Don't adults fart? And as for babies crying, I think you're much more likely to be annoyed by people talking or using their mobiles during a film.
You are being really ridiculous, especially in a conversation about breastfeeding ...
Thanks for adding the mobile phone users and unofficial director's commentary to my film going experience.
Babies certainly add an audio and scent component to any meal, but it is not one I wish to share.
Look, I know you think your child farts Chanel no.5, but I think other people have the right to disagree and for restaurants to accommodate their wishes.
Mr. Llama, I tried to make it about F1. Those who deny themselves the pleasures of differential front end grip are bound to end up angry and frustrated.
What are the present standards for breastfeeding in restaurants? Or there's no particular standard?
It appears to be illegal to stop them, or discriminate against them:
"The new Equality Act says that it is sex discrimination to treat a woman unfavourably because she is breastfeeding. It applies to anyone providing services, benefits, facilities and premises to the public, public bodies, further and higher education bodies and association. Service providers include most organisations that deal directly with the public. Service providers must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding. Discrimination includes refusing to provide a service, providing a lower standard of service or providing a service on different terms. Therefore, a cafe owner cannot ask you to stop breastfeeding or refuse to serve you."
Enlightened Scotland goes further: "In Scotland a person has a right to breastfeed or bottle feed a child under two and it is a criminal offence to try to stop or to prevent a woman from feeding a child under two in any place in which the public has access and in which a child under two is entitled to be. Anyone who tries to stop or prevent a person feeding milk to a child under the age of two can be prosecuted and can face a claim under the Equality Act."
Asking breastfeeding women to make sure their breasts are covered up isn't discriminating against them. We apply the same rules to all women.
it could easily be seen as harassing or victimising them if they are breastfeeding, and is certainly providing a service on different terms.
So far we haven't run into any problems. In fact, the places we usually frequent all coo over babies. They're modern and enlightened you see, even if the barman in our local was wearing a tracksuit yesterday ...
Mr. Alistair, as an aside, it's curious that breasts are seen as all racy and sexy on women, but far less risqué on men (ie men walking about shirtless, whilst uncouth, is not seen in nearly the same light as women doing likewise).
Is this bad for women (their body is seen as more sexual) or for men (being naked from the waist up is seen as acceptable)? [Or for neither, of course]. Imagine if it were reversed.
Mind you, women bare their midriffs and legs much more.
As someone said on the previous thread, it's a morality that's built up since Victorian times. Before then, the female breast was not seen in quite the same way. For instance Nell Gwyn and others.
Mr. Alistair, as an aside, it's curious that breasts are seen as all racy and sexy on women, but far less risqué on men (ie men walking about shirtless, whilst uncouth, is not seen in nearly the same light as women doing likewise).
Is this bad for women (their body is seen as more sexual) or for men (being naked from the waist up is seen as acceptable)? [Or for neither, of course]. Imagine if it were reversed.
Mind you, women bare their midriffs and legs much more.
Moobs aren't very attractive.
I had to tell my nephew what moobs were when he asked recently. An inquisitive lad, he hasnt asked half as many questions as usual since then.
Mr. Alistair, as an aside, it's curious that breasts are seen as all racy and sexy on women, but far less risqué on men (ie men walking about shirtless, whilst uncouth, is not seen in nearly the same light as women doing likewise).
Is this bad for women (their body is seen as more sexual) or for men (being naked from the waist up is seen as acceptable)? [Or for neither, of course]. Imagine if it were reversed.
Mind you, women bare their midriffs and legs much more.
As someone said on the previous thread, it's a morality that's built up since Victorian times. Before then, the female breast was not seen in quite the same way. For instance Nell Gwyn and others.
What are the present standards for breastfeeding in restaurants? Or there's no particular standard?
It appears to be illegal to stop them, or discriminate against them:
"The new Equality Act says that it is sex discrimination to treat a woman unfavourably because she is breastfeeding. It applies to anyone providing services, benefits, facilities and premises to the public, public bodies, further and higher education bodies and association. Service providers include most organisations that deal directly with the public. Service providers must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding. Discrimination includes refusing to provide a service, providing a lower standard of service or providing a service on different terms. Therefore, a cafe owner cannot ask you to stop breastfeeding or refuse to serve you."
Enlightened Scotland goes further: "In Scotland a person has a right to breastfeed or bottle feed a child under two and it is a criminal offence to try to stop or to prevent a woman from feeding a child under two in any place in which the public has access and in which a child under two is entitled to be. Anyone who tries to stop or prevent a person feeding milk to a child under the age of two can be prosecuted and can face a claim under the Equality Act."
Asking breastfeeding women to make sure their breasts are covered up isn't discriminating against them. We apply the same rules to all women.
it could easily be seen as harassing or victimising them if they are breastfeeding, and is certainly providing a service on different terms.
It would only be seen as that by an over-sensitive idiot that don't know what harassment or victimisation are. Asking women who are exposing their breast to be more discreet about it certainly isn't providing a service on different terms, given they would almost certainly do the same if a non-breastfeeding woman was exposing their breast.
What we are seeing here is a combination of (a) over-sensitive parents who love playing the victim and (b) people deliberately formenting a faux outrage over UKIP.
Not only is Scotland giving Labour trouble, a new one has emerged from an unlikely source: London.
Based on this weeks average Yougov sub-sample figures [ usual caveats ] and UNS, Labour remain on 38 seats, Con improve from 28 to 32 and LD drop from 7 to 3.
Could prove tricky for Simon Hughes in Bermondsey, where Labour can be backed with Hills at 7/4.
Mr. Alistair, as an aside, it's curious that breasts are seen as all racy and sexy on women, but far less risqué on men (ie men walking about shirtless, whilst uncouth, is not seen in nearly the same light as women doing likewise).
Is this bad for women (their body is seen as more sexual) or for men (being naked from the waist up is seen as acceptable)? [Or for neither, of course]. Imagine if it were reversed.
Mind you, women bare their midriffs and legs much more.
As someone said on the previous thread, it's a morality that's built up since Victorian times. Before then, the female breast was not seen in quite the same way. For instance Nell Gwyn and others.
Don't adults fart? And as for babies crying, I think you're much more likely to be annoyed by people talking or using their mobiles during a film.
You are being really ridiculous, especially in a conversation about breastfeeding ...
Thanks for adding the mobile phone users and unofficial director's commentary to my film going experience.
Babies certainly add an audio and scent component to any meal, but it is not one I wish to share.
Look, I know you think your child farts Chanel no.5, but I think other people have the right to disagree and for restaurants to accommodate their wishes.
Believe me, our little bundle of joy farts anything but candy floss. Especially now we've started weaning him. :-)
What happens if a restaurant wants women to have their faces covered with a nijab? Should the restaurant be allowed to accommodate their wishes?
Not only is Scotland giving Labour trouble, a new one has emerged from an unlikely source: London.
Based on this weeks average Yougov sub-sample figures [ usual caveats ] and UNS, Labour remain on 38 seats, Con improve from 28 to 32 and LD drop from 7 to 3.
It's probably best to rely on standalone polls for London. Sub-samples understate ethnic minorities.
Daily Mirror @DailyMirror 2m2 minutes ago George Osborne's doomsday Autumn Statement haunted by ghost of Britain's Great Depression http://mirr.im/1z997QW
In the week the Tories emphasised a UKIP candidates Turkish heritage in a poster saying he wasn't from round here, next to photo of Islamic extremists.. it made all the national papers, but no one on here criticised it, except kippers, and Antifrank.
