We seem to be on shifting sands politically, and even if Ukip doesn't make a big breakthrough next year and only gains a couple of seats, I suspect they will have a platform to move forward.
The Green vote is less certain. They attract the young and the middle class but they are a fashion which comes and goes. Their plant is less hardy.
Without wishing misfortune on any MP, if one were to resign or die shortly, would there be an ensuing byelection as in 1979 & 1997 or would seat remain vacant as in 2010 (6 month rule) please?
Obviously byelections give winning party a boost in polls.
Thanking you.
Almost certainly not now. Mid-december has often been quoted as the cut-off point. This is all in theory of course as there is no hard rule. If someone went under a bus tomorrow there might just be justification for one in January, but really after that voters would consider it a nonsense.
On the other hand one of the parties might try and force a by-election to cause trouble depending on the vacancy.
Is there anything I can do with this to give me a notional voting certainty for a 65 year old man vs a 65 year old woman.
More specifically if I was trying to model the voting behaviour of a group, is there any way I can use the information provided to estimate the likelihood to vote of a fictitious voter in a known age group, gender and Social class ?
I assume although the full sample is balanced for gender, we cannot make any assumptions about the gender balance within say an age range or social group.
I most certainly did not ever say it was a certainty.
Wow.
Well at least we now know the SNP plan for abandoning Eck's pledge that the IndyRef was a once in a generation event; pretend the last 2 years never happened...
We will see how smug you are after the next one in a few years time. Once the nasty party have stuffed Scotland , they will find it harder to scare the peasants the next time. Tories and LibDems will be able to share a taxi to Holyrood after 2016, oh forgot they get some consolation seats for being losers. Both regional puppets are serial losers, party leader and not even manage 4 figures voting for them. Not a lot for Tories to be smug about in Scotland, but imagine it suits you.
So the 'once in a generation' line was a lie then.
And speaking as a Tory, I'd be disappointed on current numbers if we don't emerge from the election with gains in Scotland given the collapse in Labour and LD fortunes. The Borders and Edinburgh offer prospects.
LOL, The Tories always do as they say. It was the truth but as he is retired he is unable to influence events. Do the Tories implement all the failed promises their troughers have pledged/vowed over the last hundred years. You know Tories are lying when you see their lips moving.
The number of US army/CIA failures in attempts to free their hostages is growing. The reason could be poor intelligence, poor battle plan or both. There could also be more than one worm in the pie.
Without wishing misfortune on any MP, if one were to resign or die shortly, would there be an ensuing byelection as in 1979 & 1997 or would seat remain vacant as in 2010 (6 month rule) please?
Obviously byelections give winning party a boost in polls.
Thanking you.
The general rule is that the party of the deceased incumbent decides when a by-election should take place. My guess is that if a vacancy occurred in the coming months then none of the main parties would want a fight.
A second question arises if there was another defector to UKIP. My understanding is that Carswell/Reckless could move the writ if they so wanted to.
Once again, the biggest loser in November was Labour, down another 1.6% last month, amounting to a loss of 3% over the last two months and almost 6% since the same time last year. By contrast, the Conservatives remain marooned within a point of 31.5, as they have been for almost a year and a half.
So the trend implies Con on 30.9 in May and Labour losing another 2.5 points taking them down to 29.4.
Then all we have to factor in is the issue of pollster accuracy.
Who do they overstate and who do they understate?
... and the minor detail of what the 25% of DKs are actually going to do.
We seem to be on shifting sands politically, and even if Ukip doesn't make a big breakthrough next year and only gains a couple of seats, I suspect they will have a platform to move forward.
The Green vote is less certain. They attract the young and the middle class but they are a fashion which comes and goes. Their plant is less hardy.
The Greens are a plant with green bark and red sap. The fruit could be poison.
Without wishing misfortune on any MP, if one were to resign or die shortly, would there be an ensuing byelection as in 1979 & 1997 or would seat remain vacant as in 2010 (6 month rule) please?
Obviously byelections give winning party a boost in polls.
Thanking you.
The general rule is that the party of the deceased incumbent decides when a by-election should take place. My guess is that if a vacancy occurred in the coming months then none of the main parties would want a fight.
A second question arises if there was another defector to UKIP. My understanding is that Carswell/Reckless could move the writ if they so wanted to.
This could be my Southam Observer moment, but I now confidently (hmmm) predict there will be no more treacherous pigdogs (at least this side of the election).
I tell you what's the problem with breastfeeding 'argument': it makes those in favour look like, well, metropolitan liberals or, worse, Italians.
Now, you may not be surprised that I see nothing wrong in being Italian, but emphasising this may not be the wisest thing to do if you hope to be elected in the UK.
It is another case of UKIP unwittingly showing how out of touch the metropolitan elite are.
Are you against women breastfeeding in public? If so, why?
Oh dear... these lefty student types get so carried away with their self righteousness they end up becoming those they mock
"inappropriate" is lefty for "wrong " isnt it?
UKIP Trumpton @Trumpton_UKIP · 9h 9 hours ago We just did a #ukip and let power go to our heads then said something inappropriate - we'll get over it - hope you will
UKIP Trumpton @Trumpton_UKIP · 9h9 hours ago We Won! but it wasn't appropriate to refer to a gay Scotsman as "a man in a skirt" - sorry @DavidCoburnUKip pic.twitter.com/eBF7M9wdEn
OstendGudgeon @OstendGudgeon · 9h9 hours ago @Trumpton_UKIP@DavidCoburnUKip Sadly, that demeans the struggle of very real people with very real problems with very real discrimination.
UKIP Trumpton @Trumpton_UKIP · 9h 9 hours ago Yes, and apart from deleting the image and explaining why I was wrong, I can only apologise to you @OstendGudgeon
OstendGudgeon @OstendGudgeon · 8h8 hours ago @Trumpton_UKIP That's my point though - who referred to"gay"? It was irrelevant in this scenario & I'm still unaware of its relevance now.
Without wishing misfortune on any MP, if one were to resign or die shortly, would there be an ensuing byelection as in 1979 & 1997 or would seat remain vacant as in 2010 (6 month rule) please?
Obviously byelections give winning party a boost in polls.
Thanking you.
The general rule is that the party of the deceased incumbent decides when a by-election should take place. My guess is that if a vacancy occurred in the coming months then none of the main parties would want a fight.
A second question arises if there was another defector to UKIP. My understanding is that Carswell/Reckless could move the writ if they so wanted to.
This could be my Southam Observer moment, but I now confidently (hmmm) predict there will be no more treacherous pigdogs (at least this side of the election).
You couldnt be tempted yourself? Even if Nigel managed to secure a seat in the upper house for you?
The number of US army/CIA failures in attempts to free their hostages is growing. The reason could be poor intelligence, poor battle plan or both. There could also be more than one worm in the pie.
It could just be a string of "bad dice throws". Hostage rescues in distant places must be the most tricky of military operations, everything must go exactly right for the attackers whilst the defence have all the advantages and only need a couple of seconds to kill the hostage(s). Additionally the number of such missions over the years and the publicity that has, stupidly, been given to the methods used have meant that the bad guys have been able to learn how to do their job better.
So probably just a combination of bad luck and imperfect intelligence have brought the success ration back into that which could normally be expected.
Voters defecting to the Green party are one of the biggest reasons why I don't have much time for the idea that the liberals can hold 2/3rds of their seats with a 7-10% share of the vote.
It is notable that the Greens declined to stand in a good few Libdem marginals last time. The idea that a superincumbency vote will prop Libdems up when the greens have the same national share of the vote is far fetched. Similarly a good few anti tory voters in constituencies like Yeovil will peel off to UKIP and others will slink back to Labour.
I also wonder whether in places like Westmoreland and St Austell, wealthy yoghurt knitters with second homes will register themselves at their North London home next time.
Paul, while I share your view on Libdem seats, I very much doubt the greens will get anywhere near 3%, let alone 5%, at the election.
Just another point on GE2015 from betting point of view if I may please:
In the most unlikely event of Con and Lab securing same number of seats (as happened in 1910 Con &Lib), would all Most Seats Bets be lost to punter and bookmaker takes all?
Surely bookmakers should offer odds for the tie as they do in one day cricket or in rugby but they won't because the tie could just happen in GE2015!
Remember, Josias, he's only against people ostentatiously breastfeeding in public.
I can hear all those shire tories, golf club bores and white van men tearing up their UKIP membership cards as we speak... or maybe not.
Indigo, I am at one with Farage's view that businesses should be free to impose whatever standards they like.
What I find absurd is the idea that there are *any* women breastfeeding ostentatiously. I think it's a weasel politicians answer that gives something to everyone.
Voters defecting to the Green party are one of the biggest reasons why I don't have much time for the idea that the liberals can hold 2/3rds of their seats with a 7-10% share of the vote. It is notable that the Greens declined to stand in a good few Libdem marginals last time. The idea that a superincumbency vote will prop Libdems up when the greens have the same national share of the vote is far fetched. Similarly a good few anti tory voters in constituencies like Yeovil will peel off to UKIP and others will slink back to Labour.....
Agreed. With the Greens gaining up to 7% in some constituencies mainly from the LDs, it makes the LDs situation perilous. To retain 30 seats the LDs have to avoid losing 11% of the votes and their main rival gaining none. Best they can hope for is to keep the losses to 12% to 15%, But Labour are clearly good for 5% gains against the LDs and Cons may only drop 1%.
LDs have lost the NOTA votes, lost most of the redLDs, lost some greenLDs and by trashing the image of the coalition have lost those folk who thought coalitions were a good idea.... So what are they left with? A 5% to 7% hard core.
Voters defecting to the Green party are one of the biggest reasons why I don't have much time for the idea that the liberals can hold 2/3rds of their seats with a 7-10% share of the vote.
It is notable that the Greens declined to stand in a good few Libdem marginals last time. The idea that a superincumbency vote will prop Libdems up when the greens have the same national share of the vote is far fetched. Similarly a good few anti tory voters in constituencies like Yeovil will peel off to UKIP and others will slink back to Labour.
I also wonder whether in places like Westmoreland and St Austell, wealthy yoghurt knitters with second homes will register themselves at their North London home next time.
