side of the paths imo)

    Try Beeston sometime, perhaps?

    http://www.parkrun.org.uk/beeston/

    - it's co-organised by an energetic fitness fanatic friend who recently qualified in the Iron Man event in Spain.

    (He's standing in our borough council by-election next week - a man of many parts.)
    Beeston is supposed to be a very flat course - so I am saving it to when I need a fast time confidence boost

    Do you ever run it?
  • Bobajob_Bobajob_ Posts: 195
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    Broadly agree Nick. I think the tories will recover some of the UKIP vote as might Labour but they are clearly going to get a much bigger share than ever before and they may well break through in a few seats. Or not.

    I think the Lib Dems will recover to some degree on the habit point, especially where they have a chance of winning or hold the seat. This might hurt Labour in terms of votes but not necessarily much in terms of seats.

    Clearly the SNP are going to do far better than in 2010. How much better is up for grabs but Labour should be worried.

    All in all this looks the most uncertain election I can recall. It may prove to be one where (unusually) the campaign makes a real difference. Labour will presumably hope not.

    In the absence of "events", surely the most likely thing is that current trends will continue?

    Labour/LD will continue to decline. Greens/UKIP will continue to grow. Tories will stagnate.

    http://www.mediafire.com/view/l8rd7atd257yprk/YouGov polls 12 months to 30 November inc Green 2014.jpg
    There's no such thing as momentum:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-misunderstanding-of-momentum/
    But is there such a thing as inertia?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Although you could argue that mothers are nurturing tomorrow's workforce hence such flexibilities expected of employers are effectively a payment in kind towards that goal.

    Fair point and I agree. I'm not arguing against it. I'm arguing that in some cases women are not as discriminated against as some would have us believe.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    DavidL said:

    Broadly agree Nick. I think the tories will recover some of the UKIP vote as might Labour but they are clearly going to get a much bigger share than ever before and they may well break through in a few seats. Or not.

    I think the Lib Dems will recover to some degree on the habit point, especially where they have a chance of winning or hold the seat. This might hurt Labour in terms of votes but not necessarily much in terms of seats.

    Clearly the SNP are going to do far better than in 2010. How much better is up for grabs but Labour should be worried.

    All in all this looks the most uncertain election I can recall. It may prove to be one where (unusually) the campaign makes a real difference. Labour will presumably hope not.

    In the absence of "events", surely the most likely thing is that current trends will continue? Labour/LD will continue to decline. Greens/UKIP will continue to grow. Tories will stagnate.
    http://www.mediafire.com/view/l8rd7atd257yprk/YouGov polls 12 months to 30 November inc Green 2014.jpg
    errrr no. Voters will start to firm up their voting intention on who they want to run the Govt. Ed or Dave.
    That has not been happening. Labour have been losing support, but that support has not passed to the Conservatives.

    "Instead of making a 3-point recovery in the polls, as historical votes and polls suggest they should have done over the last year, the Tories have roughly been level pegging around 32%. The Liberal Democrats not only failed to make any recovery over the last year but have dropped by another couple of points. Only Labour has performed as expected, by losing five points in the polls."

    http://electionsetc.com/2014/10/24/after-a-year-of-forecasting-whats-changed/
  • A little surprisingly given the zero reaction thus far in the polls to the Autumn Statement, the Tories have ticked up by one seat (279 Sell - 285 Buy) in Sporting's GE Seats spread and are now just 4 seats behind Labour (283 Sell - 289 Buy).
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    @JosiasJessop

    "Having just been to the pub for lunch..."

    Good for you, Mr. Jessop! I thought such outings were very much frowned upon in today's workforce and its good to see a gentleman keeping up the old traditions and supporting local businesses. Mind you I notice your post was timed at 13:41, a bit early to be back from the boozer I would have thought - never came back before 14:00 myself and 15:00 (if at all) on a Friday.

    ...

    It's improved since it's been under new management, but this lunchtime I was served by someone in a tracksuit (shudders).
    A tracksuit? Dear God, the horror. Some years ago the new landlord at our village local appeared for duty on a Sunday lunchtime without a tie and that didn't half cause a fuss (to get the message across the next week all the regulars, saloon and public bar, all turned up in collar and tie). But a tracksuit is just so far beyond the pale.

    Congrats on the sprog by the way, but don't listen to Mrs Free - the first 20 years are not the worst. I remember being told such nonsense when my boy was born but I worry about him and his future far more now that he has turned 21 than ever I did when he was younger.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    edited December 2014
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    Traditional, first: let's say you discover 100m of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. You have to organise a drilling programme (perhaps it'll require 20 wells), water injection, water separation, storage, an FPSO, etc. The total you'll spend will be north of $1bn. But once the big money has been spent, you'll produce oil - at a slowly declining rate as water cut increases - for a decade or more. But here's the thing: you need to be sure of the long-term price of oil before you'll commit the money, but once the money has been committed... the oil is coming on stream, irrespective of whether the oil price is $40, $70, $100 or $150.

    Now, tight oil. You have rights over 100s of miles of Texan or North Dakotan land. And if you have $10m to spend, you can drill a horizontal well and hydraulically fracture it. The oil comes through quickly at first, but the production rate rapidly declines - in other words, you have very fast payback.