On Friday Farage said he wasn't at all bothered by women for breastfeeding in public, and supporters of every other party trip over each other to condemn it.
Ah progressives and liberals eh? Such principled and high minded beasts
The muted response over a certain scandal this year finally convinced me of the utter lack of consistent principles of modern 'liberals'. And moderate 'conservatives', for that matter.
Mr. Alistair, as an aside, it's curious that breasts are seen as all racy and sexy on women, but far less risqué on men (ie men walking about shirtless, whilst uncouth, is not seen in nearly the same light as women doing likewise).
Is this bad for women (their body is seen as more sexual) or for men (being naked from the waist up is seen as acceptable)? [Or for neither, of course]. Imagine if it were reversed.
Mind you, women bare their midriffs and legs much more.
As someone said on the previous thread, it's a morality that's built up since Victorian times. Before then, the female breast was not seen in quite the same way. For instance Nell Gwyn and others.
Daily Mirror @DailyMirror 2m2 minutes ago George Osborne's doomsday Autumn Statement haunted by ghost of Britain's Great Depression http://mirr.im/1z997QW
Mirror still going with 1930's depression theme.
The Mirror is a comic, who can forget when they smeared British soldiers.
As Ken Clarke said many years ago, the Mirror is read by morons
Mr. Llama, I tried to make it about F1. Those who deny themselves the pleasures of differential front end grip are bound to end up angry and frustrated.
Frankly, Mr. D., I can take or leave differential front end grip but faced with the alternative of an apparently endless conversation about breast feeding I'd seize a thousand words on the subject.
Mr. Llama, I tried to make it about F1. Those who deny themselves the pleasures of differential front end grip are bound to end up angry and frustrated.
Frankly, Mr. D., I can take or leave differential front end grip but faced with the alternative of an apparently endless conversation about breast feeding I'd seize a thousand words on the subject.
Nice little Sir Edric story by the way. Thanks.
I suspect the next thread/morning thread will be about Scotland.
Was it only this morning the Nats were ranting about how Salmond had resigned from front line politics...?
@ZoraSuleman: Alex Salmond to stand to become a MP at next Election. He's expected to confirm his candidacy for the Gordon seat in Aberdeenshire tomorrow.
O/T but just now, my step-son is starring in the opening night of Cats, at the London Palladium (we deliberately stayed away from the first night, as he's under enough pressure to perform).
Personally, I've no objection to women breast-feeding their babies wherever they think appropriate, but I do draw the line at two entire Politicalbetting threads dominated by the question. Get a life, guys (for I note that it's mostly guys discussing it).
In the anecdote department, my impression is that we're squeezing some of the Lab-UKIP switchers back now. Could be just a sample, but it was really pretty good all day. Most mysterious one reported by a canvasser was "Of course my husband votes Labour - he's a professor of biology." Hmm!
Not only is Scotland giving Labour trouble, a new one has emerged from an unlikely source: London.
Based on this weeks average Yougov sub-sample figures [ usual caveats ] and UNS, Labour remain on 38 seats, Con improve from 28 to 32 and LD drop from 7 to 3.
Sub-samples !! Please, Surbiton, now you're just embarrassing yourself.
London will be interesting - it wasn't very good for the Conservatives in May's local contests but in the absence of a specific London-wide poll (another big gap in the polling picture), we're left with Ashcroft.
The LD-Con picture suggested the two Sutton Borough seats would be comfortable LD holds which leaves Twickenham and Kingston & Surbiton. We may get another clue for the latter from the St James by-election which is, I think, this Thursday. St James is in the Kingston part of the seat. The Tudor by-election wasn't too bad for the LDs with a respectable score in a seat they've never won even when controlling Kingston Council.
As for the LD-LAB seats, that does look more problematic for the defenders. I suspect Sarah Teather's seat is probably a lost cause but Lynne Featherstone, well, maybe. As for Simon Hughes, he survived the 1997 Labour landslide (one of Peter Snow's "blocks" if you recall).
As for CON-LAB seats, I believe Brentford & Isleworth looked good for Labour and Enfield North as well but there are, I would say, up to a dozen Conservative seats which would vulnerable on current numbers. UKIP may be a key factor in some parts of East and SE London - looking at seats like Hornchurch & Upminster for example might not be the clear cut Conservative holds that might be supposed.
Daily Mirror @DailyMirror 2m2 minutes ago George Osborne's doomsday Autumn Statement haunted by ghost of Britain's Great Depression http://mirr.im/1z997QW
Mirror still going with 1930's depression theme.
The Mirror is a comic, who can forget when they smeared British soldiers.
As Ken Clarke said many years ago, the Mirror is read by morons
As is the Sun and many of the tabloids - they have bright readers as well however!
It would only be seen as that by an over-sensitive idiot that don't know what harassment or victimisation are. Asking women who are exposing their breast to be more discreet about it certainly isn't providing a service on different terms, given they would almost certainly do the same if a non-breastfeeding woman was exposing their breast.
What we are seeing here is a combination of (a) over-sensitive parents who love playing the victim and (b) people deliberately formenting a faux outrage over UKIP.
It's not harassment or different terms to be asked to breastfeed in the toilet, or to move tables in the middle of a meal, just because some numpty doesn't like breastfeeding?
And equating a non-breastfeeding women baring her breast to a woman breastfeeding is laughably pathetic.
What we are seeing here is a lot of misogynists who seem frightened of women and babies.
As for Farage's comment, I suggest you read my first post on this topic yesterday. I'm not arguing against him; I'm arguing against the people who see their fear of a woman breastfeeding as more important than a mother's right to lead as ordinary a life as possible.
O/T but just now, my step-son is starring in the opening night of Cats, at the London Palladium (we deliberately stayed away from the first night, as he's under enough pressure to perform).
Daily Mirror @DailyMirror 2m2 minutes ago George Osborne's doomsday Autumn Statement haunted by ghost of Britain's Great Depression http://mirr.im/1z997QW
Mirror still going with 1930's depression theme.
The Mirror is a comic, who can forget when they smeared British soldiers.
As Ken Clarke said many years ago, the Mirror is read by morons
If you think sexual self gratification and breast feeding a hungry infant are equivalent, then you really do live in a strange world.
Congratulations on winning the worst ever analogy on PB award though.
Clearly a follower of Diogenes the Cynic.
Diogenes taught by living example. He tried to demonstrate that wisdom and happiness belong to the man who is independent of society and that civilization is regressive. He scorned not only family and political social organization, but also property rights and reputation. He even rejected normal ideas about human decency. Diogenes is said to have eaten in the marketplace,[45] urinated on some people who insulted him,[46] defecated in the theatre,[47] and masturbated in public. When asked about his eating in public he said, "If taking breakfast is nothing out of place, then it is nothing out of place in the marketplace. But taking breakfast is nothing out of place, therefore it is nothing out of place to take breakfast in the marketplace." [48] On the indecency of him masturbating in public he would say, "If only it were as easy to banish hunger by rubbing my belly."[49][50]
From Life of Diogenes: "Someone took him [Diogenes] into a magnificent house and warned him not to spit, whereupon, having cleared his throat, he spat into the man's face, being unable, he said, to find a meaner receptacle."
O/T but just now, my step-son is starring in the opening night of Cats, at the London Palladium (we deliberately stayed away from the first night, as he's under enough pressure to perform).
It's not harassment or different terms to be asked to breastfeed in the toilet, or to move tables in the middle of a meal, just because some numpty doesn't like breastfeeding?
And equating a non-breastfeeding women baring her breast to a woman breastfeeding is laughably pathetic.