Paul, while I share your view on Libdem seats, I very much doubt the greens will get anywhere near 3%, let alone 5%, at the election.
Well, it depends what you mean by "near". Given 1% last time and standing in at least 50% more seats this time and generally higher profile than 2010 I find it hard to believe that the Greens wont trouble 2% in the national vote share. Surely that's "near" 3% (which I dont think is impossible as a final result)? In any event it's places not votes that count.
Why did David Cameron, ex deer hunter,ask armed police to seal off a woodland in Oxfordshire so he could shoot pigeons? Surely he had better things to do such as trying to run the country.He must be pleased that after the next election he will have more time for stag hunts once again!
Perhaps he fancied pigeon for tea ? Delicious !
Quite, and I like it too. But Mr C could have picked it up from one of the butchers in Oxford Covered Market, if not Witney, at a fraction to the cost of himself never mind the state.
Remember, Josias, he's only against people ostentatiously breastfeeding in public.
I can hear all those shire tories, golf club bores and white van men tearing up their UKIP membership cards as we speak... or maybe not.
Indigo, I am at one with Farage's view that businesses should be free to impose whatever standards they like.
What I find absurd is the idea that there are *any* women breastfeeding ostentatiously. I think it's a weasel politicians answer that gives something to everyone.
Being an old fuddy-duddy, but having kids, I am pretty relaxed about the whole breastfeeding thing. What really sets my teeth on edge are young couples ostentatiously sucking each others faces as conspicuously and thoroughly as possible, like in the middle of the supermarket - of course that is exactly why they are doing it there, but I find it hard to imagine a similarly acrobatic display of breastfeeding.
Do you think that would be good or bad if it did happen?
That depends on what the borrowing is for. Borrowing for investment (and particularly the right kind of investment) is not particularly a problem; borrowing for consumption is much more so.
It is a lot more complex than that (excessive investment in housing stock is not a good thing but nor is underinvestment) and borrowing for consumption is not necessarily bad providing it's kept to manageable levels. After all, these are not isolated transactions but feed into the wider economy and so borrowing for consumption at one level can simply be an indirect way of funding corporate investment, or an indirect way of funding corporate executives' lavish holidays abroad.
Perhaps my biggest reservation about the prediction is not that the borrowing is anticipated; it's that no downturn is. Of course, no government ever predicts a downturn but the reality is that there is still a great deal of stress in the international system and while we might get safely through the next few years, it's a very long way from a certainty.
Thanks for the response.
The UK is already living well beyond its means and the assumed surge in household borrowing would only worsen that.
Debt is debt and whether its in the name of households or government is largely irrelevant as its still the early use of wealth borrowed/stolen from the future.
Ultimately we come back to the question which I posed here six years and have never received a workable answer:
In a globalised world economy how do we earn the higher standards of living here when we are competing against countries who are as intelligent and educated as us and who are willing to work harder for lower pay and with fewer restrictions.
The number of US army/CIA failures in attempts to free their hostages is growing. The reason could be poor intelligence, poor battle plan or both. There could also be more than one worm in the pie.
It could just be a string of "bad dice throws". Hostage rescues in distant places must be the most tricky of military operations, everything must go exactly right for the attackers whilst the defence have all the advantages and only need a couple of seconds to kill the hostage(s). Additionally the number of such missions over the years and the publicity that has, stupidly, been given to the methods used have meant that the bad guys have been able to learn how to do their job better.
So probably just a combination of bad luck and imperfect intelligence have brought the success ration back into that which could normally be expected.
One of the biggest mistakes we can make IMHO is to assume that the enemies we are fighting are in any way less intelligent or cunning as ourselves. We may abhor the hostage takers, but we should not underestimate them. Western-style military forces have many advantages; they also operate (rightly or wrongly) with one hand behind their backs. The opposition often do not.
Voters defecting to the Green party are one of the biggest reasons why I don't have much time for the idea that the liberals can hold 2/3rds of their seats with a 7-10% share of the vote.
It is notable that the Greens declined to stand in a good few Libdem marginals last time. The idea that a superincumbency vote will prop Libdems up when the greens have the same national share of the vote is far fetched. Similarly a good few anti tory voters in constituencies like Yeovil will peel off to UKIP and others will slink back to Labour.
I also wonder whether in places like Westmoreland and St Austell, wealthy yoghurt knitters with second homes will register themselves at their North London home next time.
Paul, while I share your view on Libdem seats, I very much doubt the greens will get anywhere near 3%, let alone 5%, at the election. They will be, I think, the dog that didn't bark.
Going from 310 to almost 500 candidates will improve their votes all thinks being the same. So expect that 1% to increase to 2% and then add in the rise of the Greens so a 4% national share does seem achievable. In places where they actually stand that will be higher. With the demoralisation in the LDs - I do expect the Greens to do better than average in LD seats.
In a globalised world economy how do we earn the higher standards of living here when we are competing against countries who are as intelligent and educated as us and who are willing to work harder for lower pay and with fewer restrictions.
Precisely. Yet all we hear is bleating about how we can't possibly cut any more #FirstWorldProblems
Without wishing misfortune on any MP, if one were to resign or die shortly, would there be an ensuing byelection as in 1979 & 1997 or would seat remain vacant as in 2010 (6 month rule) please?
Obviously byelections give winning party a boost in polls.
Thanking you.
Almost certainly not now. Mid-december has often been quoted as the cut-off point. This is all in theory of course as there is no hard rule. If someone went under a bus tomorrow there might just be justification for one in January, but really after that voters would consider it a nonsense.
On the other hand one of the parties might try and force a by-election to cause trouble depending on the vacancy.
...... "If someone went under a bus tomorrow” ...... or was remanded in custody!!!!!!!
The number of US army/CIA failures in attempts to free their hostages is growing. The reason could be poor intelligence, poor battle plan or both. There could also be more than one worm in the pie.
As for the Crab Air story, the MoD denial rings false. Those Tornadoes were due out of service next year so their maintenance has probably not been up to snuff for a while and they are old aeroplanes. Having to have 8 on site in order to guarantee two actually can fly on anyone day doesn't seem improbable to me. The sub-standard catering and crew facilities have basically been admitted by the MoD.
Cameron's botched defence cuts have really cut into the bone of the three services (the RN is in real trouble with manpower, recruiting is not a problem but retention, especially of senior engineering rates is) and he will cut some more next year. At the recent NATO summit he was berating the other members for failing to meet the 2% of GDP spending agreement and then failed to guarantee the UK would meet it after the election if he was PM.
Remember, Josias, he's only against people ostentatiously breastfeeding in public.
I can hear all those shire tories, golf club bores and white van men tearing up their UKIP membership cards as we speak... or maybe not.
Indigo, I am at one with Farage's view that businesses should be free to impose whatever standards they like.
What I find absurd is the idea that there are *any* women breastfeeding ostentatiously. I think it's a weasel politicians answer that gives something to everyone.
"Ostentatious" is clearly a too strong word for the context, but the guy was speaking off the cuff, not via prepared remarks. I'm sure if a milder word had come to mind, he'd have used that.
The number of US army/CIA failures in attempts to free their hostages is growing. The reason could be poor intelligence, poor battle plan or both. There could also be more than one worm in the pie.
It could just be a string of "bad dice throws". Hostage rescues in distant places must be the most tricky of military operations, everything must go exactly right for the attackers whilst the defence have all the advantages and only need a couple of seconds to kill the hostage(s). Additionally the number of such missions over the years and the publicity that has, stupidly, been given to the methods used have meant that the bad guys have been able to learn how to do their job better.
So probably just a combination of bad luck and imperfect intelligence have brought the success ration back into that which could normally be expected.
One of the biggest mistakes we can make IMHO is to assume that the enemies we are fighting are in any way less intelligent or cunning as ourselves. We may abhor the hostage takers, but we should not underestimate them. Western-style military forces have many advantages; they also operate (rightly or wrongly) with one hand behind their backs. The opposition often do not.
We play to our strengths, they play to theirs.
Quite right, Mr.J, and the best way of dealing with hostage takers is not to give them hostages to start with. Personally I blame John Major.
The number of US army/CIA failures in attempts to free their hostages is growing. The reason could be poor intelligence, poor battle plan or both. There could also be more than one worm in the pie.
It could just be a string of "bad dice throws". Hostage rescues in distant places must be the most tricky of military operations, everything must go exactly right for the attackers whilst the defence have all the advantages and only need a couple of seconds to kill the hostage(s). Additionally the number of such missions over the years and the publicity that has, stupidly, been given to the methods used have meant that the bad guys have been able to learn how to do their job better.
So probably just a combination of bad luck and imperfect intelligence have brought the success ration back into that which could normally be expected.
One of the biggest mistakes we can make IMHO is to assume that the enemies we are fighting are in any way less intelligent or cunning as ourselves. We may abhor the hostage takers, but we should not underestimate them. Western-style military forces have many advantages; they also operate (rightly or wrongly) with one hand behind their backs. The opposition often do not.
We play to our strengths, they play to theirs.
Quite right, Mr.J, and the best way of dealing with hostage takers is not to give them hostages to start with. Personally I blame John Major.
"Personally I blame John Major."
May I ask why? What did he do to make hostages more likely? (Then again, it's not my field).
Meanwhile the Green Party have [i]so far[/i] confirmed that they are standing in 30 Lib Dem held seats in 2015. These include 8 they did not stand in in 2010 (shown in bold with lib dem majority) , seven of which are marginals with Lib Dem majorities under 5,000
As they have only nominated 150 candidates so far and expect to stand in 487 (75% of) seats, this list will inevitably grow.
Bath Brecon and Radnor Brent Central Bristol West Cambridge Carshalton and Wallington Ceredigion *Cheltenham (Lib Maj 4,920) Chippenham *Cornwall North (Lib Maj 2,981) Devon North *Eastbourne (Lib Maj 3,435) *Edinburgh West (Lib Maj 3,803) Hornsey and Wood Green Kingston and Surbiton Leeds North West Lewes Manchester Withington Norwich South Portsmouth South *St Austell & Newquay (Lib Maj 1,312) St Ives Sheffield Hallam *Solihull (Lib Maj 175) *Somerton and Frome Sutton and Cheam *Taunton Deane (Lib Maj 3,993) Twickenham Wells *Westmoreland and Lonsdale (Lib Maj 12,264)
The EU Parliament result for Eastleigh had the Greens getting 2,464 votes. They didn't participate in the 2014 local elections.