    If the oil price is $50, you don't drill. If it's $80, you drill.

    The oil isn't going away, if the oil price edges back up, then the EOGs, the Apache's, the Concho's, and 100 other small oil and gas companies will call out the rigs and drill.

    And this is why Saudi Arabia refused to cut production. Because cutting production wouldn't raise the oil price, it would simply cede market share to the US.

    But it also means - assuming geopolitics remains stable - that it's hard for the oil price to shoot back up ($90, sure - $110, much harder), because as the oil price rises, then US production will start to roar back.

    rcs, agree with all that. What was interesting to me was the data point - that $70 oil closes down US production, never mind $50. I suspect there will be considerable wariness at $80, and it may be that oil prices reach a balance point somewhere a little north of $80 Brent.

    At $70 oil, production will still probably grow in the US - not by the 1.3m barrels achieved this year, but probably 500-600k,

    See how gas production continued to rise in the US, even as the price fell from $12mcf to under $4.
    I don't know, but suspect that gas will have had longer lead times (to put pipelines in place) and so the bulk of the investment would have been made when the price was higher, with opex a smaller proportion of development costs, justifying them proceeding with production.

    I expect the price link with oil production is more immediate.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469

    @JosiasJessop

    "Having just been to the pub for lunch..."

    Good for you, Mr. Jessop! I thought such outings were very much frowned upon in today's workforce and its good to see a gentleman keeping up the old traditions and supporting local businesses. Mind you I notice your post was timed at 13:41, a bit early to be back from the boozer I would have thought - never came back before 14:00 myself and 15:00 (if at all) on a Friday.

    Unfortunately for the reasons previously alluded to I only had a miserly bitter shandy, and Mrs J only imbibed Coca Cola's finest. I can's stand our local pub (known colloquially as the Asbo Arms) for more than an hour unless I'm drinking (and for the Wednesday morning mother-and-baby group - due to me now a mother-and-baby-and-occasional-father group).

    It's improved since it's been under new management, but this lunchtime I was served by someone in a tracksuit (shudders).
    In mother and occasional father baby groups it is useful for the occasional father to know that none of the ladies expect him to sing ,beyond the odd mumble, the nursery rhymes . TOP TIP
    Nah, I'm all for singing with gusto. I sing "The modern major general's song" to our little bundle of joy, and he seems to like it.

    Since my singing's actually been mentioned in a book as: "It sounded a bit like a cat, but there seemed to be words mixed in amidst the dreadful howling", I'm not sure people around me like it, though.

    Perhaps Farage should forget about women breastfeeding in public, and ban singing in public (if only for me)?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341
    edited December 2014
    Cyclefree said:

    taffys said:

    Of all the weird things in life to have a hang up about.

    What's weird is why women wear them. What are they for, exactly??

    They are there so that, particularly in the earlier stages of pregnancy when often a woman can feel much fainter and sicker than later on, someone can offer their seat without feeling foolish. Unfortunately - and this has happened to me - even when very visibly pregnant I have had men stampede past me for the last seat or not offer up their seat. This is plain bad manners. The badge is there to try and nudge people into courteous behaviour.

    Most informative discussion. Though it's presumably not used enough that I can avoid the risk of a dirty look from a woman who's merely plump when I offer her a seat on a bus - never mind, it's all in a good cause.

    Ninoinoz said:

    I presume that there are no posters here that have worked in a restaurant?

    Breastfeeding in a restaurant is a flagrant breach of the 'no own food' rule.

    If I brought my own sandwiches to Claridge's, they'd stop me eating them in the restaurant.

    Breast is best, Nino!
    And it is on draught, too, a sentiment with which anyone who was (later) brought up on the CAMRA Good Beer Guide would agree.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    DavidL said:

    Broadly agree Nick. I think the tories will recover some of the UKIP vote as might Labour but they are clearly going to get a much bigger share than ever before and they may well break through in a few seats. Or not.

    I think the Lib Dems will recover to some degree on the habit point, especially where they have a chance of winning or hold the seat. This might hurt Labour in terms of votes but not necessarily much in terms of seats.

    Clearly the SNP are going to do far better than in 2010. How much better is up for grabs but Labour should be worried.

    All in all this looks the most uncertain election I can recall. It may prove to be one where (unusually) the campaign makes a real difference. Labour will presumably hope not.

    In the absence of "events", surely the most likely thing is that current trends will continue? Labour/LD will continue to decline. Greens/UKIP will continue to grow. Tories will stagnate.
    http://www.mediafire.com/view/l8rd7atd257yprk/YouGov polls 12 months to 30 November inc Green 2014.jpg
    errrr no. Voters will start to firm up their voting intention on who they want to run the Govt. Ed or Dave.
    That is a stark choice. "None of the above" is not an option.

    So - pop quiz: who you gonna choose, Britain?


  • no in Rushcliffe usually -although I may try Colwick Park tomorrow (less women breastfeeding by the side of the paths imo)

    Try Beeston sometime, perhaps?

    http://www.parkrun.org.uk/beeston/

    - it's co-organised by an energetic fitness fanatic friend who recently qualified in the Iron Man event in Spain.