What we are seeing here is a lot of misogynists who seem frightened of women and babies.
I'm not comparing a non-breastfeeding woman baring her breast to a woman breastfeeding. I'm comparing a non-breastfeeding woman baring her breast to a breastfeeding woman doing it in a way that bares her breast.
And being a bit uncomfortable with public nudity makes you "frightened of women and babies". You really are demonstrating how ridiculous and hyperbolic your side of the argument is.
Don't adults fart? And as for babies crying, I think you're much more likely to be annoyed by people talking or using their mobiles during a film.
You are being really ridiculous, especially in a conversation about breastfeeding ...
Thanks for adding the mobile phone users and unofficial director's commentary to my film going experience.
Babies certainly add an audio and scent component to any meal, but it is not one I wish to share.
Look, I know you think your child farts Chanel no.5, but I think other people have the right to disagree and for restaurants to accommodate their wishes.
Believe me, our little bundle of joy farts anything but candy floss. Especially now we've started weaning him. :-)
What happens if a restaurant wants women to have their faces covered with a nijab? Should the restaurant be allowed to accommodate their wishes?
Sure, why not?
It is quite common for restaurants to have a dress code.
Mr. Alistair, as an aside, it's curious that breasts are seen as all racy and sexy on women, but far less risqué on men (ie men walking about shirtless, whilst uncouth, is not seen in nearly the same light as women doing likewise).
Is this bad for women (their body is seen as more sexual) or for men (being naked from the waist up is seen as acceptable)? [Or for neither, of course]. Imagine if it were reversed.
Mind you, women bare their midriffs and legs much more.
As someone said on the previous thread, it's a morality that's built up since Victorian times. Before then, the female breast was not seen in quite the same way. For instance Nell Gwyn and others.
It's an artificial taboo built up over the years. Whether it's right or wrong is something that even feminists cannot agree on ...
Would you have an issue with me staring at your wifes breasts if she was to breast feed in a public place? If yes why?
I would hope you were enough of a gentleman not to do so. Or is the sort of thing you are likely to do?
Any chance of an answer? Would you object to me watching this perfectly normal and natural act. Or should she be a lady and be more discrete?
It's impossible to answer as it would depend on the circumstances.
How about an answer to my question: is it the sort of thing you'd be likely to do?
Personally no, but the potential is there for someone to do so, but as the nub of your argument is that it's perfectly normal, there should be no circumstances where it would be an issue for someone to watch that perfectly normal activity. And with that I'll take Nick's advice and leave the subject alone.
Mr. F, best of luck to your step-son. I'm sure he'll be the cat's pyjamas
Mr. Llama, thanks. Although it won't be imminent, Treasure might be out a little earlier than initial thought (early 2016). Release dates are necessarily very fuzzy, though.
Edited extra bit: and there will be quite a few short stories out next year in a new series.
Not only is Scotland giving Labour trouble, a new one has emerged from an unlikely source: London.
Based on this weeks average Yougov sub-sample figures [ usual caveats ] and UNS, Labour remain on 38 seats, Con improve from 28 to 32 and LD drop from 7 to 3.
Sub-samples !! Please, Surbiton, now you're just embarrassing yourself.
London will be interesting - it wasn't very good for the Conservatives in May's local contests but in the absence of a specific London-wide poll (another big gap in the polling picture), we're left with Ashcroft.
The LD-Con picture suggested the two Sutton Borough seats would be comfortable LD holds which leaves Twickenham and Kingston & Surbiton. We may get another clue for the latter from the St James by-election which is, I think, this Thursday. St James is in the Kingston part of the seat. The Tudor by-election wasn't too bad for the LDs with a respectable score in a seat they've never won even when controlling Kingston Council.
As for the LD-LAB seats, that does look more problematic for the defenders. I suspect Sarah Teather's seat is probably a lost cause but Lynne Featherstone, well, maybe. As for Simon Hughes, he survived the 1997 Labour landslide (one of Peter Snow's "blocks" if you recall).
As for CON-LAB seats, I believe Brentford & Isleworth looked good for Labour and Enfield North as well but there are, I would say, up to a dozen Conservative seats which would vulnerable on current numbers. UKIP may be a key factor in some parts of East and SE London - looking at seats like Hornchurch & Upminster for example might not be the clear cut Conservative holds that might be supposed.
I can't see anything like a dozen Conservative seats being vulnerable in London. That would give them 5 fewer seats than in 2005.
The vulnerable seats are Enfield North, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green, Brentford & Isleworth, and Ealing Acton. The rest will be solid.
Skynews - Alex Salmond To Stand As MP At Next Election 'The former Scottish first minister plans to fight for the parliamentary seat of Gordon, as a long-serving Lib Dem MP retires.'
It's not harassment or different terms to be asked to breastfeed in the toilet, or to move tables in the middle of a meal, just because some numpty doesn't like breastfeeding?
And equating a non-breastfeeding women baring her breast to a woman breastfeeding is laughably pathetic.
What we are seeing here is a lot of misogynists who seem frightened of women and babies.
I'm not comparing a non-breastfeeding woman baring her breast to a woman breastfeeding. I'm comparing a non-breastfeeding woman baring her breast to a breastfeeding woman doing it in a way that bares her breast.
And being a bit uncomfortable with public nudity makes you "frightened of women and babies". You really are demonstrating how ridiculous and hyperbolic your side of the argument is.
Lordy. You said: "Asking women who are exposing their breast to be more discreet about it certainly isn't providing a service on different terms, given they would almost certainly do the same if a non-breastfeeding woman was exposing their breast."
Sounds like a direct comparison.
You really don't understand breast feeding, do you? Calling it 'public nudity' is ridiculous and, yes, hyperbolic.
My side of the argument is simple: women should be allowed to breastfeed in public, and anyone who has a problem with that should realise that it is their problem, not the woman's. It seems public opinion - and the law - backs me up.
Daily Mirror @DailyMirror 2m2 minutes ago George Osborne's doomsday Autumn Statement haunted by ghost of Britain's Great Depression http://mirr.im/1z997QW
Mirror still going with 1930's depression theme.
Labour’s spending as a proportion of GDP in 1998 - 36%
The Coalition’s projected spending in 2019-20 - 35.2%
I don't remember 1998 being like the Great Depression.
It's not harassment or different terms to be asked to breastfeed in the toilet, or to move tables in the middle of a meal, just because some numpty doesn't like breastfeeding?
And equating a non-breastfeeding women baring her breast to a woman breastfeeding is laughably pathetic.
What we are seeing here is a lot of misogynists who seem frightened of women and babies.
I'm not comparing a non-breastfeeding woman baring her breast to a woman breastfeeding. I'm comparing a non-breastfeeding woman baring her breast to a breastfeeding woman doing it in a way that bares her breast.
And being a bit uncomfortable with public nudity makes you "frightened of women and babies". You really are demonstrating how ridiculous and hyperbolic your side of the argument is.
Lordy. You said: "Asking women who are exposing their breast to be more discreet about it certainly isn't providing a service on different terms, given they would almost certainly do the same if a non-breastfeeding woman was exposing their breast."
Sounds like a direct comparison.
Did you even get as far as my second sentence?
Why don't you read my post again, and actually pause to understand the contrast I made.
I can't see anything like a dozen Conservative seats being vulnerable in London. That would give them 5 fewer seats than in 2005.
The vulnerable seats are Enfield North, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green, Brentford & Isleworth, and Ealing Acton. The rest will be solid.
Ealing Central and Acton, if you please.
I think a Liberal Democrat collapse will see Labour home.