The number of US army/CIA failures in attempts to free their hostages is growing. The reason could be poor intelligence, poor battle plan or both. There could also be more than one worm in the pie.
As for the Crab Air story, the MoD denial rings false. Those Tornadoes were due out of service next year so their maintenance has probably not been up to snuff for a while and they are old aeroplanes. Having to have 8 on site in order to guarantee two actually can fly on anyone day doesn't seem improbable to me. The sub-standard catering and crew facilities have basically been admitted by the MoD.
Cameron's botched defence cuts have really cut into the bone of the three services (the RN is in real trouble with manpower, recruiting is not a problem but retention, especially of senior engineering rates is) and he will cut some more next year. At the recent NATO summit he was berating the other members for failing to meet the 2% of GDP spending agreement and then failed to guarantee the UK would meet it after the election if he was PM.
"but retention, especially of senior engineering rates is"
As an aside, we once worked with an ex-RN engineer. He had a story about being squeezed in a tight space between pipes on a ship when someone asks him for something. He ignores them as it would take him ages to get out of the space. The man asks again. He ignores him. Then the man asks again, and our colleague replies with a stream of pure Anglo-Saxon invective.
There was silence, during which he realised the voice was the captain's, and he had just cast aspersions on the captain's parentage and sanity ...
Just another point on GE2015 from betting point of view if I may please:
In the most unlikely event of Con and Lab securing same number of seats (as happened in 1910 Con &Lib), would all Most Seats Bets be lost to punter and bookmaker takes all?
Surely bookmakers should offer odds for the tie as they do in one day cricket or in rugby but they won't because the tie could just happen in GE2015!
The number of US army/CIA failures in attempts to free their hostages is growing. The reason could be poor intelligence, poor battle plan or both. There could also be more than one worm in the pie.
It could just be a string of "bad dice throws". Hostage rescues in distant places must be the most tricky of military operations, everything must go exactly right for the attackers whilst the defence have all the advantages and only need a couple of seconds to kill the hostage(s). Additionally the number of such missions over the years and the publicity that has, stupidly, been given to the methods used have meant that the bad guys have been able to learn how to do their job better.
So probably just a combination of bad luck and imperfect intelligence have brought the success ration back into that which could normally be expected.
One of the biggest mistakes we can make IMHO is to assume that the enemies we are fighting are in any way less intelligent or cunning as ourselves. We may abhor the hostage takers, but we should not underestimate them. Western-style military forces have many advantages; they also operate (rightly or wrongly) with one hand behind their backs. The opposition often do not.
We play to our strengths, they play to theirs.
Quite right, Mr.J, and the best way of dealing with hostage takers is not to give them hostages to start with. Personally I blame John Major.
"Personally I blame John Major."
May I ask why? What did he do to make hostages more likely? (Then again, it's not my field).
John Major must shoulder the blame because he was in charge during and after Gulf War I, a war fought for oil in Muslim lands. That war, and especially the way that it was ended, was the wake up call, which the UK (and everyone else, to be fair ignored). Major should have, in 1992, set a new direction for energy in the UK to develop what were then very much emerging technologies (e.g. hydrogen for transport) and nuclear (including research into thorium-powered reactors). Had he done so the UK could have sat back and been immune to all the kerfuffle we have seen in the Middle East in the past 20 years.
The billions that would have been invested in the 1990s would be far less than the costs we have forked out for just the Afghan War never mind the rest of the grief we have had to put up with, and are still doing so. AND we would not have lost 600+ dead and thousands maimed in two stupid wars.
Without wishing misfortune on any MP, if one were to resign or die shortly, would there be an ensuing byelection as in 1979 & 1997 or would seat remain vacant as in 2010 (6 month rule) please?
Obviously byelections give winning party a boost in polls.
Thanking you.
The general rule is that the party of the deceased incumbent decides when a by-election should take place. My guess is that if a vacancy occurred in the coming months then none of the main parties would want a fight.
A second question arises if there was another defector to UKIP. My understanding is that Carswell/Reckless could move the writ if they so wanted to.
This could be my Southam Observer moment, but I now confidently (hmmm) predict there will be no more treacherous pigdogs (at least this side of the election).
You couldnt be tempted yourself? Even if Nigel managed to secure a seat in the upper house for you?
It would be nothing less than my patriotic duty in those circumstances.
Hm. Not so much the "US government formally restarting the cold war" as the US legislature expressing an (entirely reasonable) opinion.
Obviously Ron Paul's agenda is Little Americanism and the rest of the world can go to hell, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are a neocon if you disagree.
Hm. Not so much the "US government formally restarting the cold war" as the US legislature expressing an (entirely reasonable) opinion.
Obviously Ron Paul's agenda is Little Americanism and the rest of the world can go to hell, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are a neocon if you disagree.
Why so keen on Vladimir Vladimirovich?
Hell like Libya? Hell like ISIS? Hell like the Donbass? What on earth makes you think America staying at home would make things worse?
The UK is already living well beyond its means and the assumed surge in household borrowing would only worsen that.
Debt is debt and whether its in the name of households or government is largely irrelevant as its still the early use of wealth borrowed/stolen from the future.
Ultimately we come back to the question which I posed here six years and have never received a workable answer:
In a globalised world economy how do we earn the higher standards of living here when we are competing against countries who are as intelligent and educated as us and who are willing to work harder for lower pay and with fewer restrictions.
No, not all debt is the same. What is important is what purpose the debt is put to. Indeed, the very essence of the free-market system - capitalism - is itself a form of debt. Put simply, borrowing money to burn on fripperies is indeed stealing from the future; borrowing money to build something to make a return, by contrast, whether that be a business, invrastructure or whatever, is investing in the future.
Yes, the country is living too far beyond its means and that needs to change but economies can, and arguably should, run deficits indefinitely; one key stat is whether debt is increasing in the long term faster than GDP but even then that's not definitive. I expect that the Victorians exploded the amount of debt stock in the country but it didn't do them any harm.
As for how do we earn higher standards of living? The answer's simple and the same as it always was: efficiency and innovation.
Why did David Cameron, ex deer hunter,ask armed police to seal off a woodland in Oxfordshire so he could shoot pigeons? Surely he had better things to do such as trying to run the country.He must be pleased that after the next election he will have more time for stag hunts once again!
Perhaps he fancied pigeon for tea ? Delicious !
Quite, and I like it too. But Mr C could have picked it up from one of the butchers in Oxford Covered Market, if not Witney, at a fraction to the cost of himself never mind the state.
I don't see why he shouldn't find time for recreation. Should we ban Prime Ministers from normal activities (OK so pigeon shooting is a bit of a minority interest, but the same would have happened if he had gone for a run) just because of the need for security?
As for how do we earn higher standards of living? The answer's simple and the same as it always was: efficiency and innovation.
Those two concepts by definition cannot be the only answer. Efficiency -waste slightly less over the lifetime of the process. Fine, but there can be no efficiency that is an answer to someone working for 6p a week. Innovation -again fine, but in the longer term there's no reason why these other countries cannot innovate to the same degree that we can.
The number of US army/CIA failures in attempts to free their hostages is growing. The reason could be poor intelligence, poor battle plan or both. There could also be more than one worm in the pie.
As for the Crab Air story, the MoD denial rings false. Those Tornadoes were due out of service next year so their maintenance has probably not been up to snuff for a while and they are old aeroplanes. Having to have 8 on site in order to guarantee two actually can fly on anyone day doesn't seem improbable to me. The sub-standard catering and crew facilities have basically been admitted by the MoD.
Cameron's botched defence cuts have really cut into the bone of the three services (the RN is in real trouble with manpower, recruiting is not a problem but retention, especially of senior engineering rates is) and he will cut some more next year. At the recent NATO summit he was berating the other members for failing to meet the 2% of GDP spending agreement and then failed to guarantee the UK would meet it after the election if he was PM.
"but retention, especially of senior engineering rates is"
As an aside, we once worked with an ex-RN engineer. He had a story about being squeezed in a tight space between pipes on a ship when someone asks him for something. He ignores them as it would take him ages to get out of the space. The man asks again. He ignores him. Then the man asks again, and our colleague replies with a stream of pure Anglo-Saxon invective.
There was silence, during which he realised the voice was the captain's, and he had just cast aspersions on the captain's parentage and sanity ...
Hee, Hee! I did something similar once. Over the radio came an instruction from the Colonel that I should move position to take up a new OP. In the circumstances I thought that to obey the order would have been suicidal and said so along with some choice remarks on the Colonel's grasp of the situation, his intelligence, his moral standards, his parentage and his chances in a future life. How was I to know he was in the Ops Room? The subsequent interview was without coffee, as they say these days.
Hm. Not so much the "US government formally restarting the cold war" as the US legislature expressing an (entirely reasonable) opinion.
Obviously Ron Paul's agenda is Little Americanism and the rest of the world can go to hell, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are a neocon if you disagree.
Why so keen on Vladimir Vladimirovich?
Hell like Libya? Hell like ISIS? Hell like the Donbass? What on earth makes you think America staying at home would make things worse?
That's a different question to the one of why FalseFlag thinks the sun shines out of Putain's arse.
As far as I can see, Libya was purely opportunistic - Gaddaffi was our enemy for a number of years and the opportunity was there to take him out. Assad is deeply unpleasant. The Donbass (and the Crimea) are theatres for unpleasant Russian irredentism. Some of our NATO allies have large Russian-speaking populations.
ISIS is of course an opportunity. The one thing you want when fighting terrorists and insurgents is for the enemy to concentrate. But then as has been pointed out, we fight with one hand behind our backs. I have no idea why ar-Raqqah still exists.
I tell you what's the problem with breastfeeding 'argument': it makes those in favour look like, well, metropolitan liberals or, worse, Italians.