    (He's standing in our borough council by-election next week - a man of many parts.)
    I have noticed that at Parkruns people do wear T shirts that try and intimidate ( Iron Man Triathlons , Survival of the Fittest and even those 'I have done 50 Parkruns' ones). The best I can manage is my Notts Orienteering club one which comes across as being nerdy and weird to most pure runners.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326

    @JosiasJessop

    "Having just been to the pub for lunch..."

    Good for you, Mr. Jessop! I thought such outings were very much frowned upon in today's workforce and its good to see a gentleman keeping up the old traditions and supporting local businesses. Mind you I notice your post was timed at 13:41, a bit early to be back from the boozer I would have thought - never came back before 14:00 myself and 15:00 (if at all) on a Friday.

    ...

    It's improved since it's been under new management, but this lunchtime I was served by someone in a tracksuit (shudders).
    A tracksuit? Dear God, the horror. Some years ago the new landlord at our village local appeared for duty on a Sunday lunchtime without a tie and that didn't half cause a fuss (to get the message across the next week all the regulars, saloon and public bar, all turned up in collar and tie). But a tracksuit is just so far beyond the pale.

    Congrats on the sprog by the way, but don't listen to Mrs Free - the first 20 years are not the worst. I remember being told such nonsense when my boy was born but I worry about him and his future far more now that he has turned 21 than ever I did when he was younger.
    Ha ha! I was only teasing. Once a parent, always a parent. You never stop worrying about them.

    But do enjoy and cherish every moment. All you can really give them is love and happy memories.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    Broadly agree Nick. I think the tories will recover some of the UKIP vote as might Labour but they are clearly going to get a much bigger share than ever before and they may well break through in a few seats. Or not.

    I think the Lib Dems will recover to some degree on the habit point, especially where they have a chance of winning or hold the seat. This might hurt Labour in terms of votes but not necessarily much in terms of seats.

    Clearly the SNP are going to do far better than in 2010. How much better is up for grabs but Labour should be worried.

    All in all this looks the most uncertain election I can recall. It may prove to be one where (unusually) the campaign makes a real difference. Labour will presumably hope not.

    In the absence of "events", surely the most likely thing is that current trends will continue?

    Labour/LD will continue to decline. Greens/UKIP will continue to grow. Tories will stagnate.

    http://www.mediafire.com/view/l8rd7atd257yprk/YouGov polls 12 months to 30 November inc Green 2014.jpg
    There's no such thing as momentum:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-misunderstanding-of-momentum/
    Does that only apply to a two-party system, though? I can imagine momentum matters a lot more in a situation where you are a minor party and every rise in the polls makes you less of a "wasted vote" so other people look at you more seriously.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    Socrates said:

    Gadfly said:

    Socrates said:

    Gadfly said:

    Socrates said:

    Gadfly said:

    Farage takes the view that if certain sections of society are uncomfortable with something, then the rest of society needs to consider this and bend accordingly.

    My mother's generation seem to be pretty uncomfortable with a whole bunch of things, ranging from gay marriage to foreigners in general. Does this mean the rest of us have to consider these views, pack away all that libertarian stuff, and start voting UKIP?

    Every country in the world has certain manners that are commonly understood.
    Manners do not replace the law. The Equality Act 2010 has made it illegal for anyone to ask a breastfeeding woman to leave a public place such as a cafe, shop or public transport.

    Surely asking her to cover up equates to the same thing?

    In my experience the baby's head provides more than adequate screening.
    No, covering up, which is something easy to do that most breastfeeding women do anyway, and being forced to stop your meal/purchase/commute etc are in no way the same thing.
    I am sorry old bean, but it amounts to discrimination!

    "Service providers must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding. Discrimination includes refusing to provide a service, providing a lower standard of service or providing a service on different terms."

    http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/breastfeedingpublicplace.pdf
    Asking breast-feeding women to make sure their breasts are covered when they breast-feed is not discrimination, harassment, victimisation, providing a lower standard of service, or providing a service on different terms. This isn't difficult.
    What's the difference between being asked to sit in a corner and being asked to sit at the back of a bus?

    I sympathise that the issue is far more emotive than it should be, and actually I don't feel particularly strongly, but I do feel we should be working towards a society where breatsfeeding isn't offensive because no-one is offended.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Some years ago the new landlord at our village local appeared for duty on a Sunday lunchtime without a tie and that didn't half cause a fuss

    Sweet Lord, I havent worn a tie since the last funeral I was at.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    JJ,

    Congrats but surely you'll be a fan of breast-feeding? Getting up in the middle of the night should always be a woman's job in my opinion!
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Socrates said:

    Gadfly said:

    Socrates said:

    Gadfly said:

    Socrates said:

    Gadfly said:

    Farage takes the view that if certain sections of society are uncomfortable with something, then the rest of society needs to consider this and bend accordingly.

    My mother's generation seem to be pretty uncomfortable with a whole bunch of things, ranging from gay marriage to foreigners in general. Does this mean the rest of us have to consider these views, pack away all that libertarian stuff, and start voting UKIP?