Also, Sean, you've not taken into account the huge churn in population that London suffers from. The Tories have been steadily losing London Assembly seats over the years farther and farther into Outer London.
O/T but just now, my step-son is starring in the opening night of Cats, at the London Palladium (we deliberately stayed away from the first night, as he's under enough pressure to perform).
Not only is Scotland giving Labour trouble, a new one has emerged from an unlikely source: London.
Based on this weeks average Yougov sub-sample figures [ usual caveats ] and UNS, Labour remain on 38 seats, Con improve from 28 to 32 and LD drop from 7 to 3.
Sub-samples !! Please, Surbiton, now you're just embarrassing yourself.
London will be interesting - it wasn't very good for the Conservatives in May's local contests but in the absence of a specific London-wide poll (another big gap in the polling picture), we're left with Ashcroft.
The LD-Con picture suggested the two Sutton Borough seats would be comfortable LD holds which leaves Twickenham and Kingston & Surbiton. We may get another clue for the latter from the St James by-election which is, I think, this Thursday. St James is in the Kingston part of the seat. The Tudor by-election wasn't too bad for the LDs with a respectable score in a seat they've never won even when controlling Kingston Council.
As for the LD-LAB seats, that does look more problematic for the defenders. I suspect Sarah Teather's seat is probably a lost cause but Lynne Featherstone, well, maybe. As for Simon Hughes, he survived the 1997 Labour landslide (one of Peter Snow's "blocks" if you recall).
As for CON-LAB seats, I believe Brentford & Isleworth looked good for Labour and Enfield North as well but there are, I would say, up to a dozen Conservative seats which would vulnerable on current numbers. UKIP may be a key factor in some parts of East and SE London - looking at seats like Hornchurch & Upminster for example might not be the clear cut Conservative holds that might be supposed.
I can't see anything like a dozen Conservative seats being vulnerable in London. That would give them 5 fewer seats than in 2005.
The vulnerable seats are Enfield North, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green, Brentford & Isleworth, and Ealing Acton. The rest will be solid.
Based on the local elections, Labour gains seem certain. The elephant in the room is the Green vote. 1.6% in 2010, about 7% now. Mostly from Labour.
Note my figures are based on UNS and sub samples - so beware of caveats. The total Tory vote has not moved much from 2010. Labour has actually gone down in recent weeks / months because of Green seepage.
Two opposite trends are now happening:
UKIP really hurting the Tories in the South East and the Tories are in denial.
SNP badly hurting Labour. No one is in denial.
Greens hurting Labour in London. No one is noticing. LD falling by themselves.
I wonder what are Stodges "current numbers" ? How much is he giving to the Greens ?
I am not saying the numbers in London or in Scotland will remain like this.
I think the Conservatives made a presentational mistake in the Autumn Statement - probably accidentally.
OBR forecast shows surplus of £23bn in 2019/20.
Labour policy is to balance the current budget but borrow for investment - that means a deficit of approx £25bn.
This allowed Robert Peston to say there was a difference of approx £50bn between Lab and Con plans - ie approx £23bn + £25bn. Hence a Con Govt would mean massively greater cuts.
However, when questioned by Andrew Neil, Matthew Hancock said explicitly it is not Con policy to have a surplus of £23bn in 2019/20 - that is just an OBR forecast based on current policies. But policies will change - it is only Con policy to get to a surplus. He didn't give a figure but clearly implied it could be very, very small - eg a surplus of £1bn.
So the difference between Lab and Con plans is actually only the £25bn, not £50bn.
Con were also not helped by Peston describing the £50bn as equal to total spending on the NHS on the BBC1 6pm News - a straightforward mistake. He later amended this to 50% of spending on the NHS on the BBC1 10pm News - which is correct (though no apology was made for the earlier error - 4 million people were misled, albeit accidentally).
However that still looks a frightening amount and it didn't need to look that bad as the difference is really only £25bn, not £50bn.
It's not harassment or different terms to be asked to breastfeed in the toilet, or to move tables in the middle of a meal, just because some numpty doesn't like breastfeeding?
And equating a non-breastfeeding women baring her breast to a woman breastfeeding is laughably pathetic.
What we are seeing here is a lot of misogynists who seem frightened of women and babies.
I'm not comparing a non-breastfeeding woman baring her breast to a woman breastfeeding. I'm comparing a non-breastfeeding woman baring her breast to a breastfeeding woman doing it in a way that bares her breast.
And being a bit uncomfortable with public nudity makes you "frightened of women and babies". You really are demonstrating how ridiculous and hyperbolic your side of the argument is.
Lordy. You said: "Asking women who are exposing their breast to be more discreet about it certainly isn't providing a service on different terms, given they would almost certainly do the same if a non-breastfeeding woman was exposing their breast."
Sounds like a direct comparison.
Did you even get as far as my second sentence?
Why don't you read my post again, and actually pause to understand the contrast I made.
I did read it. You are directly comparing the reaction to a woman baring a breast for non-breastfeeding purposes and a woman baring a breast for breastfeeding purposes, as the establishment 'would almost certainly do the same'.
Besides, you make it sound as if the amount of flesh shown has to be measured. "Has she bared too much of her breast?" "Dunno mate, we should measure it."
It's a stupid comparison, especially as breastfeeding has a biological purpose that is actually good for society, and should be encouraged. And comparisons to defecation or urinating are stupid.
If you don't like a woman breastfeeding, don't look. It's your issue, not hers.
I think the Conservatives made a presentational mistake in the Autumn Statement - probably accidentally.
OBR forecast shows surplus of £23bn in 2019/20.
Labour policy is to balance the current budget but borrow for investment - that means a deficit of approx £25bn.
This allowed Robert Peston to say there was a difference of approx £50bn between Lab and Con plans - ie approx £23bn + £25bn. Hence a Con Govt would mean massively greater cuts.
However, when questioned by Andrew Neil, Matthew Hancock said explicitly it is not Con policy to have a surplus of £23bn in 2019/20 - that is just an OBR forecast based on current policies. But policies will change - it is only Con policy to get to a surplus. He didn't give a figure but clearly implied it could be very, very small - eg a surplus of £1bn.
So the difference between Lab and Con plans is actually only the £25bn, not £50bn.
Con were also not helped by Peston describing the £50bn as equal to total spending on the NHS on the BBC1 6pm News - a straightforward mistake. He later corrected this to 50% of spending on the NHS on the BBC1 10pm News.
However that still looks a frightening amount and it didn't need to look that bad as the difference is really only £25bn, not £50bn.
Con need to fix this urgently.
The Tories are terrible in general at all presentation. They speak in a way that most people don't really understand, which leaves the door wide open for simple sounding solutions to tough problems from others. New Labour were experts at diluting a message into something that was simple and keeping on message relentlessly.
However, it wouldn't matter what they had said, Preston would still spin things the way he wants. You think Preston doesn't know how much is spent on the NHS each year? BS. Just another one of those Jeremy #unt type mistakes.
It's not harassment or different terms to be asked to breastfeed in the toilet, or to move tables in the middle of a meal, just because some numpty doesn't like breastfeeding?
And equating a non-breastfeeding women baring her breast to a woman breastfeeding is laughably pathetic.
What we are seeing here is a lot of misogynists who seem frightened of women and babies.
I'm not comparing a non-breastfeeding woman baring her breast to a woman breastfeeding. I'm comparing a non-breastfeeding woman baring her breast to a breastfeeding woman doing it in a way that bares her breast.
And being a bit uncomfortable with public nudity makes you "frightened of women and babies". You really are demonstrating how ridiculous and hyperbolic your side of the argument is.