Now, you may not be surprised that I see nothing wrong in being Italian, but emphasising this may not be the wisest thing to do if you hope to be elected in the UK.
It is another case of UKIP unwittingly showing how out of touch the metropolitan elite are.
Are you against women breastfeeding in public? If so, why?
In Italy, I'm just fine with it.
In the UK, it's never been part of the culture. This sort of thing has to come from the grassroots and I've never seen English families do it even in a private situation.
I tell you what's the problem with breastfeeding 'argument': it makes those in favour look like, well, metropolitan liberals or, worse, Italians.
Now, you may not be surprised that I see nothing wrong in being Italian, but emphasising this may not be the wisest thing to do if you hope to be elected in the UK.
It is another case of UKIP unwittingly showing how out of touch the metropolitan elite are.
Are you against women breastfeeding in public? If so, why?
In Italy, I'm just fine with it.
In the UK, it's never been part of the culture. This sort of thing has to come from the grassroots and I've never seen English families do it even in a private situation.
It's the top down nature of it that grates.
It is part of the culture now. Look at the polls on the issue.
Hm. Not so much the "US government formally restarting the cold war" as the US legislature expressing an (entirely reasonable) opinion.
Obviously Ron Paul's agenda is Little Americanism and the rest of the world can go to hell, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are a neocon if you disagree.
Why so keen on Vladimir Vladimirovich?
Hell like Libya? Hell like ISIS? Hell like the Donbass? What on earth makes you think America staying at home would make things worse?
That's a different question to the one of why FalseFlag thinks the sun shines out of Putain's arse.
As far as I can see, Libya was purely opportunistic - Gaddaffi was our enemy for a number of years and the opportunity was there to take him out. Assad is deeply unpleasant. The Donbass (and the Crimea) are theatres for unpleasant Russian irredentism. Some of our NATO allies have large Russian-speaking populations.
ISIS is of course an opportunity. The one thing you want when fighting terrorists and insurgents is for the enemy to concentrate. But then as has been pointed out, we fight with one hand behind our backs. I have no idea why ar-Raqqah still exists.
Assad is an authoritarian dictator. Nothing more nothing less. His Saudi-backed islamist opponents are considerably worse, and we have an exact example of what would follow his regime in Libya -chaos and death.
It was America that instigated the toppling of the democratically elected Government of Ukraine, and oversaw the creation of a pro NATO regime -putting into jeopardy the Russian's only Black Sea port, an act of unprecedented aggression that necessitated action on Russia's part even if it hadn't been the democratically expressed will of the people of Crimea.
America wreaks havoc on the world every day in pursuit of hegemony and to support its financial system. It does not care how many people die, suffer, are displaced, or live under tyranny in the pursuit of these aims. When a country refuses to cooperate with these aims, they and their leaders are undermined, smeared, and made into cartoonish bogeymen for sloppy thinkers to buy into.
I tell you what's the problem with breastfeeding 'argument': it makes those in favour look like, well, metropolitan liberals or, worse, Italians.
Now, you may not be surprised that I see nothing wrong in being Italian, but emphasising this may not be the wisest thing to do if you hope to be elected in the UK.
It is another case of UKIP unwittingly showing how out of touch the metropolitan elite are.
Are you against women breastfeeding in public? If so, why?
In Italy, I'm just fine with it.
In the UK, it's never been part of the culture. This sort of thing has to come from the grassroots and I've never seen English families do it even in a private situation.
It's the top down nature of it that grates.
It is part of the culture now. Look at the polls on the issue.
Was the Madonna ostentatiously breast feeding?
To prove how much I've become assimilated to PB cultural norms, I will dismiss those polls I don't like as 'rogue'.
More seriously, I do live in London and haven't noticed it at all. In fact, quite the reverse; an increase in the amount of flesh covered up by women.
Which paintings are you referring to, anyway? Perchance Italian?
I tell you what's the problem with breastfeeding 'argument': it makes those in favour look like, well, metropolitan liberals or, worse, Italians.
Now, you may not be surprised that I see nothing wrong in being Italian, but emphasising this may not be the wisest thing to do if you hope to be elected in the UK.
It is another case of UKIP unwittingly showing how out of touch the metropolitan elite are.
Are you against women breastfeeding in public? If so, why?
In Italy, I'm just fine with it.
In the UK, it's never been part of the culture. This sort of thing has to come from the grassroots and I've never seen English families do it even in a private situation.
It's the top down nature of it that grates.
It is part of the culture now. Look at the polls on the issue.
As for how do we earn higher standards of living? The answer's simple and the same as it always was: efficiency and innovation.
Those two concepts by definition cannot be the only answer. Efficiency -waste slightly less over the lifetime of the process. Fine, but there can be no efficiency that is an answer to someone working for 6p a week. Innovation -again fine, but in the longer term there's no reason why these other countries cannot innovate to the same degree that we can.
They've worked well enough for the last 250 years or so.
I disagree that you can't compete with someone earning 6p/week. The North outcompeted the antebellum South. Countries with economies based on minimal wages have no incentive (and no capacity) to invest in pretty much anything and are therefore stuck.
Other countries can indeed innovate to the same degree and for that matter, a greater one. But there's no reason why they have to. In any case, you don't need to do better than everyone else, you just need to push the boundaries in enough areas to keep going; where you're behind globally, you can borrow others' innovations.
So yes, those two factors are just about it. Of course, there are a lot of factors within them. I could have mentioned productivity, for example, but the two over-arching points encompass it.
As for how do we earn higher standards of living? The answer's simple and the same as it always was: efficiency and innovation.
Those two concepts by definition cannot be the only answer. Efficiency -waste slightly less over the lifetime of the process. Fine, but there can be no efficiency that is an answer to someone working for 6p a week. Innovation -again fine, but in the longer term there's no reason why these other countries cannot innovate to the same degree that we can.
If they're only getting 6p a week it's because they have god-awful education and infrastructure that prevents them from working efficiently. Once they bring those things up to a level that allows them to work as efficiently as people in developed countries, they'll no longer be on 6p a week. Because they'll be in developed countries.
Voters defecting to the Green party are one of the biggest reasons why I don't have much time for the idea that the liberals can hold 2/3rds of their seats with a 7-10% share of the vote.
It is notable that the Greens declined to stand in a good few Libdem marginals last time. The idea that a superincumbency vote will prop Libdems up when the greens have the same national share of the vote is far fetched. Similarly a good few anti tory voters in constituencies like Yeovil will peel off to UKIP and others will slink back to Labour.
I also wonder whether in places like Westmoreland and St Austell, wealthy yoghurt knitters with second homes will register themselves at their North London home next time.
Paul, while I share your view on Libdem seats, I very much doubt the greens will get anywhere near 3%, let alone 5%, at the election. They will be, I think, the dog that didn't bark.
Going from 310 to almost 500 candidates will improve their votes all thinks being the same. So expect that 1% to increase to 2% and then add in the rise of the Greens so a 4% national share does seem achievable. In places where they actually stand that will be higher. With the demoralisation in the LDs - I do expect the Greens to do better than average in LD seats.
I think a key unknown factor for the Greens will be the debates. Personally I don't see them happening and think Cameron would be mad to agree to them. But if they did take place and the Greens manage to force an agreement for them to appear in one or more of them, then things could look very different. They'd be the only voice arguing against huge cuts, arguing the NHS should be a fully public service etc etc. This might be seem fresh and attractive to people who are sick of the whole tweedle-dum charade.
As for how do we earn higher standards of living? The answer's simple and the same as it always was: efficiency and innovation.
Those two concepts by definition cannot be the only answer. Efficiency -waste slightly less over the lifetime of the process. Fine, but there can be no efficiency that is an answer to someone working for 6p a week. Innovation -again fine, but in the longer term there's no reason why these other countries cannot innovate to the same degree that we can.
If they're only getting 6p a week it's because they have god-awful education and infrastructure that prevents them from working efficiently. Once they bring those things up to a level that allows them to work as efficiently as people in developed countries, they'll no longer be on 6p a week. Because they'll be in developed countries.
Quite. By which time they will be as rich as we were, and we will be as poor as they were.
The breast-feeding story is remindful of the Romanians neighbours hullabaloo. Farage is asked a question and he gives a straight, common sense answer. Then the media, starved of straight common sense answers, wets its journalistic pants in excitement. It's just ridiculous and will be viewed as such by anyone remotely sympathetic to UKIP. Good publicity for UKIP.
Mind you it is funny how social norms vary place to place. I saw an Islamic lady in full niqab in the reception of a museum Cairo last week breastfeeding her baby. All that was on show were her hands, her eyes and a bit of side-boob. It's OK to get your tits out but don't dare show us your face. Not sure what Claridge's would have made of that.
Why did David Cameron, ex deer hunter,ask armed police to seal off a woodland in Oxfordshire so he could shoot pigeons? Surely he had better things to do such as trying to run the country.He must be pleased that after the next election he will have more time for stag hunts once again!
Perhaps he fancied pigeon for tea ? Delicious !
Quite, and I like it too. But Mr C could have picked it up from one of the butchers in Oxford Covered Market, if not Witney, at a fraction to the cost of himself never mind the state.
I don't see why he shouldn't find time for recreation. Should we ban Prime Ministers from normal activities (OK so pigeon shooting is a bit of a minority interest, but the same would have happened if he had gone for a run) just because of the need for security?
Hmm. Thinking about your comment, I'd say the difference is that he can't pay someone else to go for a run - he has to do that himself! And it is reasonable therefore for him to do that even with an escort. Whereas he does not have to actually shoot the pigeons to have them for dinner. Interesting though he should choose to do it - maybe he is making a point the equivalent of Mr M and his bacon sandwich.
Those who think the Tories are doing a decent job still think that - about 32% of the voters.
Those who don't think the Tories are doing a decent job are split all over the shop. Labour should have hoovered them up, but the most damning indictment of Ed Miliband and his shadow Cabinet is that they are losing votes when they ask the voters to support them.
A couple of points back from UKIP - and 34% for the Tories could yet be a comfortable winning margin, both in popular vote and seats. Much more swing-back than that is looking on the optimistic side. But the Tories don't need swing-back whilst ever Labour is suffering swing-away. The great unknown now is - what is Labour's floor? The most complacent people in politics look to be those in Labour who thought that the only way was up after 2010....