    Every country in the world has certain manners that are commonly understood.
    Manners do not replace the law. The Equality Act 2010 has made it illegal for anyone to ask a breastfeeding woman to leave a public place such as a cafe, shop or public transport.

    Surely asking her to cover up equates to the same thing?

    In my experience the baby's head provides more than adequate screening.
    No, covering up, which is something easy to do that most breastfeeding women do anyway, and being forced to stop your meal/purchase/commute etc are in no way the same thing.
    I am sorry old bean, but it amounts to discrimination!

    "Service providers must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding. Discrimination includes refusing to provide a service, providing a lower standard of service or providing a service on different terms."

    http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/breastfeedingpublicplace.pdf
    Asking breast-feeding women to make sure their breasts are covered when they breast-feed is not discrimination, harassment, victimisation, providing a lower standard of service, or providing a service on different terms.
    This isn't difficult.
    Crikey - "breasts" - our imaginary woman appears to have gone from whipping out an entire boob to waving them both around as a warm-up routine.

    "I will only serve you if you cover yourself with this napkin", is what is providing a service on different terms and therefore against the law.

    Have you actually seen the pictures? Which aspect of the left-hand one offends you the most?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30298382
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    Broadly agree Nick. I think the tories will recover some of the UKIP vote as might Labour but they are clearly going to get a much bigger share than ever before and they may well break through in a few seats. Or not.

    I think the Lib Dems will recover to some degree on the habit point, especially where they have a chance of winning or hold the seat. This might hurt Labour in terms of votes but not necessarily much in terms of seats.

    Clearly the SNP are going to do far better than in 2010. How much better is up for grabs but Labour should be worried.

    All in all this looks the most uncertain election I can recall. It may prove to be one where (unusually) the campaign makes a real difference. Labour will presumably hope not.

    In the absence of "events", surely the most likely thing is that current trends will continue?

    Labour/LD will continue to decline. Greens/UKIP will continue to grow. Tories will stagnate.

    http://www.mediafire.com/view/l8rd7atd257yprk/YouGov polls 12 months to 30 November inc Green 2014.jpg
    There's no such thing as momentum:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-misunderstanding-of-momentum/
    Does that only apply to a two-party system, though? I can imagine momentum matters a lot more in a situation where you are a minor party and every rise in the polls makes you less of a "wasted vote" so other people look at you more seriously.
    Yeah, I also think that a commentator's use of the word momentum isn't the same as simply having closed the gap. Rather they are making a statement as to why - an improving outlook on the economy for example - that they continue to be useful in the future. Or looking less like a wasted vote as you say.
  • @JosiasJessop

    "Having just been to the pub for lunch..."

    Good for you, Mr. Jessop! I thought such outings were very much frowned upon in today's workforce and its good to see a gentleman keeping up the old traditions and supporting local businesses. Mind you I notice your post was timed at 13:41, a bit early to be back from the boozer I would have thought - never came back before 14:00 myself and 15:00 (if at all) on a Friday.

    Unfortunately for the reasons previously alluded to I only had a miserly bitter shandy, and Mrs J only imbibed Coca Cola's finest. I can's stand our local pub (known colloquially as the Asbo Arms) for more than an hour unless I'm drinking (and for the Wednesday morning mother-and-baby group - due to me now a mother-and-baby-and-occasional-father group).

    It's improved since it's been under new management, but this lunchtime I was served by someone in a tracksuit (shudders).
    In mother and occasional father baby groups it is useful for the occasional father to know that none of the ladies expect him to sing ,beyond the odd mumble, the nursery rhymes . TOP TIP
    Nah, I'm all for singing with gusto. I sing "The modern major general's song" to our little bundle of joy, and he seems to like it.

    Since my singing's actually been mentioned in a book as: "It sounded a bit like a cat, but there seemed to be words mixed in amidst the dreadful howling", I'm not sure people around me like it, though.

    Perhaps Farage should forget about women breastfeeding in public, and ban singing in public (if only for me)?
    well good for you. When I did my stint a few years ago I knew exactly how John Redward felt with his Welsh anthem blues
  • DavidL said:

    Broadly agree Nick. I think the tories will recover some of the UKIP vote as might Labour but they are clearly going to get a much bigger share than ever before and they may well break through in a few seats. Or not.

    I think the Lib Dems will recover to some degree on the habit point, especially where they have a chance of winning or hold the seat. This might hurt Labour in terms of votes but not necessarily much in terms of seats.

    Clearly the SNP are going to do far better than in 2010. How much better is up for grabs but Labour should be worried.

    All in all this looks the most uncertain election I can recall. It may prove to be one where (unusually) the campaign makes a real difference. Labour will presumably hope not.

    In the absence of "events", surely the most likely thing is that current trends will continue? Labour/LD will continue to decline. Greens/UKIP will continue to grow. Tories will stagnate.
    http://www.mediafire.com/view/l8rd7atd257yprk/YouGov polls 12 months to 30 November inc Green 2014.jpg
    errrr no. Voters will start to firm up their voting intention on who they want to run the Govt. Ed or Dave.
    That has not been happening. Labour have been losing support, but that support has not passed to the Conservatives.
    "Instead of making a 3-point recovery in the polls, as historical votes and polls suggest they should have done over the last year, the Tories have roughly been level pegging around 32%. The Liberal Democrats not only failed to make any recovery over the last year but have dropped by another couple of points. Only Labour has performed as expected, by losing five points in the polls."
    http://electionsetc.com/2014/10/24/after-a-year-of-forecasting-whats-changed/
    Voters will start to focus on the GE from mid January.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    edited December 2014
    Asking a woman to "cover up" is Jihad by stealth!
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Gadfly said:


    Crikey - "breasts" - our imaginary woman appears to have gone from whipping out an entire boob to waving them both around as a warm-up routine.