Lordy. You said: "Asking women who are exposing their breast to be more discreet about it certainly isn't providing a service on different terms, given they would almost certainly do the same if a non-breastfeeding woman was exposing their breast."
Sounds like a direct comparison.
Did you even get as far as my second sentence?
Why don't you read my post again, and actually pause to understand the contrast I made.
I did rad it. You are directly comparing the reaction to a woman baring a breast for non-breastfeeding purposes and a woman baring a breast for breastfeeding purposes, as the establishment 'would almost certainly do the same'.
You're skipping back and forth all over the place here. In your previous post you restricted it to "a woman breastfeeding" without the qualification "baring her breast", which was the whole damn point I was making.
Besides, you make it sound as if the amount of flesh shown has to be measured. "Has she bared too much of her breast?" "Dunno mate, we should measure it."
It's a stupid comparison, especially as breastfeeding has a biological purpose that is actually good for society, and should be encouraged. And comparisons to defecation or urinating are stupid.
If you don't like a woman breastfeeding, don't look. It's your issue, not hers.
Once again, you're showing you are unable to understand that I've never opposed to a woman breastfeeding. If you can't even follow the argument of the other side, there's no point in discussing this further.
Based on the local elections, Labour gains seem certain.
The local elections were simultaneous to the Euro ones that UKIP were to win. "Stop racist UKIP" almost certainly bumped up the vote in culturally diverse London.
Not only is Scotland giving Labour trouble, a new one has emerged from an unlikely source: London.
Based on this weeks average Yougov sub-sample figures [ usual caveats ] and UNS, Labour remain on 38 seats, Con improve from 28 to 32 and LD drop from 7 to 3.
It's probably best to rely on standalone polls for London. Sub-samples understate ethnic minorities.
You could be right. Based on the weeks sub-samples, even Kingston & Surbiton falls to the Tories, albeit by a few hundred votes. I live here and I don't think he is in any danger.
However, in with the sub sample aveages, Labour are not losing any "ethnic" seats. In fact, only one falls to the Tories - Hampstead but taht too mainly because of Lib Dems and, of course, Grrens. Conservative gains come in LD seats. Though as Stodge says they won't lose Carshalton and Sutton. I wonder where the LD's are losing their third of the votes.
Based on the local elections, Labour gains seem certain.
The local elections were simultaneous to the Euro ones that UKIP were to win. "Stop racist UKIP" almost certainly bumped up the vote in culturally diverse London.
Turnout next year will be far higher than it was this year.
I can't see anything like a dozen Conservative seats being vulnerable in London. That would give them 5 fewer seats than in 2005.
The vulnerable seats are Enfield North, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green, Brentford & Isleworth, and Ealing Acton. The rest will be solid.
Ealing Central and Acton, if you please.
I think a Liberal Democrat collapse will see Labour home.
Also, Sean, you've not taken into account the huge churn in population that London suffers from. The Tories have been steadily losing London Assembly seats over the years farther and farther into Outer London.
Rock-solid for the Conservatives would be Uxbridge, Ruislip/Northwood, Chipping Barnet, Enfield Southgate, Romford, Upminster & Hornchurch, Westminster & London, Kensington, Fulham & Chelsea, Putney, Richmond, Croydon South, Bexleyheath, Old Bexley, Bromley & Chislehurst, Orpington, and the other Bromley seat whose name I can't recall.
Battersea, Croydon Central, Harrow East, Ilford North, would be vulnerable in a good Labour year, but next year won't be a good Labour year.
It's hard to make sense of the London subsample polls -- they've actually shown Labour lagging behind it's national performance consistently, yet the local elections and European elections showed the exact opposite.
Was it only this morning the Nats were ranting about how Salmond had resigned from front line politics...?
@ZoraSuleman: Alex Salmond to stand to become a MP at next Election. He's expected to confirm his candidacy for the Gordon seat in Aberdeenshire tomorrow.
Interesting thought: Will Salmond retain his Holyrood seat, or resign it on becoming an MP? That would mean he would he is still in with chance of being "recalled to the colours" if the SNP membership got fed up with Nicola. Of course, it would never cross his mind to do so.......... Just like the last time
I can't see anything like a dozen Conservative seats being vulnerable in London. That would give them 5 fewer seats than in 2005.
The vulnerable seats are Enfield North, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green, Brentford & Isleworth, and Ealing Acton. The rest will be solid.
Ealing Central and Acton, if you please.
I think a Liberal Democrat collapse will see Labour home.
Also, Sean, you've not taken into account the huge churn in population that London suffers from. The Tories have been steadily losing London Assembly seats over the years farther and farther into Outer London.
Rock-solid for the Conservatives would be Uxbridge, Ruislip/Northwood, Chipping Barnet, Enfield Southgate, Romford, Upminster & Hornchurch, Westminster & London, Kensington, Fulham & Chelsea, Putney, Richmond, Croydon South, Bexleyheath, Old Bexley, Bromley & Chislehurst, Orpington, and the other Bromley seat whose name I can't recall.
Battersea, Croydon Central, Harrow East, Ilford North, would be vulnerable in a good Labour year, but next year won't be a good Labour year.
Labour took Redbridge Council for the first time ever this year, so I'm fully expecting Ilford North to fall next year.
It's a stupid comparison, especially as breastfeeding has a biological purpose that is actually good for society, and should be encouraged. And comparisons to defecation or urinating are stupid.
If you don't like a woman breastfeeding, don't look. It's your issue, not hers.
Once again, you're showing you are unable to understand that I've never opposed to a woman breastfeeding. If you can't even follow the argument of the other side, there's no point in discussing this further.
I'm not imagining things. If your problem is baring a breast, how do you differentiate between what is acceptable and non-acceptable baring? Considering a nipple at least has to become uncovered to feed.
Do you agree with a basic principle of "If you don't like a woman breastfeeding, don't look. It's your issue, not hers."
It seems eminently sensible to me if you are, as you claim, not opposed to a woman breastfeeding.
And for someone who is, apparently, not opposed to a woman breastfeeding, you do seem rather het up about it. Or is it that you think women should use a cover, or secrete themselves as far away from other people as possible? In which case it is your problem, not theirs.
Edit: anyway, I've been called to get my darling son to sleep. Good night, and pax.
Was it only this morning the Nats were ranting about how Salmond had resigned from front line politics...?
@ZoraSuleman: Alex Salmond to stand to become a MP at next Election. He's expected to confirm his candidacy for the Gordon seat in Aberdeenshire tomorrow.
Interesting thought: Will Salmond retain his Holyrood seat, or resign it on becoming an MP? That would mean he would he is still in with chance of being "recalled to the colours" if the SNP membership got fed up with Nicola. Of course, it would never cross his mind to do so.......... Just like the last time
Only a year's overlap, but at least it is the right way round - not like the problems Mr Murphy could face.
Mr P, it's not like you not to post an URL to justify your ranting comment - and surely Westminster backbenchers are hardly frontline pols.
Not only is Scotland giving Labour trouble, a new one has emerged from an unlikely source: London.
Based on this weeks average Yougov sub-sample figures [ usual caveats ] and UNS, Labour remain on 38 seats, Con improve from 28 to 32 and LD drop from 7 to 3.
Sub-samples !! Please, Surbiton, now you're just embarrassing yourself.
London will be interesting - it wasn't very good for the Conservatives in May's local contests but in the absence of a specific London-wide poll (another big gap in the polling picture), we're left with Ashcroft.