Voters defecting to the Green party are one of the biggest reasons why I don't have much time for the idea that the liberals can hold 2/3rds of their seats with a 7-10% share of the vote.
It is notable that the Greens declined to stand in a good few Libdem marginals last time. The idea that a superincumbency vote will prop Libdems up when the greens have the same national share of the vote is far fetched. Similarly a good few anti tory voters in constituencies like Yeovil will peel off to UKIP and others will slink back to Labour.
I also wonder whether in places like Westmoreland and St Austell, wealthy yoghurt knitters with second homes will register themselves at their North London home next time.
Paul, while I share your view on Libdem seats, I very much doubt the greens will get anywhere near 3%, let alone 5%, at the election. They will be, I think, the dog that didn't bark.
Going from 310 to almost 500 candidates will improve their votes all thinks being the same. So expect that 1% to increase to 2% and then add in the rise of the Greens so a 4% national share does seem achievable. In places where they actually stand that will be higher. With the demoralisation in the LDs - I do expect the Greens to do better than average in LD seats.
I think a key unknown factor for the Greens will be the debates. Personally I don't see them happening and think Cameron would be mad to agree to them. But if they did take place and the Greens manage to force an agreement for them to appear in one or more of them, then things could look very different. They'd be the only voice arguing against huge cuts, arguing the NHS should be a fully public service etc etc. This might be seem fresh and attractive to people who are sick of the whole tweedle-dum charade.
Very much the same issues apply to the SNP . Exclusion beginning to look less and less tenable as the SNP and now the Greens overtake the LDs in UK polling. Though the broadcasters may cling to the 'not the whole UK' argument - the Greens in E & W being distinct from Scotland.
As for how do we earn higher standards of living? The answer's simple and the same as it always was: efficiency and innovation.
Those two concepts by definition cannot be the only answer. Efficiency -waste slightly less over the lifetime of the process. Fine, but there can be no efficiency that is an answer to someone working for 6p a week. Innovation -again fine, but in the longer term there's no reason why these other countries cannot innovate to the same degree that we can.
If they're only getting 6p a week it's because they have god-awful education and infrastructure that prevents them from working efficiently. Once they bring those things up to a level that allows them to work as efficiently as people in developed countries, they'll no longer be on 6p a week. Because they'll be in developed countries.
Quite. By which time they will be as rich as we were, and we will be as poor as they were.
No, both will be richer than they are now. These people becoming productive and connected to the global market has exactly the same effect as two countries starting to trade with each other when they were previously separated: It creates wealth for both sides. (See the Theory of Comparative Advantage etc.)
Some of this may sound unintuitive but it's is pretty obvious when you take a step back from abstractions like money and think about what's actually happening: More people are making more, better stuff, and then the people are making mutually beneficial agreements to share it with each other.
An interesting, but old, article that has echoes of the bizarrely hypocritical attitudes towards UKIP.
"When a hate campaign goes wrong, however, disaster follows. And everything that could go wrong with the campaign against Palin did. American liberals forgot that the public did not know her. By the time she spoke at the Republican convention, journalists had so lowered expectations that a run-of-the-mill speech would have been enough to win the evening."
"'When a man believes that any stick will do, he at once picks up a boomerang,' said GK Chesterton, and when the politically committed go on a berserker you should listen for the sound of their own principles smacking them in the face."
"In an age when politics is choreographed, voters watch out for the moments when the public-relations facade breaks down and venom pours through the cracks. Their judgment is rarely favourable when it does."
Voters defecting to the Green party are one of the biggest reasons why I don't have much time for the idea that the liberals can hold 2/3rds of their seats with a 7-10% share of the vote.
It is notable that the Greens declined to stand in a good few Libdem marginals last time. The idea that a superincumbency vote will prop Libdems up when the greens have the same national share of the vote is far fetched. Similarly a good few anti tory voters in constituencies like Yeovil will peel off to UKIP and others will slink back to Labour.
I also wonder whether in places like Westmoreland and St Austell, wealthy yoghurt knitters with second homes will register themselves at their North London home next time.
Paul, while I share your view on Libdem seats, I very much doubt the greens will get anywhere near 3%, let alone 5%, at the election. They will be, I think, the dog that didn't bark.
Going from 310 to almost 500 candidates will improve their votes all thinks being the same. So expect that 1% to increase to 2% and then add in the rise of the Greens so a 4% national share does seem achievable. In places where they actually stand that will be higher. With the demoralisation in the LDs - I do expect the Greens to do better than average in LD seats.
I think a key unknown factor for the Greens will be the debates. Personally I don't see them happening and think Cameron would be mad to agree to them. But if they did take place and the Greens manage to force an agreement for them to appear in one or more of them, then things could look very different. They'd be the only voice arguing against huge cuts, arguing the NHS should be a fully public service etc etc. This might be seem fresh and attractive to people who are sick of the whole tweedle-dum charade.
Very much the same issues apply to the SNP . Exclusion beginning to look less and less tenable as the SNP and now the Greens overtake the LDs in UK polling. Though the broadcasters may cling to the 'not the whole UK' argument - the Greens in E & W being distinct from Scotland.
Well, the 'not the whole UK' argument was always BS due to N.Ireland, but it is the number of candidates that is relevant.
As for comparisons to the Lib Dems to sustain an argument, forget it. They actually did well in the last election and are in Government. For that alone they deserve to be in the debates and why the Greens will not.
Why did David Cameron, ex deer hunter,ask armed police to seal off a woodland in Oxfordshire so he could shoot pigeons? Surely he had better things to do such as trying to run the country.He must be pleased that after the next election he will have more time for stag hunts once again!
Perhaps he fancied pigeon for tea ? Delicious !
Quite, and I like it too. But Mr C could have picked it up from one of the butchers in Oxford Covered Market, if not Witney, at a fraction to the cost of himself never mind the state.
I don't see why he shouldn't find time for recreation. Should we ban Prime Ministers from normal activities (OK so pigeon shooting is a bit of a minority interest, but the same would have happened if he had gone for a run) just because of the need for security?
Hmm. Thinking about your comment, I'd say the difference is that he can't pay someone else to go for a run - he has to do that himself! And it is reasonable therefore for him to do that even with an escort. Whereas he does not have to actually shoot the pigeons to have them for dinner. Interesting though he should choose to do it - maybe he is making a point the equivalent of Mr M and his bacon sandwich.
Of course by shooting pigeons he is also contributing to pest control as the pigeon is the number one agricultural pest bird. One might consider it an act of public service.
I'd like to see more polls, but 80% is a large figure. The 'metropolitan elite' are truly in touch with the people!
I suppose "ostentatious" breast-feeding would be something like today's mass breast-feed outside Claridges.
IMHO, it would be extreme bad manners (for a man anyway) to watch a woman while she was breast-feeding a baby, but I can see that in a dining room, leaving the room, or looking elsewhere might be difficult, so I could see why restaurants would wish to impose their own rules.
The breast-feeding story is remindful of the Romanians neighbours hullabaloo. Farage is asked a question and he gives a straight, common sense answer. Then the media, starved of straight common sense answers, wets its journalistic pants in excitement. It's just ridiculous and will be viewed as such by anyone remotely sympathetic to UKIP. Good publicity for UKIP.
Mind you it is funny how social norms vary place to place. I saw an Islamic lady in full niqab in the reception of a museum Cairo last week breastfeeding her baby. All that was on show were her hands, her eyes and a bit of side-boob. It's OK to get your tits out but don't dare show us your face. Not sure what Claridge's would have made of that.
You think Farage gave a straight common sense answer? Hardly. He suggests he is not bothered but then says the woman should have hidden herself away. He went out nof his way to absolve Claridges and criticise the mother. The usual dog whistles from Farage to feed his constituency. The media did not set up Farage with this story. He blundered into it and came across as the knob-end that he is.
I tell you what's the problem with breastfeeding 'argument': it makes those in favour look like, well, metropolitan liberals or, worse, Italians.
Now, you may not be surprised that I see nothing wrong in being Italian, but emphasising this may not be the wisest thing to do if you hope to be elected in the UK.
It is another case of UKIP unwittingly showing how out of touch the metropolitan elite are.
Are you against women breastfeeding in public? If so, why?
In Italy, I'm just fine with it.
In the UK, it's never been part of the culture. This sort of thing has to come from the grassroots and I've never seen English families do it even in a private situation.
It's the top down nature of it that grates.
It is part of the culture now. Look at the polls on the issue.
Was the Madonna ostentatiously breast feeding?
To prove how much I've become assimilated to PB cultural norms, I will dismiss those polls I don't like as 'rogue'.
More seriously, I do live in London and haven't noticed it at all. In fact, quite the reverse; an increase in the amount of flesh covered up by women.
Which paintings are you referring to, anyway? Perchance Italian?
It was not in any way considered unusual or against public morality to show breasts until the Victorian Era (apart I suppose for a short Interregnum interlude). 18th century paintings commonly showed topless women including some of the senior members of society.
Farage is of course entitled to his opinions but he is certainly not in accord with public opinion as I see it nor is he really doing himself any favours. As others have mentioned I am not sure it will do him any harm but it does rather play to the more authoritarian side of UKIP which I think is unfortunate.
There are far far more important matters to worry about than Farage's comment on breast feeding. This is just tittle tattle by "outraged of Dun-in-the-wold". The important statements from Farage are about the party's policies.
Voters defecting to the Green party are one of the biggest reasons why I don't have much time for the idea that the liberals can hold 2/3rds of their seats with a 7-10% share of the vote.
It is notable that the Greens declined to stand in a good few Libdem marginals last time. The idea that a superincumbency vote will prop Libdems up when the greens have the same national share of the vote is far fetched. Similarly a good few anti tory voters in constituencies like Yeovil will peel off to UKIP and others will slink back to Labour.
I also wonder whether in places like Westmoreland and St Austell, wealthy yoghurt knitters with second homes will register themselves at their North London home next time.
Paul, while I share your view on Libdem seats, I very much doubt the greens will get anywhere near 3%, let alone 5%, at the election. They will be, I think, the dog that didn't bark.