    "I will only serve you if you cover yourself with this napkin", is what is providing a service on different terms and therefore against the law.

    Have you actually seen the pictures? Which aspect of the left-hand one offends you the most?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30298382

    If you're going to be so ridiculous in warping my words there's not much point in me trying to engage in constructive debate any longer.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    DavidL said:

    Broadly agree Nick. I think the tories will recover some of the UKIP vote as might Labour but they are clearly going to get a much bigger share than ever before and they may well break through in a few seats. Or not.

    I think the Lib Dems will recover to some degree on the habit point, especially where they have a chance of winning or hold the seat. This might hurt Labour in terms of votes but not necessarily much in terms of seats.

    Clearly the SNP are going to do far better than in 2010. How much better is up for grabs but Labour should be worried.

    All in all this looks the most uncertain election I can recall. It may prove to be one where (unusually) the campaign makes a real difference. Labour will presumably hope not.

    In the absence of "events", surely the most likely thing is that current trends will continue? Labour/LD will continue to decline. Greens/UKIP will continue to grow. Tories will stagnate.
    http://www.mediafire.com/view/l8rd7atd257yprk/YouGov polls 12 months to 30 November inc Green 2014.jpg
    errrr no. Voters will start to firm up their voting intention on who they want to run the Govt. Ed or Dave.
    That has not been happening. Labour have been losing support, but that support has not passed to the Conservatives.
    "Instead of making a 3-point recovery in the polls, as historical votes and polls suggest they should have done over the last year, the Tories have roughly been level pegging around 32%. The Liberal Democrats not only failed to make any recovery over the last year but have dropped by another couple of points. Only Labour has performed as expected, by losing five points in the polls."
    http://electionsetc.com/2014/10/24/after-a-year-of-forecasting-whats-changed/
    Voters will start to focus on the GE from mid January.
    Is this another 'peak UKIP' prediction?
  • Asking a woman to "cover up" is Jihad by stealth!

    Agreed. I like the view of plump fertile bre..... (help doctor).
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191

    Asking a woman to "cover up" is Jihad by stealth!

    Absolutely spot on!

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    "I will only serve you if you cover yourself with this napkin", is what is providing a service on different terms and therefore against the law.

    That is the point isn't it? Farage is standing up for the restaurant's right to impose its own rules, as long as those rules are within the law.

  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    edited December 2014
    Socrates said:

    Gadfly said:


    Crikey - "breasts" - our imaginary woman appears to have gone from whipping out an entire boob to waving them both around as a warm-up routine.

    "I will only serve you if you cover yourself with this napkin", is providing a service on different terms and therefore against the law.

    Have you actually seen the pictures? Which aspect of the left-hand one offends you the most?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30298382

    constructive debate
    Or the good old days as my mother calls it.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300

    @JosiasJessop

    "Having just been to the pub for lunch..."

    Good for you, Mr. Jessop! I thought such outings were very much frowned upon in today's workforce and its good to see a gentleman keeping up the old traditions and supporting local businesses. Mind you I notice your post was timed at 13:41, a bit early to be back from the boozer I would have thought - never came back before 14:00 myself and 15:00 (if at all) on a Friday.

    Unfortunately for the reasons previously alluded to I only had a miserly bitter shandy, and Mrs J only imbibed Coca Cola's finest. I can's stand our local pub (known colloquially as the Asbo Arms) for more than an hour unless I'm drinking (and for the Wednesday morning mother-and-baby group - due to me now a mother-and-baby-and-occasional-father group).

    It's improved since it's been under new management, but this lunchtime I was served by someone in a tracksuit (shudders).
    In mother and occasional father baby groups it is useful for the occasional father to know that none of the ladies expect him to sing ,beyond the odd mumble, the nursery rhymes . TOP TIP
    Nah, I'm all for singing with gusto. I sing "The modern major general's song" to our little bundle of joy, and he seems to like it.

    Since my singing's actually been mentioned in a book as: "It sounded a bit like a cat, but there seemed to be words mixed in amidst the dreadful howling", I'm not sure people around me like it, though.

    Perhaps Farage should forget about women breastfeeding in public, and ban singing in public (if only for me)?
    The wheels on Ed's bus are falling off,
    falling off,
    falling off,
    all day long.

    Congratulations on the addition to your household.
  • DavidL said:

    Broadly agree Nick. I think the tories will recover some of the UKIP vote as might Labour but they are clearly going to get a much bigger share than ever before and they may well break through in a few seats. Or not.

    I think the Lib Dems will recover to some degree on the habit point, especially where they have a chance of winning or hold the seat. This might hurt Labour in terms of votes but not necessarily much in terms of seats.