The LD-Con picture suggested the two Sutton Borough seats would be comfortable LD holds which leaves Twickenham and Kingston & Surbiton. We may get another clue for the latter from the St James by-election which is, I think, this Thursday. St James is in the Kingston part of the seat. The Tudor by-election wasn't too bad for the LDs with a respectable score in a seat they've never won even when controlling Kingston Council.
As for the LD-LAB seats, that does look more problematic for the defenders. I suspect Sarah Teather's seat is probably a lost cause but Lynne Featherstone, well, maybe. As for Simon Hughes, he survived the 1997 Labour landslide (one of Peter Snow's "blocks" if yo
I can't see anything like a dozen Conservative seats being vulnerable in London. That would give them 5 fewer seats than in 2005.
The vulnerable seats are Enfield North, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green, Brentford & Isleworth, and Ealing Acton. The rest will be solid.
Based on the local elections, Labour gains seem certain. The elephant in the room is the Green vote. 1.6% in 2010, about 7% now. Mostly from Labour.
Note my figures are based on UNS and sub samples - so beware of caveats. The total Tory vote has not moved much from 2010. Labour has actually gone down in recent weeks / months because of Green seepage.
Two opposite trends are now happening:
UKIP really hurting the Tories in the South East and the Tories are in denial.
SNP badly hurting Labour. No one is in denial.
Greens hurting Labour in London. No one is noticing. LD falling by themselves.
I wonder what are Stodges "current numbers" ? How much is he giving to the Greens ?
I am not saying the numbers in London or in Scotland will remain like this.
One needs to be cautious about extrapolating from local to national. The Tories actually "won" Tooting and Westminster North in the locals, but no one expects Labour to lose them. Conversely, Labour "won" Chipping Barnet and Southgate, but finished behind the Tories in Finchley & Golders Green, which is far more marginal.
I can't see anything like a dozen Conservative seats being vulnerable in London. That would give them 5 fewer seats than in 2005.
The vulnerable seats are Enfield North, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green, Brentford & Isleworth, and Ealing Acton. The rest will be solid.
Ealing Central and Acton, if you please.
I think a Liberal Democrat collapse will see Labour home.
Also, Sean, you've not taken into account the huge churn in population that London suffers from. The Tories have been steadily losing London Assembly seats over the years farther and farther into Outer London.
Rock-solid for the Conservatives would be Uxbridge, Ruislip/Northwood, Chipping Barnet, Enfield Southgate, Romford, Upminster & Hornchurch, Westminster & London, Kensington, Fulham & Chelsea, Putney, Richmond, Croydon South, Bexleyheath, Old Bexley, Bromley & Chislehurst, Orpington, and the other Bromley seat whose name I can't recall.
Battersea, Croydon Central, Harrow East, Ilford North, would be vulnerable in a good Labour year, but next year won't be a good Labour year.
Labour took Redbridge Council for the first time ever this year, so I'm fully expecting Ilford North to fall next year.
There is still a large Jewish vote in Ilford North and they will not vote Labour. Though, the majority will come down because of people moving from East London.
The LDs have probably just lost another seat at the general election, with Salmond's decision to contest Gordon. Without Salmond standing, the LDs would have been favourites to hold the seat IMO:
I can't see anything like a dozen Conservative seats being vulnerable in London. That would give them 5 fewer seats than in 2005.
The vulnerable seats are Enfield North, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green, Brentford & Isleworth, and Ealing Acton. The rest will be solid.
Ealing Central and Acton, if you please.
I think a Liberal Democrat collapse will see Labour home.
Also, Sean, you've not taken into account the huge churn in population that London suffers from. The Tories have been steadily losing London Assembly seats over the years farther and farther into Outer London.
Rock-solid for the Conservatives would be Uxbridge, Ruislip/Northwood, Chipping Barnet, Enfield Southgate, Romford, Upminster & Hornchurch, Westminster & London, Kensington, Fulham & Chelsea, Putney, Richmond, Croydon South, Bexleyheath, Old Bexley, Bromley & Chislehurst, Orpington, and the other Bromley seat whose name I can't recall.
Battersea, Croydon Central, Harrow East, Ilford North, would be vulnerable in a good Labour year, but next year won't be a good Labour year.
Labour took Redbridge Council for the first time ever this year, so I'm fully expecting Ilford North to fall next year.
The Tories still led in the wards that make up Ilford North. Ilford South is now massively safe for Labour, though.
The LDs have probably just lost another seat at the general election, with Salmond's decision to contest Gordon. Without Salmond standing, the LDs would have been favourites to hold the seat IMO:
No chance, the incumbent Lib Dem is stepping down. They're surely on for a 10% drop at absolute minimum, which would've put the SNP within spitting distance before even factoring in any rise for them.
The LDs have probably just lost another seat at the general election, with Salmond's decision to contest Gordon. Without Salmond standing, the LDs would have been favourites to hold the seat IMO:
The Telegraph/ICM Wisdom Index survey, which asks voters to predict the vote share each party will win, put both Labour and the Conservatives on 31 per cent. November’s one-point lead for the Tories has disappeared, as Labour moved up a point, according to the predictions of more than 2,000 voters.
I can't see anything like a dozen Conservative seats being vulnerable in London. That would give them 5 fewer seats than in 2005.
The vulnerable seats are Enfield North, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green, Brentford & Isleworth, and Ealing Acton. The rest will be solid.
Ealing Central and Acton, if you please.
I think a Liberal Democrat collapse will see Labour home.
Also, Sean, you've not taken into account the huge churn in population that London suffers from. The Tories have been steadily losing London Assembly seats over the years farther and farther into Outer London.
Rock-solid for the Conservatives would be Uxbridge, Ruislip/Northwood, Chipping Barnet, Enfield Southgate, Romford, Upminster & Hornchurch, Westminster & London, Kensington, Fulham & Chelsea, Putney, Richmond, Croydon South, Bexleyheath, Old Bexley, Bromley & Chislehurst, Orpington, and the other Bromley seat whose name I can't recall.
Battersea, Croydon Central, Harrow East, Ilford North, would be vulnerable in a good Labour year, but next year won't be a good Labour year.
Labour took Redbridge Council for the first time ever this year, so I'm fully expecting Ilford North to fall next year.
The interesting thing about Ilford North is that Labour will require a direct swing from Tory voters to take the seat since there aren't enough LD votes for Labour to win simply with a swing from the yellows (assuming the LDs are able to poll at least 2%).
The Telegraph/ICM Wisdom Index survey, which asks voters to predict the vote share each party will win, put both Labour and the Conservatives on 31 per cent. November’s one-point lead for the Tories has disappeared, as Labour moved up a point, according to the predictions of more than 2,000 voters.
I can imagine the three "major" parties polling less than 72% in GE2015.
The LDs have probably just lost another seat at the general election, with Salmond's decision to contest Gordon. Without Salmond standing, the LDs would have been favourites to hold the seat IMO:
Osborne's stamp duty changes are fairer way to tax rich than Balls' mansion tax, by 45% to 33%
Was there an option for is Ed Balls double whammy fair? Because from what I understand Eddie Spheriods will still impose his Granny Tax ontop of stamp duty increases, so it isn't an either / or option.
O/T but just now, my step-son is starring in the opening night of Cats, at the London Palladium (we deliberately stayed away from the first night, as he's under enough pressure to perform).
The LDs have probably just lost another seat at the general election, with Salmond's decision to contest Gordon. Without Salmond standing, the LDs would have been favourites to hold the seat IMO:
Was it only this morning the Nats were ranting about how Salmond had resigned from front line politics...?