Going from 310 to almost 500 candidates will improve their votes all thinks being the same. So expect that 1% to increase to 2% and then add in the rise of the Greens so a 4% national share does seem achievable. In places where they actually stand that will be higher. With the demoralisation in the LDs - I do expect the Greens to do better than average in LD seats.
I think a key unknown factor for the Greens will be the debates. Personally I don't see them happening and think Cameron would be mad to agree to them. But if they did take place and the Greens manage to force an agreement for them to appear in one or more of them, then things could look very different. They'd be the only voice arguing against huge cuts, arguing the NHS should be a fully public service etc etc. This might be seem fresh and attractive to people who are sick of the whole tweedle-dum charade.
Excellent point. If only they were not fronted by an Aussie.
There are far far more important matters to worry about than Farage's comment on breast feeding. This is just tittle tattle by "outraged of Dun-in-the-wold". The important statements from Farage are about the party's policies.
It matters, because it's a very everyday thing for a lot of people. So much of politics is remote and intangible and this isn't. It's not the be all and end all, but it matters.
I haven't followed the breast-feeding thing but if all the other body parts are being given delicious food in Claridges then it seems like simple good manners to also feed the breasts.
The breast-feeding story is remindful of the Romanians neighbours hullabaloo. Farage is asked a question and he gives a straight, common sense answer. Then the media, starved of straight common sense answers, wets its journalistic pants in excitement. It's just ridiculous and will be viewed as such by anyone remotely sympathetic to UKIP. Good publicity for UKIP.
Mind you it is funny how social norms vary place to place. I saw an Islamic lady in full niqab in the reception of a museum Cairo last week breastfeeding her baby. All that was on show were her hands, her eyes and a bit of side-boob. It's OK to get your tits out but don't dare show us your face. Not sure what Claridge's would have made of that.
You think Farage gave a straight common sense answer? Hardly. He suggests he is not bothered but then says the woman should have hidden herself away. He went out nof his way to absolve Claridges and criticise the mother. The usual dog whistles from Farage to feed his constituency. The media did not set up Farage with this story. He blundered into it and came across as the knob-end that he is.
Not sure what to make of all that. The fact that Farage says what he thinks is worth more votes than any he loses from not giving a polished, choreographed, survey-approved response. It's what makes him interesting. He's confident enough about his opinions that he doesn't need to clear them with head office first.
On breastfeeding, Farage's common sense point is that all private establishments are and should continue to be free to set rules for the behaviour of their customers. Think Ascott, your local mosque, your local pub or nightclub. Gentlemen wear jackets and ties, take their shoes off, can't wear vests, can't wear trainers. Premises are free to make these decisions and if you don't like it then go somewhere else.
The breast-feeding story is remindful of the Romanians neighbours hullabaloo. Farage is asked a question and he gives a straight, common sense answer. Then the media, starved of straight common sense answers, wets its journalistic pants in excitement. It's just ridiculous and will be viewed as such by anyone remotely sympathetic to UKIP. Good publicity for UKIP.
Mind you it is funny how social norms vary place to place. I saw an Islamic lady in full niqab in the reception of a museum Cairo last week breastfeeding her baby. All that was on show were her hands, her eyes and a bit of side-boob. It's OK to get your tits out but don't dare show us your face. Not sure what Claridge's would have made of that.
You think Farage gave a straight common sense answer? Hardly. He suggests he is not bothered but then says the woman should have hidden herself away. He went out nof his way to absolve Claridges and criticise the mother. The usual dog whistles from Farage to feed his constituency. The media did not set up Farage with this story. He blundered into it and came across as the knob-end that he is.
What on EARTH do Claridges need 'absolving' of? Their hotel, their dress code. End of. To try and suggest otherwise is utterly fascistic.
Why did David Cameron, ex deer hunter,ask armed police to seal off a woodland in Oxfordshire so he could shoot pigeons? Surely he had better things to do such as trying to run the country.He must be pleased that after the next election he will have more time for stag hunts once again!
Perhaps he fancied pigeon for tea ? Delicious !
Quite, and I like it too. But Mr C could have picked it up from one of the butchers in Oxford Covered Market, if not Witney, at a fraction to the cost of himself never mind the state.
I don't see why he shouldn't find time for recreation. Should we ban Prime Ministers from normal activities (OK so pigeon shooting is a bit of a minority interest, but the same would have happened if he had gone for a run) just because of the need for security?
Hmm. Thinking about your comment, I'd say the difference is that he can't pay someone else to go for a run - he has to do that himself! And it is reasonable therefore for him to do that even with an escort. Whereas he does not have to actually shoot the pigeons to have them for dinner. Interesting though he should choose to do it - maybe he is making a point the equivalent of Mr M and his bacon sandwich.
Of course by shooting pigeons he is also contributing to pest control as the pigeon is the number one agricultural pest bird. One might consider it an act of public service.
Quite so - as with deer. Which is why I am happy to eat them. But, one wonders, what would you say if Mr Cameron spent time rat-catching?!
Why did David Cameron, ex deer hunter,ask armed police to seal off a woodland in Oxfordshire so he could shoot pigeons? Surely he had better things to do such as trying to run the country.He must be pleased that after the next election he will have more time for stag hunts once again!
Perhaps he fancied pigeon for tea ? Delicious !
Quite, and I like it too. But Mr C could have picked it up from one of the butchers in Oxford Covered Market, if not Witney, at a fraction to the cost of himself never mind the state.
I don't see why he shouldn't find time for recreation. Should we ban Prime Ministers from normal activities (OK so pigeon shooting is a bit of a minority interest, but the same would have happened if he had gone for a run) just because of the need for security?
Hmm. Thinking about your comment, I'd say the difference is that he can't pay someone else to go for a run - he has to do that himself! And it is reasonable therefore for him to do that even with an escort. Whereas he does not have to actually shoot the pigeons to have them for dinner. Interesting though he should choose to do it - maybe he is making a point the equivalent of Mr M and his bacon sandwich.
Of course by shooting pigeons he is also contributing to pest control as the pigeon is the number one agricultural pest bird. One might consider it an act of public service.
I tell you what's the problem with breastfeeding 'argument': it makes those in favour look like, well, metropolitan liberals or, worse, Italians.
Now, you may not be surprised that I see nothing wrong in being Italian, but emphasising this may not be the wisest thing to do if you hope to be elected in the UK.
It is another case of UKIP unwittingly showing how out of touch the metropolitan elite are.
Are you against women breastfeeding in public? If so, why?
In Italy, I'm just fine with it.
In the UK, it's never been part of the culture. This sort of thing has to come from the grassroots and I've never seen English families do it even in a private situation.
It's the top down nature of it that grates.
Hillarious. But its good because you give us an insight into the inner mindset of the typical kipper. Typically for the kipper, breastfeeding in public even in private is all part some sort of plot by the elite - of course being a kipper it has to be the metropolitan elite. Doubly perjorative. Well I have been around non elite townies who were content to breast feed 'even in a private situation'. Its amazing that you cannot even comprehend the the level of your argument.
I tell you what's the problem with breastfeeding 'argument': it makes those in favour look like, well, metropolitan liberals or, worse, Italians.
Now, you may not be surprised that I see nothing wrong in being Italian, but emphasising this may not be the wisest thing to do if you hope to be elected in the UK.
It is another case of UKIP unwittingly showing how out of touch the metropolitan elite are.
Are you against women breastfeeding in public? If so, why?
In Italy, I'm just fine with it.
In the UK, it's never been part of the culture. This sort of thing has to come from the grassroots and I've never seen English families do it even in a private situation.
It's the top down nature of it that grates.
It is part of the culture now. Look at the polls on the issue.
Was the Madonna ostentatiously breast feeding?
To prove how much I've become assimilated to PB cultural norms, I will dismiss those polls I don't like as 'rogue'.
More seriously, I do live in London and haven't noticed it at all. In fact, quite the reverse; an increase in the amount of flesh covered up by women.
Which paintings are you referring to, anyway? Perchance Italian?
It was not in any way considered unusual or against public morality to show breasts until the Victorian Era (apart I suppose for a short Interregnum interlude). 18th century paintings commonly showed topless women including some of the senior members of society.
Farage is of course entitled to his opinions but he is certainly not in accord with public opinion as I see it nor is he really doing himself any favours. As others have mentioned I am not sure it will do him any harm but it does rather play to the more authoritarian side of UKIP which I think is unfortunate.
Letting businesses run themselves without unnecessary interference from the State is not authoritarian, quite the reverse.
You knowledgeably refer to a period before the fetishisation of the breast, but campaigns against 'lads' mags' and 'Page 3' suggest the trend is against further exposure.
In any case, Italy is a hell of a lot warmer than the UK.
There are far far more important matters to worry about than Farage's comment on breast feeding. This is just tittle tattle by "outraged of Dun-in-the-wold". The important statements from Farage are about the party's policies.
Once again it shows how clever Farage is in making the political elite seem out of touch by getting them to obsess over a relatively minor issue for most voters.
I tell you what's the problem with breastfeeding 'argument': it makes those in favour look like, well, metropolitan liberals or, worse, Italians.
Now, you may not be surprised that I see nothing wrong in being Italian, but emphasising this may not be the wisest thing to do if you hope to be elected in the UK.
It is another case of UKIP unwittingly showing how out of touch the metropolitan elite are.
Are you against women breastfeeding in public? If so, why?
In Italy, I'm just fine with it.
In the UK, it's never been part of the culture. This sort of thing has to come from the grassroots and I've never seen English families do it even in a private situation.
It's the top down nature of it that grates.
Hillarious. But its good because you give us an insight into the inner mindset of the typical kipper. Typically for the kipper, breastfeeding in public even in private is all part some sort of plot by the elite - of course being a kipper it has to be the metropolitan elite. Doubly perjorative. Well I have been around non elite townies who were content to breast feed 'even in a private situation'. Its amazing that you cannot even comprehend the the level of your argument.
Why did David Cameron, ex deer hunter,ask armed police to seal off a woodland in Oxfordshire so he could shoot pigeons? Surely he had better things to do such as trying to run the country.He must be pleased that after the next election he will have more time for stag hunts once again!