    Clearly the SNP are going to do far better than in 2010. How much better is up for grabs but Labour should be worried.

    All in all this looks the most uncertain election I can recall. It may prove to be one where (unusually) the campaign makes a real difference. Labour will presumably hope not.

    In the absence of "events", surely the most likely thing is that current trends will continue? Labour/LD will continue to decline. Greens/UKIP will continue to grow. Tories will stagnate.
    http://www.mediafire.com/view/l8rd7atd257yprk/YouGov polls 12 months to 30 November inc Green 2014.jpg
    errrr no. Voters will start to firm up their voting intention on who they want to run the Govt. Ed or Dave.
    That is a stark choice. "None of the above" is not an option.

    So - pop quiz: who you gonna choose, Britain?
    Probably muddle and confusion. A bit like father's day in some urban areas.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    There's nothing embarrassing about a woman breast-feeding in public.

    It just embarrassing to be caught looking...

  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    edited December 2014
    taffys said:


    That is the point isn't it? Farage is standing up for the restaurant's right to impose its own rules, as long as those rules are within the law.

    The restaurant enjoys no such right.
  • taffys said:

    "I will only serve you if you cover yourself with this napkin", is what is providing a service on different terms and therefore against the law.

    That is the point isn't it? Farage is standing up for the restaurant's right to impose its own rules, as long as those rules are within the law.

    Farage is standing up for businesses and not their customers?

  • There's nothing embarrassing about a woman breast-feeding in public.

    It just embarrassing to be caught looking...

    This would be my post of the day :)
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    O/T

    For those of you who use Twitter may I recommend following "Herdwick Shepherd" (@herdyshepherd1). A sheep farmer in the Lakes who posts photos of the sheep, dogs and countryside of his daily life, absolutely no side to the man and his pictures always give me a lift.
  • Good afternoon, everyone.

    Congratulations, Mr. Jessop.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    dr_spyn said:

    @JosiasJessop

    "Having just been to the pub for lunch..."

    Good for you, Mr. Jessop! I thought such outings were very much frowned upon in today's workforce and its good to see a gentleman keeping up the old traditions and supporting local businesses. Mind you I notice your post was timed at 13:41, a bit early to be back from the boozer I would have thought - never came back before 14:00 myself and 15:00 (if at all) on a Friday.

    Unfortunately for the reasons previously alluded to I only had a miserly bitter shandy, and Mrs J only imbibed Coca Cola's finest. I can's stand our local pub (known colloquially as the Asbo Arms) for more than an hour unless I'm drinking (and for the Wednesday morning mother-and-baby group - due to me now a mother-and-baby-and-occasional-father group).

    It's improved since it's been under new management, but this lunchtime I was served by someone in a tracksuit (shudders).
    In mother and occasional father baby groups it is useful for the occasional father to know that none of the ladies expect him to sing ,beyond the odd mumble, the nursery rhymes . TOP TIP
    Nah, I'm all for singing with gusto. I sing "The modern major general's song" to our little bundle of joy, and he seems to like it.

    Since my singing's actually been mentioned in a book as: "It sounded a bit like a cat, but there seemed to be words mixed in amidst the dreadful howling", I'm not sure people around me like it, though.

    Perhaps Farage should forget about women breastfeeding in public, and ban singing in public (if only for me)?
    The wheels on Ed's bus are falling off,
    falling off,
    falling off,
    all day long.

    Congratulations on the addition to your household.
    Thanks, to you and all the other well-wishers.

    I prefer:
    Round and round go policies,
    Like a UKIPper,
    One step,
    Two steps,
    Back to the fifties we go!
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Farage is standing up for businesses and not their customers?

    No. Farage is standing up for a business' right to conduct itself as it wishes, within the law, and to face the consequences.

    I'm not sure if asking a women to cover up breastfeeding is legal or not. But if it is legal, the business has a perfect right to ask.

    It is that business which faces annihilation if its customers leave in droves. Its their look out.

  • There's nothing embarrassing about a woman breast-feeding in public.

    It just embarrassing to be caught looking...

    Yeah a bit like when a woman catches you making eye contact with her whilst she's eating a banana.

    Boy has that got me into trouble in the past.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,954
    rcs1000 said:

    I was in Houston and Dallas the week before last, and met a bunch of energy companies.

    Let me contrast new US tight oil plays (the Bakken, the Permian and the Eagle Ford), with traditional oil and gas fields.

    Traditional, first: let's say you discover 100m of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. You have to organise a drilling programme (perhaps it'll require 20 wells), water injection, water separation, storage, an FPSO, etc. The total you'll spend will be north of $1bn. But once the big money has been spent, you'll produce oil - at a slowly declining rate as water cut increases - for a decade or more. But here's the thing: you need to be sure of the long-term price of oil before you'll commit the money, but once the money has been committed... the oil is coming on stream, irrespective of whether the oil price is $40, $70, $100 or $150.

    Now, tight oil. You have rights over 100s of miles of Texan or North Dakotan land. And if you have $10m to spend, you can drill a horizontal well and hydraulically fracture it. The oil comes through quickly at first, but the production rate rapidly declines - in other words, you have very fast payback.