@ZoraSuleman: Alex Salmond to stand to become a MP at next Election. He's expected to confirm his candidacy for the Gordon seat in Aberdeenshire tomorrow.
Interesting thought: Will Salmond retain his Holyrood seat, or resign it on becoming an MP? That would mean he would he is still in with chance of being "recalled to the colours" if the SNP membership got fed up with Nicola. Of course, it would never cross his mind to do so.......... Just like the last time
Only a year's overlap, but at least it is the right way round - not like the problems Mr Murphy could face.
Mr P, it's not like you not to post an URL to justify your ranting comment - and surely Westminster backbenchers are hardly frontline pols.
Who was it who said " a week is a long time in politics"? Anyway that's nothing compared to a Year. But KP has another job now and would he be willing to go back to nursemaiding Eck? Would you want to?
As for Murphy, there are lot of safe seats still for him, or List.
And as for Nicola, I watched the last FMQs and she was well and truly filleted by Jackie Baillie. I was watching the expressions of Swinney and the back benchers behind Nicola, and they were not happy bunnies.
O/T but just now, my step-son is starring in the opening night of Cats, at the London Palladium (we deliberately stayed away from the first night, as he's under enough pressure to perform).
The demographic in Ilford North is very different to that of Ilford South (ex East Ham)
Amazing to reflect that the Tories only lost Ilford South in 1992 by 400 votes and were able to win good majorities in 1987, 1983 and 1979.
Is this down to changing population in that area of London? I'd guess that is more likely than the same residents changing their political views. Of course from the Conservative point of view it still is not a good sign. Once upon a time they could win in big cities as much as in the shires, they seem to have lost that ability and show no sign of having a clue how to get it back. Instead they now seem to be concentrating on losing voters in rural areas and small/medium seized towns.
Was it only this morning the Nats were ranting about how Salmond had resigned from front line politics...?
@ZoraSuleman: Alex Salmond to stand to become a MP at next Election. He's expected to confirm his candidacy for the Gordon seat in Aberdeenshire tomorrow.
Interesting thought: Will Salmond retain his Holyrood seat, or resign it on becoming an MP? That would mean he would he is still in with chance of being "recalled to the colours" if the SNP membership got fed up with Nicola. Of course, it would never cross his mind to do so.......... Just like the last time
Only a year's overlap, but at least it is the right way round - not like the problems Mr Murphy could face.
Mr P, it's not like you not to post an URL to justify your ranting comment - and surely Westminster backbenchers are hardly frontline pols.
Who was it who said " a week is a long time in politics"? Anyway that's nothing compared to a Year. But KP has another job now and would he be willing to go back to nursemaiding Eck? Would you want to?
As for Murphy, there are lot of safe seats still for him, or List.
And as for Nicola, I watched the last FMQs and she was well and truly filleted by Jackie Baillie. I was watching the expressions of Swinney and the back benchers behind Nicola, and they were not happy bunnies.
Harold Wilson said that a week is a long time in politics.
Comments
Babies certainly add an audio and scent component to any meal, but it is not one I wish to share.
Look, I know you think your child farts Chanel no.5, but I think other people have the right to disagree and for restaurants to accommodate their wishes.
So far we haven't run into any problems. In fact, the places we usually frequent all coo over babies. They're modern and enlightened you see, even if the barman in our local was wearing a tracksuit yesterday ...
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41tDMWaTf+L._SY300_.jpg
I assume some PBers would get outraged if they saw me drinking from these glasses?
What we are seeing here is a combination of (a) over-sensitive parents who love playing the victim and (b) people deliberately formenting a faux outrage over UKIP.
Based on this weeks average Yougov sub-sample figures [ usual caveats ] and UNS, Labour remain on 38 seats, Con improve from 28 to 32 and LD drop from 7 to 3.
Could prove tricky for Simon Hughes in Bermondsey, where Labour can be backed with Hills at 7/4.
Where can I get one?
What happens if a restaurant wants women to have their faces covered with a nijab? Should the restaurant be allowed to accommodate their wishes?
http://www.amazon.com/Boobies-Beer-Boobie-27oz-Glass/dp/B00KN6P0ZG
George Osborne's doomsday Autumn Statement haunted by ghost of Britain's Great Depression http://mirr.im/1z997QW
Mirror still going with 1930's depression theme.
How about an answer to my question: is it the sort of thing you'd be likely to do?
As Ken Clarke said many years ago, the Mirror is read by morons
Are you allowed to take your own glasses into Claridges?
Only i wont be able to see nipples without my Specs.
Gets coat (dirty rain mac type)
Nice little Sir Edric story by the way. Thanks.
You'll be wishing to discuss breastfeeding then.
@ZoraSuleman: Alex Salmond to stand to become a MP at next Election. He's expected to confirm his candidacy for the Gordon seat in Aberdeenshire tomorrow.
In the anecdote department, my impression is that we're squeezing some of the Lab-UKIP switchers back now. Could be just a sample, but it was really pretty good all day. Most mysterious one reported by a canvasser was "Of course my husband votes Labour - he's a professor of biology." Hmm!
London will be interesting - it wasn't very good for the Conservatives in May's local contests but in the absence of a specific London-wide poll (another big gap in the polling picture), we're left with Ashcroft.
The LD-Con picture suggested the two Sutton Borough seats would be comfortable LD holds which leaves Twickenham and Kingston & Surbiton. We may get another clue for the latter from the St James by-election which is, I think, this Thursday. St James is in the Kingston part of the seat. The Tudor by-election wasn't too bad for the LDs with a respectable score in a seat they've never won even when controlling Kingston Council.
As for the LD-LAB seats, that does look more problematic for the defenders. I suspect Sarah Teather's seat is probably a lost cause but Lynne Featherstone, well, maybe. As for Simon Hughes, he survived the 1997 Labour landslide (one of Peter Snow's "blocks" if you recall).
As for CON-LAB seats, I believe Brentford & Isleworth looked good for Labour and Enfield North as well but there are, I would say, up to a dozen Conservative seats which would vulnerable on current numbers. UKIP may be a key factor in some parts of East and SE London - looking at seats like Hornchurch & Upminster for example might not be the clear cut Conservative holds that might be supposed.
And equating a non-breastfeeding women baring her breast to a woman breastfeeding is laughably pathetic.
What we are seeing here is a lot of misogynists who seem frightened of women and babies.
As for Farage's comment, I suggest you read my first post on this topic yesterday. I'm not arguing against him; I'm arguing against the people who see their fear of a woman breastfeeding as more important than a mother's right to lead as ordinary a life as possible.
(warning NSFW - theres a good reason this poster got banned.....)
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/05/PETA-Poster-Nottingham-Meadow-Lane
Ken could be right.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-wears-reading-glasses-2265718
Diogenes taught by living example. He tried to demonstrate that wisdom and happiness belong to the man who is independent of society and that civilization is regressive. He scorned not only family and political social organization, but also property rights and reputation. He even rejected normal ideas about human decency. Diogenes is said to have eaten in the marketplace,[45] urinated on some people who insulted him,[46] defecated in the theatre,[47] and masturbated in public. When asked about his eating in public he said, "If taking breakfast is nothing out of place, then it is nothing out of place in the marketplace. But taking breakfast is nothing out of place, therefore it is nothing out of place to take breakfast in the marketplace." [48] On the indecency of him masturbating in public he would say, "If only it were as easy to banish hunger by rubbing my belly."[49][50]
From Life of Diogenes: "Someone took him [Diogenes] into a magnificent house and warned him not to spit, whereupon, having cleared his throat, he spat into the man's face, being unable, he said, to find a meaner receptacle."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope
And being a bit uncomfortable with public nudity makes you "frightened of women and babies". You really are demonstrating how ridiculous and hyperbolic your side of the argument is.