Perhaps he fancied pigeon for tea ? Delicious !
Quite, and I like it too. But Mr C could have picked it up from one of the butchers in Oxford Covered Market, if not Witney, at a fraction to the cost of himself never mind the state.
I don't see why he shouldn't find time for recreation. Should we ban Prime Ministers from normal activities (OK so pigeon shooting is a bit of a minority interest, but the same would have happened if he had gone for a run) just because of the need for security?
Hmm. Thinking about your comment, I'd say the difference is that he can't pay someone else to go for a run - he has to do that himself! And it is reasonable therefore for him to do that even with an escort. Whereas he does not have to actually shoot the pigeons to have them for dinner. Interesting though he should choose to do it - maybe he is making a point the equivalent of Mr M and his bacon sandwich.
Of course by shooting pigeons he is also contributing to pest control as the pigeon is the number one agricultural pest bird. One might consider it an act of public service.
Quite so - as with deer. Which is why I am happy to eat them. But, one wonders, what would you say if Mr Cameron spent time rat-catching?!
Exactly the same. Except for the fact that you can't eat them. I shoot on an ad hoc basis and my own personal rules are that I will never shoot anything we do not eat - the exceptions being rats and magpies. I would not even shoot pigeon if it weer not that my daughter and wife both love eating them. Can't stand them myself.
I tell you what's the problem with breastfeeding 'argument': it makes those in favour look like, well, metropolitan liberals or, worse, Italians.
Now, you may not be surprised that I see nothing wrong in being Italian, but emphasising this may not be the wisest thing to do if you hope to be elected in the UK.
It is another case of UKIP unwittingly showing how out of touch the metropolitan elite are.
Are you against women breastfeeding in public? If so, why?
In Italy, I'm just fine with it.
In the UK, it's never been part of the culture. This sort of thing has to come from the grassroots and I've never seen English families do it even in a private situation.
It's the top down nature of it that grates.
Hillarious. But its good because you give us an insight into the inner mindset of the typical kipper. Typically for the kipper, breastfeeding in public even in private is all part some sort of plot by the elite - of course being a kipper it has to be the metropolitan elite. Doubly perjorative. Well I have been around non elite townies who were content to breast feed 'even in a private situation'. Its amazing that you cannot even comprehend the the level of your argument.
Probably the first time an Italian has been called a typical Kipper.
And you honestly think I haven't noticed the fetishisation of the breast in this country?
As for how do we earn higher standards of living? The answer's simple and the same as it always was: efficiency and innovation.
Those two concepts by definition cannot be the only answer. Efficiency -waste slightly less over the lifetime of the process. Fine, but there can be no efficiency that is an answer to someone working for 6p a week. Innovation -again fine, but in the longer term there's no reason why these other countries cannot innovate to the same degree that we can.
They've worked well enough for the last 250 years or so.
I disagree that you can't compete with someone earning 6p/week. The North outcompeted the antebellum South. Countries with economies based on minimal wages have no incentive (and no capacity) to invest in pretty much anything and are therefore stuck.
Other countries can indeed innovate to the same degree and for that matter, a greater one. But there's no reason why they have to. In any case, you don't need to do better than everyone else, you just need to push the boundaries in enough areas to keep going; where you're behind globally, you can borrow others' innovations.
So yes, those two factors are just about it. Of course, there are a lot of factors within them. I could have mentioned productivity, for example, but the two over-arching points encompass it.
For the last 250 years or so, we have benefited from being the first to: -have an agrarian revolution -develop a modern banking system -have an industrial revolution -have the military and economic power to exploit the resources, both human and natural on foreign soils (mainly India) 1850 being the peak of it -after that other countries began to catch up.
Since then, by and large, we've been spending that capital.
You're kidding yourself if you believe there is some sort of 'Western' or even 'British' miracle that entitles us to be wealthy in the face of foreign competitors who have not only far more flexible labour markets, but blue chip companies, more rigorous education systems, etc.
We're running out of time and money. Everything else is just hot air.
The UK is already living well beyond its means and the assumed surge in household borrowing would only worsen that.
Debt is debt and whether its in the name of households or government is largely irrelevant as its still the early use of wealth borrowed/stolen from the future.
Ultimately we come back to the question which I posed here six years and have never received a workable answer:
In a globalised world economy how do we earn the higher standards of living here when we are competing against countries who are as intelligent and educated as us and who are willing to work harder for lower pay and with fewer restrictions.
No, not all debt is the same. What is important is what purpose the debt is put to. Indeed, the very essence of the free-market system - capitalism - is itself a form of debt. Put simply, borrowing money to burn on fripperies is indeed stealing from the future; borrowing money to build something to make a return, by contrast, whether that be a business, invrastructure or whatever, is investing in the future.
Yes, the country is living too far beyond its means and that needs to change but economies can, and arguably should, run deficits indefinitely; one key stat is whether debt is increasing in the long term faster than GDP but even then that's not definitive. I expect that the Victorians exploded the amount of debt stock in the country but it didn't do them any harm.
As for how do we earn higher standards of living? The answer's simple and the same as it always was: efficiency and innovation.
But its HOUSEHOLD borrowing which is predicted to soar ie 'borrowing money to burn on fripperies' not investing in infrastructure or wealth creating capacity and this at a time when the UK is already running a record balance of payments deficit.
Actually debt proportions fell during the 19th century from the highs built up during the Napoleonic Wars and the industrial revolution and colonial trade rapidly increased the size of the UK economy.
And the UK's 'efficiency and innovation' and productivity in general is stagnant whilst that of the newly emerging economies is increasing.
The number of US army/CIA failures in attempts to free their hostages is growing. The reason could be poor intelligence, poor battle plan or both. There could also be more than one worm in the pie.
As for the Crab Air story, the MoD denial rings false. Those Tornadoes were due out of service next year so their maintenance has probably not been up to snuff for a while and they are old aeroplanes. Having to have 8 on site in order to guarantee two actually can fly on anyone day doesn't seem improbable to me. The sub-standard catering and crew facilities have basically been admitted by the MoD.
Cameron's botched defence cuts have really cut into the bone of the three services (the RN is in real trouble with manpower, recruiting is not a problem but retention, especially of senior engineering rates is) and he will cut some more next year. At the recent NATO summit he was berating the other members for failing to meet the 2% of GDP spending agreement and then failed to guarantee the UK would meet it after the election if he was PM.
Your 'crab air' comment absolves us from taking anything you say seriously. Why should we assume that the Tornadoes are not being maintained properly? I don't call the defence budget a shoestering. I see we are expanding and moving into a new permanent base in the middle east..
I tell you what's the problem with breastfeeding 'argument': it makes those in favour look like, well, metropolitan liberals or, worse, Italians.
Now, you may not be surprised that I see nothing wrong in being Italian, but emphasising this may not be the wisest thing to do if you hope to be elected in the UK.
It is another case of UKIP unwittingly showing how out of touch the metropolitan elite are.
Are you against women breastfeeding in public? If so, why?
In Italy, I'm just fine with it.
In the UK, it's never been part of the culture. This sort of thing has to come from the grassroots and I've never seen English families do it even in a private situation.
It's the top down nature of it that grates.
Hillarious. But its good because you give us an insight into the inner mindset of the typical kipper. Typically for the kipper, breastfeeding in public even in private is all part some sort of plot by the elite - of course being a kipper it has to be the metropolitan elite. Doubly perjorative. Well I have been around non elite townies who were content to breast feed 'even in a private situation'. Its amazing that you cannot even comprehend the the level of your argument.
Probably the first time an Italian has been called a typical Kipper.
And you honestly think I haven't noticed the fetishisation of the breast in this country?
Hillarious. You can still complain in a most prejudiced manner about the the metroplitan elite. And you can still peddle an invention about reasons for breast feeding. Its unbelievable the stupidities this story has woken up.
Comments
I wasn't sure, so thanks for the clarification.
We seem to be on shifting sands politically, and even if Ukip doesn't make a big breakthrough next year and only gains a couple of seats, I suspect they will have a platform to move forward.
The Green vote is less certain. They attract the young and the middle class but they are a fashion which comes and goes. Their plant is less hardy.
On the other hand one of the parties might try and force a by-election to cause trouble depending on the vacancy.
I can see
- Male : 52%
- Female : 63%
and
- 18-24: 36%
- 25-34: 51%
- 35-64: 59%
- 65+ : 69%
and similar data by social class.
Is there anything I can do with this to give me a notional voting certainty for a 65 year old man vs a 65 year old woman.
More specifically if I was trying to model the voting behaviour of a group, is there any way I can use the information provided to estimate the likelihood to vote of a fictitious voter in a known age group, gender and Social class ?
I assume although the full sample is balanced for gender, we cannot make any assumptions about the gender balance within say an age range or social group.
You know Tories are lying when you see their lips moving.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30358168
Our forces on Cammo's shoestring?
---------
US hostage Luke Somers dies after rescue bid
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30358665
The number of US army/CIA failures in attempts to free their hostages is growing.
The reason could be poor intelligence, poor battle plan or both. There could also be more than one worm in the pie.
A second question arises if there was another defector to UKIP. My understanding is that Carswell/Reckless could move the writ if they so wanted to.
Then all we have to factor in is the issue of pollster accuracy.
Who do they overstate and who do they understate?
... and the minor detail of what the 25% of DKs are actually going to do.
"inappropriate" is lefty for "wrong " isnt it?
UKIP Trumpton @Trumpton_UKIP
· 9h 9 hours ago
We just did a #ukip and let power go to our heads then said something inappropriate - we'll get over it - hope you will
UKIP Trumpton @Trumpton_UKIP · 9h9 hours ago
We Won! but it wasn't appropriate to refer to a gay Scotsman as "a man in a skirt" - sorry @DavidCoburnUKip pic.twitter.com/eBF7M9wdEn
OstendGudgeon @OstendGudgeon · 9h9 hours ago
@Trumpton_UKIP @DavidCoburnUKip Sadly, that demeans the struggle of very real people with very real problems with very real discrimination.