    If the oil price is $50, you don't drill. If it's $80, you drill.

    The oil isn't going away, if the oil price edges back up, then the EOGs, the Apache's, the Concho's, and 100 other small oil and gas companies will call out the rigs and drill.

    And this is why Saudi Arabia refused to cut production. Because cutting production wouldn't raise the oil price, it would simply cede market share to the US.

    But it also means - assuming geopolitics remains stable - that it's hard for the oil price to shoot back up ($90, sure - $110, much harder), because as the oil price rises, then US production will start to roar back.

    So that implies that the YES campaign's figures for future oil revenues, based upon a price of $110, were dubious all along?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    taffys said:

    Farage is standing up for businesses and not their customers?

    No. Farage is standing up for a business' right to conduct itself as it wishes, within the law, and to face the consequences.

    I'm not sure if asking a women to cover up breastfeeding is legal or not. But if it is legal, the business has a perfect right to ask.

    It is that business which faces annihilation if its customers leave in droves. Its their look out.

    And the business should make such terms and conditions clear before a customer enters, so the customer can choose not to enter. A big sign stating: "We're afraid of women and their strange bits!" should do the trick.

    For anyone suggesting that a woman breastfeed in a changing area, note that a) many places do not have them (or if they do they are a toilet), b) I've never seen one with a chair, and c) the smell that comes from the bins in summer.

    It's incredible that we still have Neanderthals who think that way.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,567



    Beeston is supposed to be a very flat course - so I am saving it to when I need a fast time confidence boost

    Do you ever run it?

    No, my friend keeps telling me I should, because it will impress loads of voters. As my normal fastest pace is a brisk trot between doorbells, I've put it in the "eat a sausage roll in public" category of stunts which are guaranteed to go wrong. Falling down a hole, getting overtaken by a team of grandmothers - the possibilities are endless. A nice discussion in the library with Beeston Amnesty is more my scene.

  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    taffys said:



    I'm not sure if asking a women to cover up breastfeeding is legal or not. But if it is legal, the business has a perfect right to ask.

    The 2010 Equality Act says that service providers must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding. Discrimination includes refusing to provide a
    service, providing a lower standard of service or providing a service on different terms.

    http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/breastfeedingpublicplace.pdf

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited December 2014


    There's nothing embarrassing about a woman breast-feeding in public.

    It just embarrassing to be caught looking...

    Yeah a bit like when a woman catches you making eye contact with her whilst she's eating a banana.

    Boy has that got me into trouble in the past.
    You are aware that the link you posted last night which seemed to show a Labour twitter account in a bad light was a fake yes?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    CD13 said:

    JJ,

    Congrats but surely you'll be a fan of breast-feeding? Getting up in the middle of the night should always be a woman's job in my opinion!

    Oh, it is the woman's job in Mrs J's case. But by the time she's put the bedside lamp on to check his nappy, stopped him crying, asked me to go and fetch the feeding ring and some fresh muslins, and then to go and put the heating on, I'm usually well awake!

    By the way, some thought should be given in this discussion to women who cannot breast feed. Sometime other women treat them with rather less compassion than they should (as a friend of ours has discovered during a 'breast is best' conversation).
  • UKIP's policy towards breastfeeding used to be different in Godfrey Bloom's day.

    http://order-order.com/2013/10/24/photo-godfrey-bloom-motorboating-stripper/
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited December 2014
    It's incredible that we still have Neanderthals who think that way.

    Tell you what. Let's let Claridges' customers decide what is and isn't neanderthal behaviour, rather than allowing you to shove your personal morality down their throats, shall we?

    If you're right, and Claridges are neanderthals, the restaurant will soon go out of business.

    Bet you it doesn't.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    @JosiasJessop

    "I sing "The modern major general's song" to our little bundle of joy"

    Always a good idea to introduce the little fellow to G&S at an early age. I did the same to mine. In fact he not only got the G&S highlights (the Nightmare Song from Iolanthe used to go down particularly well as did the Judge's song from Trial by Jury), he also got the articles from the economist read to him in a jolly voice, Mozart and Doris Day. Kept him amused for hours but had absolutely no discernible effect on his future abilities and tastes. However, if there was a sound that could be guaranteed to put him to sleep it was that of an electric drill.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    edited December 2014
    Observations / questions re Betfair Next Government market:

    Lab is marginal favourite for most seats and marginally shorter for a majority than Con.

    However:

    Con/LD is shorter than Lab/LD
    Con minority is shorter than Lab minority
    Con/UKIP is an outside possibility whereas Lab/UKIP no chance

    The above all seem to imply that despite being marginal outsiders on seats, Con has marginally more chance of being in Government than Lab (if neither has a majority).

    Why is this? Is it that Con is the incumbent? Or is it thought LD is more likely to go with Con than Lab (ignoring any seat difference)? If so, why?

    Historically and on fundamentals surely LD would prefer to go with Lab? Ashdown clearly stated they would have gone with Lab in 2010 if Lab had had a few more seats (but still fewer seats than Con). Also the concept of evening it up - ie make it 1-1 rather than going with Con two out of two - better for longer term positioning.