It is quite common for restaurants to have a dress code.
Mr. Llama, thanks. Although it won't be imminent, Treasure might be out a little earlier than initial thought (early 2016). Release dates are necessarily very fuzzy, though.
Edited extra bit: and there will be quite a few short stories out next year in a new series.
The vulnerable seats are Enfield North, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green, Brentford & Isleworth, and Ealing Acton. The rest will be solid.
'The former Scottish first minister plans to fight for the parliamentary seat of Gordon, as a long-serving Lib Dem MP retires.'
Sounds like a direct comparison.
You really don't understand breast feeding, do you? Calling it 'public nudity' is ridiculous and, yes, hyperbolic.
My side of the argument is simple: women should be allowed to breastfeed in public, and anyone who has a problem with that should realise that it is their problem, not the woman's. It seems public opinion - and the law - backs me up.
And why would anyone have a problem with it?
The Coalition’s projected spending in 2019-20 - 35.2%
I don't remember 1998 being like the Great Depression.
Why don't you read my post again, and actually pause to understand the contrast I made.
I think a Liberal Democrat collapse will see Labour home.
Also, Sean, you've not taken into account the huge churn in population that London suffers from. The Tories have been steadily losing London Assembly seats over the years farther and farther into Outer London.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11274871/Immigration-debate-will-get-very-nasty-labour-MP-warns.html
Note my figures are based on UNS and sub samples - so beware of caveats. The total Tory vote has not moved much from 2010. Labour has actually gone down in recent weeks / months because of Green seepage.
Two opposite trends are now happening:
UKIP really hurting the Tories in the South East and the Tories are in denial.
SNP badly hurting Labour. No one is in denial.
Greens hurting Labour in London. No one is noticing. LD falling by themselves.
I wonder what are Stodges "current numbers" ? How much is he giving to the Greens ?
I am not saying the numbers in London or in Scotland will remain like this.
OBR forecast shows surplus of £23bn in 2019/20.
Labour policy is to balance the current budget but borrow for investment - that means a deficit of approx £25bn.
This allowed Robert Peston to say there was a difference of approx £50bn between Lab and Con plans - ie approx £23bn + £25bn. Hence a Con Govt would mean massively greater cuts.
However, when questioned by Andrew Neil, Matthew Hancock said explicitly it is not Con policy to have a surplus of £23bn in 2019/20 - that is just an OBR forecast based on current policies. But policies will change - it is only Con policy to get to a surplus. He didn't give a figure but clearly implied it could be very, very small - eg a surplus of £1bn.
So the difference between Lab and Con plans is actually only the £25bn, not £50bn.
Con were also not helped by Peston describing the £50bn as equal to total spending on the NHS on the BBC1 6pm News - a straightforward mistake. He later amended this to 50% of spending on the NHS on the BBC1 10pm News - which is correct (though no apology was made for the earlier error - 4 million people were misled, albeit accidentally).
However that still looks a frightening amount and it didn't need to look that bad as the difference is really only £25bn, not £50bn.
Con need to fix this urgently.
Besides, you make it sound as if the amount of flesh shown has to be measured. "Has she bared too much of her breast?" "Dunno mate, we should measure it."
It's a stupid comparison, especially as breastfeeding has a biological purpose that is actually good for society, and should be encouraged. And comparisons to defecation or urinating are stupid.
If you don't like a woman breastfeeding, don't look. It's your issue, not hers.
The subsample numbers have drifting South since the mansion tax details started to be fleshed out.
The Scotland subsamples were dismissed as inaccurate at the end of September by people unwilling to see what the Indy ref had done.
However, it wouldn't matter what they had said, Preston would still spin things the way he wants. You think Preston doesn't know how much is spent on the NHS each year? BS. Just another one of those Jeremy #unt type mistakes.
Former SNP leader Alex Salmond is to stand for a seat at Westminster at next May's General Election, the BBC understands.
He will contest the Gordon seat held by retiring Lib Dem MP Sir Malcolm Bruce.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30364575
And presumably Labour will tackle more of the deficit through taxation so they would be looking at spending differences of 30 billion +.
However, in with the sub sample aveages, Labour are not losing any "ethnic" seats. In fact, only one falls to the Tories - Hampstead but taht too mainly because of Lib Dems and, of course, Grrens. Conservative gains come in LD seats. Though as Stodge says they won't lose Carshalton and Sutton. I wonder where the LD's are losing their third of the votes.
Battersea, Croydon Central, Harrow East, Ilford North, would be vulnerable in a good Labour year, but next year won't be a good Labour year.
Do you agree with a basic principle of "If you don't like a woman breastfeeding, don't look. It's your issue, not hers."
It seems eminently sensible to me if you are, as you claim, not opposed to a woman breastfeeding.
And for someone who is, apparently, not opposed to a woman breastfeeding, you do seem rather het up about it. Or is it that you think women should use a cover, or secrete themselves as far away from other people as possible? In which case it is your problem, not theirs.
Edit: anyway, I've been called to get my darling son to sleep. Good night, and pax.
Mr P, it's not like you not to post an URL to justify your ranting comment - and surely Westminster backbenchers are hardly frontline pols.
Con 32, Lab 32, LD 6, UKIP 17, Greens 7
Third YouGov poll in a row with the Greens outpolling the LDs
Neil, that early settlement discount offer is still available.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30364575
By 77% to 8% people think #Osborne's changes to stamp duty are good idea; 73% say it is fair way to tax rich
By 63% to 23% people think Labour's mansion is good idea; 61%say it is a fair way to tax the rich
The Telegraph/ICM Wisdom Index survey, which asks voters to predict the vote share each party will win, put both Labour and the Conservatives on 31 per cent.
November’s one-point lead for the Tories has disappeared, as Labour moved up a point, according to the predictions of more than 2,000 voters.
But with margin of error/different methodologies/sample variations, anything from a 5% Lab lead to a 2% Con lead are showing the same thing.
Tory maj over Lab: 5,404
LD votes: 5,924
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/c32.stm
Most polls of course show very little direct swing between Con and Lab.
Tories plot to succeed David Cameron as polls tighten
Senior Conservatives jockey for position in leadership race as Labour and Tories are neck-and-neck on 31 per cent in new ICM poll for the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11277677/Tories-plot-to-succeed-David-Cameron-as-polls-tighten.html
Osborne's stamp duty changes are fairer way to tax rich than Balls' mansion tax, by 45% to 33%
EICIPM
Osborne says Lib Dems as well as Labour pose a threat to the economy.
Senior Conservatives jockey for position in leadership race as Labour and Tories are neck-and-neck on 31 per cent in new ICM poll for the Telegraph
As for Murphy, there are lot of safe seats still for him, or List.
And as for Nicola, I watched the last FMQs and she was well and truly filleted by Jackie Baillie.
I was watching the expressions of Swinney and the back benchers behind Nicola, and they were not happy bunnies.
Ilford South is #2
Ilford North is #31, with only 44% White British.
"One senior Tory said Mr Osborne had been pinning his hopes on the young culture secretary, Sajid Javid, as his best hope of stopping Mr Johnson."
What makes me think that Osborne's hopes are somewhat closer to home than that?
Or should I simply consider that the Tories are UKIP for pussies?
As I said it's quite a dilemma
Vote UKIP and you get Ed.