UKIP Trumpton @Trumpton_UKIP
· 9h 9 hours ago
Yes, and apart from deleting the image and explaining why I was wrong, I can only apologise to you @OstendGudgeon
OstendGudgeon @OstendGudgeon · 8h8 hours ago
@Trumpton_UKIP That's my point though - who referred to"gay"? It was irrelevant in this scenario & I'm still unaware of its relevance now.
So probably just a combination of bad luck and imperfect intelligence have brought the success ration back into that which could normally be expected.
They will be, I think, the dog that didn't bark.
Just another point on GE2015 from betting point of view if I may please:
In the most unlikely event of Con and Lab securing same number of seats (as happened in 1910 Con &Lib), would all Most Seats Bets be lost to punter and bookmaker takes all?
Surely bookmakers should offer odds for the tie as they do in one day cricket or in rugby but they won't because the tie could just happen in GE2015!
What I find absurd is the idea that there are *any* women breastfeeding ostentatiously. I think it's a weasel politicians answer that gives something to everyone.
LDs have lost the NOTA votes, lost most of the redLDs, lost some greenLDs and by trashing the image of the coalition have lost those folk who thought coalitions were a good idea....
So what are they left with? A 5% to 7% hard core.
Also 1 in 5 LD seats will have no incumbent.
I thought I'd see if there was any polling on this. It appears that Nimoniz's 'metropolitan elite' are actually in touch with the public's view:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2729683/Breast-best-New-survey-shows-Brits-comfortable-breastfeeding-public-80-cent-people-think-acceptable-places-like-bars-restaurants.html
I'd like to see more polls, but 80% is a large figure. The 'metropolitan elite' are truly in touch with the people!
The UK is already living well beyond its means and the assumed surge in household borrowing would only worsen that.
Debt is debt and whether its in the name of households or government is largely irrelevant as its still the early use of wealth borrowed/stolen from the future.
Ultimately we come back to the question which I posed here six years and have never received a workable answer:
In a globalised world economy how do we earn the higher standards of living here when we are competing against countries who are as intelligent and educated as us and who are willing to work harder for lower pay and with fewer restrictions.
We play to our strengths, they play to theirs.
Cameron's botched defence cuts have really cut into the bone of the three services (the RN is in real trouble with manpower, recruiting is not a problem but retention, especially of senior engineering rates is) and he will cut some more next year. At the recent NATO summit he was berating the other members for failing to meet the 2% of GDP spending agreement and then failed to guarantee the UK would meet it after the election if he was PM.
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/december/04/reckless-congress-declares-war-on-russia/
And the why.
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/neocons-triumphant-in-washington-and-geneva/
May I ask why? What did he do to make hostages more likely? (Then again, it's not my field).
As an aside, we once worked with an ex-RN engineer. He had a story about being squeezed in a tight space between pipes on a ship when someone asks him for something. He ignores them as it would take him ages to get out of the space. The man asks again. He ignores him. Then the man asks again, and our colleague replies with a stream of pure Anglo-Saxon invective.
There was silence, during which he realised the voice was the captain's, and he had just cast aspersions on the captain's parentage and sanity ...
Would be a bit off if they were all settled as losers, and the tie was never quoted
The billions that would have been invested in the 1990s would be far less than the costs we have forked out for just the Afghan War never mind the rest of the grief we have had to put up with, and are still doing so. AND we would not have lost 600+ dead and thousands maimed in two stupid wars.
Obviously Ron Paul's agenda is Little Americanism and the rest of the world can go to hell, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are a neocon if you disagree.
Why so keen on Vladimir Vladimirovich?
Yes, the country is living too far beyond its means and that needs to change but economies can, and arguably should, run deficits indefinitely; one key stat is whether debt is increasing in the long term faster than GDP but even then that's not definitive. I expect that the Victorians exploded the amount of debt stock in the country but it didn't do them any harm.
As for how do we earn higher standards of living? The answer's simple and the same as it always was: efficiency and innovation.
As far as I can see, Libya was purely opportunistic - Gaddaffi was our enemy for a number of years and the opportunity was there to take him out. Assad is deeply unpleasant. The Donbass (and the Crimea) are theatres for unpleasant Russian irredentism. Some of our NATO allies have large Russian-speaking populations.
ISIS is of course an opportunity. The one thing you want when fighting terrorists and insurgents is for the enemy to concentrate. But then as has been pointed out, we fight with one hand behind our backs. I have no idea why ar-Raqqah still exists.
In the UK, it's never been part of the culture. This sort of thing has to come from the grassroots and I've never seen English families do it even in a private situation.
It's the top down nature of it that grates.
Was the Madonna ostentatiously breast feeding?
It was America that instigated the toppling of the democratically elected Government of Ukraine, and oversaw the creation of a pro NATO regime -putting into jeopardy the Russian's only Black Sea port, an act of unprecedented aggression that necessitated action on Russia's part even if it hadn't been the democratically expressed will of the people of Crimea.
America wreaks havoc on the world every day in pursuit of hegemony and to support its financial system. It does not care how many people die, suffer, are displaced, or live under tyranny in the pursuit of these aims. When a country refuses to cooperate with these aims, they and their leaders are undermined, smeared, and made into cartoonish bogeymen for sloppy thinkers to buy into.
More seriously, I do live in London and haven't noticed it at all. In fact, quite the reverse; an increase in the amount of flesh covered up by women.
Which paintings are you referring to, anyway? Perchance Italian?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2858453/Madonna-mocked-online-bizarre-topless-photoshoot.html
(Yo'd end up if you've backed the Tories, slightly down with Labour as it stands)
I disagree that you can't compete with someone earning 6p/week. The North outcompeted the antebellum South. Countries with economies based on minimal wages have no incentive (and no capacity) to invest in pretty much anything and are therefore stuck.
Other countries can indeed innovate to the same degree and for that matter, a greater one. But there's no reason why they have to. In any case, you don't need to do better than everyone else, you just need to push the boundaries in enough areas to keep going; where you're behind globally, you can borrow others' innovations.
So yes, those two factors are just about it. Of course, there are a lot of factors within them. I could have mentioned productivity, for example, but the two over-arching points encompass it.
Mind you it is funny how social norms vary place to place. I saw an Islamic lady in full niqab in the reception of a museum Cairo last week breastfeeding her baby. All that was on show were her hands, her eyes and a bit of side-boob. It's OK to get your tits out but don't dare show us your face. Not sure what Claridge's would have made of that.
Some of this may sound unintuitive but it's is pretty obvious when you take a step back from abstractions like money and think about what's actually happening: More people are making more, better stuff, and then the people are making mutually beneficial agreements to share it with each other.
An interesting, but old, article that has echoes of the bizarrely hypocritical attitudes towards UKIP.
"When a hate campaign goes wrong, however, disaster follows. And everything that could go wrong with the campaign against Palin did. American liberals forgot that the public did not know her. By the time she spoke at the Republican convention, journalists had so lowered expectations that a run-of-the-mill speech would have been enough to win the evening."
"'When a man believes that any stick will do, he at once picks up a boomerang,' said GK Chesterton, and when the politically committed go on a berserker you should listen for the sound of their own principles smacking them in the face."
"In an age when politics is choreographed, voters watch out for the moments when the public-relations facade breaks down and venom pours through the cracks. Their judgment is rarely favourable when it does."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/07/uselections2008.republicans2008
As for comparisons to the Lib Dems to sustain an argument, forget it. They actually did well in the last election and are in Government. For that alone they deserve to be in the debates and why the Greens will not.
IMHO, it would be extreme bad manners (for a man anyway) to watch a woman while she was breast-feeding a baby, but I can see that in a dining room, leaving the room, or looking elsewhere might be difficult, so I could see why restaurants would wish to impose their own rules.
He went out nof his way to absolve Claridges and criticise the mother.
The usual dog whistles from Farage to feed his constituency.
The media did not set up Farage with this story. He blundered into it and came across as the knob-end that he is.
Mr. Carnyx, must disagree. Ridiculous to give a party irrelevant to over 90% of seats such a platform.
Mind you, I'd prefer the debates to be axed altogether, and then there'd be no dispute over who participates.
That'll show 'em. Ahem.
Farage is of course entitled to his opinions but he is certainly not in accord with public opinion as I see it nor is he really doing himself any favours. As others have mentioned I am not sure it will do him any harm but it does rather play to the more authoritarian side of UKIP which I think is unfortunate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-30359781
On breastfeeding, Farage's common sense point is that all private establishments are and should continue to be free to set rules for the behaviour of their customers. Think Ascott, your local mosque, your local pub or nightclub. Gentlemen wear jackets and ties, take their shoes off, can't wear vests, can't wear trainers. Premises are free to make these decisions and if you don't like it then go somewhere else.
Typically for the kipper, breastfeeding in public even in private is all part some sort of plot by the elite - of course being a kipper it has to be the metropolitan elite. Doubly perjorative. Well I have been around non elite townies who were content to breast feed 'even in a private situation'.
Its amazing that you cannot even comprehend the the level of your argument.
You knowledgeably refer to a period before the fetishisation of the breast, but campaigns against 'lads' mags' and 'Page 3' suggest the trend is against further exposure.
In any case, Italy is a hell of a lot warmer than the UK.
And you honestly think I haven't noticed the fetishisation of the breast in this country?
-have an agrarian revolution
-develop a modern banking system
-have an industrial revolution
-have the military and economic power to exploit the resources, both human and natural on foreign soils (mainly India)
1850 being the peak of it -after that other countries began to catch up.
Since then, by and large, we've been spending that capital.
You're kidding yourself if you believe there is some sort of 'Western' or even 'British' miracle that entitles us to be wealthy in the face of foreign competitors who have not only far more flexible labour markets, but blue chip companies, more rigorous education systems, etc.
We're running out of time and money. Everything else is just hot air.
Actually debt proportions fell during the 19th century from the highs built up during the Napoleonic Wars and the industrial revolution and colonial trade rapidly increased the size of the UK economy.
And the UK's 'efficiency and innovation' and productivity in general is stagnant whilst that of the newly emerging economies is increasing.
I don't call the defence budget a shoestering. I see we are expanding and moving into a new permanent base in the middle east..