    Final / other point - there is also Any Other Government at quite short odds - could it be that Lab is more likely to feature in this option than Con? If so, in what form? Lab/LD/SNP most likely?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    taffys said:

    It's incredible that we still have Neanderthals who think that way.

    Tell you what. Let's let Claridges' customers decide what is and isn't neanderthal behaviour, rather than allowing you to shove your personal morality down their throats, shall we?

    If you're right, and Claridges are neanderthals, the restaurant will soon go out of business.

    Bet you it doesn't.

    If a company makes it public knowledge that they don't allow it before taking any bookings, then fine. Besides, Claridges policy is more nuanced than that.

    I've been around scores of breastfeeding women over the last few months, aside from Mrs J. Some use covers, some do not, and yet I have only ever seen two nipples and one half-nipple. Not that I'm keeping count ... :-)
  • MikeL said:

    Observations / questions re Betfair Next Government market:

    Lab is marginal favourite for most seats and marginally shorter for a majority than Con.

    However:

    Con/LD is shorter than Lab/LD
    Con minority is shorter than Lab minority
    Con/UKIP is an outside possibility whereas Lab/UKIP no chance

    The above all seem to imply that despite being marginal outsiders on seats, Con has marginally more chance of being in Government than Lab (if neither has a majority).

    Why is this? Is it that Con is the incumbent? Or is it thought LD is more likely to go with Con than Lab (ignoring any seat difference)? If so, why?

    Historically and on fundamentals surely LD would prefer to go with Lab? Ashdown clearly stated they would have gone with Lab in 2010 if Lab had had a few more seats (but still fewer seats than Con). Also the concept of evening it up - ie make it 1-1 rather than going with Con two out of two - better for longer term positioning.

    Final / other point - there is also Any Other Government at quite short odds - could it be that Lab is more likely to feature in this option than Con? If so, in what form? Lab/LD/SNP most likely?

    Lab/SNP is far more likely than Con/SNP ?
  • MikeL said:

    Observations / questions re Betfair Next Government market:

    Lab is marginal favourite for most seats and marginally shorter for a majority than Con.

    However:

    Con/LD is shorter than Lab/LD
    Con minority is shorter than Lab minority
    Con/UKIP is an outside possibility whereas Lab/UKIP no chance

    The above all seem to imply that despite being marginal outsiders on seats, Con has marginally more chance of being in Government than Lab (if neither has a majority).

    Why is this? Is it that Con is the incumbent? Or is it thought LD is more likely to go with Con than Lab (ignoring any seat difference)? If so, why?

    Historically and on fundamentals surely LD would prefer to go with Lab? Ashdown clearly stated they would have gone with Lab in 2010 if Lab had had a few more seats (but still fewer seats than Con). Also the concept of evening it up - ie make it 1-1 rather than going with Con two out of two - better for longer term positioning.

    Final / other point - there is also Any Other Government at quite short odds - could it be that Lab is more likely to feature in this option than Con? If so, in what form? Lab/LD/SNP most likely?

    I see Labour minority as the single most likely outcome:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-next-government-picking-through.html

    I see Labour in power in some form or another as some way more likely than the Conservatives staying in government.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341
    edited December 2014

    UKIP's policy towards breastfeeding used to be different in Godfrey Bloom's day.

    http://order-order.com/2013/10/24/photo-godfrey-bloom-motorboating-stripper/


    Not different at all - they are just being jealous because they aren't the ones. [Edit: UKIP's alleged policy, one should perhaps say ...]
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    This breastfeeding saga reminds me of an old (long before Yes Minister) take on newspaper readership. It strikes me that yesterday's Express and Telegraph readership are today's UKIPers...

    The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country.
    The Times is read by the people who run the country.
    The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
    The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country.
    The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country.
    The Morning Star is read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
    The Daily Express is read by the people who think that the country ought to be run as it used to be.
    The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it still is.
    The Sun’s readers don't care who runs the country as long as she has big t**s.
  • isam said:


    There's nothing embarrassing about a woman breast-feeding in public.

    It just embarrassing to be caught looking...

    Yeah a bit like when a woman catches you making eye contact with her whilst she's eating a banana.

    Boy has that got me into trouble in the past.
    You are aware that the link you posted last night which seemed to show a Labour twitter account in a bad light was a fake yes?
    Yes.
  • Our EU chums clearly struggling very very hard to come to terms with the political implications of the Euro:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/11275746/Draghis-authority-drains-away-as-half-ECB-board-joins-mutiny.html

    Many just can't seem to accept that superstate or split is the choice. The politiicans will, of course, pretend and extend right to the bitter end.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    new thread

  • Gadfly said:

    This breastfeeding saga reminds me of an old (long before Yes Minister) take on newspaper readership. It strikes me that yesterday's Express and Telegraph readership are today's UKIPers...

    The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country.
    The Times is read by the people who run the country.
    The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
    The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country.
    The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country.
    The Morning Star is read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
    The Daily Express is read by the people who think that the country ought to be run as it used to be.
    The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it still is.
    The Sun’s readers don't care who runs the country as long as she has big t**s.

    The Sunil on Sunday's readers don't care who runs the country as long as she has big ELBOWs?

    :)
This discussion has been closed.