I thought Rotherham was a dead cert a couple of months ago
Crikey, what is the opposite of rose tinted specs... Rotherham (And Rother Valley) have never been more than 25% likely to go UKIP imo.
Which leaves Labour with a 75% chance.
After the Euro 2014 and the scandals som ehere on PB were talking of UKIP winning in Rotherham [ and Doncaster ]. Bit of fast pedaling back. I would like UKIP to win Boston, Clacton, Thanet South, Rochester & Strood, Great Yarmouth.
I think they'll take those 5, plus Castle Point and (slightly more daring) Gillingham & Rainham.
I thought Rotherham was a dead cert a couple of months ago, but I'm starting to think Labour might shore up their Kipper flank in time for May so that's a toss-up now for me.
I know people in Rotherham Labour - they said it was gruelling for a while but they think they've now pulled away. Obviously allow for optimism bias but these are not novices.
They were neck and neck in the SYPCC, wonder what makes them think they've pulled away since?
Hard work. Canvassing. Shoring up your voter base. Do you know that sort of thing ?
Natalie Bennett,the Green Party leader is now saying you would be better off being poor in India than being on benefits in the UK....I don't think she has travelled much..and certainly not to the poorer areas of India.
I think they'll take those 5, plus Castle Point and (slightly more daring) Gillingham & Rainham.
I thought Rotherham was a dead cert a couple of months ago, but I'm starting to think Labour might shore up their Kipper flank in time for May so that's a toss-up now for me.
I know people in Rotherham Labour - they said it was gruelling for a while but they think they've now pulled away. Obviously allow for optimism bias but these are not novices.
They were neck and neck in the SYPCC, wonder what makes them think they've pulled away since?
Hard work. Canvassing. Shoring up your voter base. Do you know that sort of thing ?
Plus the fact that turnout at the SYPCC was circa just 15% leaving lots of Labour voters who only turn out at GE time
In 2010 tories got 21k labour 17k libs 8k ukip 1700 so if they are taken literally ukip has no chance in Dover but are 9/4 with lads, tories 10/11 lab 11/4. The labour candidate is not seen as strong locally.
Interested to hear people's thoughts
Con 44%, , Lab 33.5%, LD 15.8%, UKIP 3.5% [ GE 2010 ]
Based on the above , what sort of swing leads to the odds described above ?
Why would I? I am in line to win money on almost all my bets ( only one Im behind in is Rochester) for one & even if I lost them all why would I?
You are the crazy one if you think you are almost certain to win our bet, if it were based on the midpoint of the spreads right I am well ahead
I post under my own name w my own pic unlike you so who is more likely to disappear I wonder?
Quite. Audreyanne is ever so clever and forthright from behind a pseudonym but safe in the knowledge that if he/she ever gets on the wrong end an argument they can just slink away in anonymity.
I think they'll take those 5, plus Castle Point and (slightly more daring) Gillingham & Rainham.
I thought Rotherham was a dead cert a couple of months ago, but I'm starting to think Labour might shore up their Kipper flank in time for May so that's a toss-up now for me.
I know people in Rotherham Labour - they said it was gruelling for a while but they think they've now pulled away. Obviously allow for optimism bias but these are not novices.
They were neck and neck in the SYPCC, wonder what makes them think they've pulled away since?
Hard work. Canvassing. Shoring up your voter base. Do you know that sort of thing ?
Plus the fact that turnout at the SYPCC was circa just 15% leaving lots of Labour voters who only turn out at GE time
If there is one thing Labour voters know to do... it is turnout at General Election time. Laziest voters for certain amongst all the parties.
I think they'll take those 5, plus Castle Point and (slightly more daring) Gillingham & Rainham.
I thought Rotherham was a dead cert a couple of months ago, but I'm starting to think Labour might shore up their Kipper flank in time for May so that's a toss-up now for me.
I know people in Rotherham Labour - they said it was gruelling for a while but they think they've now pulled away. Obviously allow for optimism bias but these are not novices.
They were neck and neck in the SYPCC, wonder what makes them think they've pulled away since?
Hard work. Canvassing. Shoring up your voter base. Do you know that sort of thing ?
Plus the fact that turnout at the SYPCC was circa just 15% leaving lots of Labour voters who only turn out at GE time
If there is one thing Labour voters know to do... it is turnout at General Election time. Laziest voters for certain amongst all the parties.
I think they'll take those 5, plus Castle Point and (slightly more daring) Gillingham & Rainham.
I thought Rotherham was a dead cert a couple of months ago, but I'm starting to think Labour might shore up their Kipper flank in time for May so that's a toss-up now for me.
I know people in Rotherham Labour - they said it was gruelling for a while but they think they've now pulled away. Obviously allow for optimism bias but these are not novices.
They were neck and neck in the SYPCC, wonder what makes them think they've pulled away since?
Let me see. So the man voted for Labour and the dog voted for UKIP. Since no one else voted that must be it then.
Natalie Bennett,the Green Party leader is now saying you would be better off being poor in India than being on benefits in the UK....I don't think she has travelled much..and certainly not to the poorer areas of India.
What makes me wonder just a bit is the Indian newspapers have started commening on poverty and hunger in the UK.
I thought Rotherham was a dead cert a couple of months ago
Crikey, what is the opposite of rose tinted specs... Rotherham (And Rother Valley) have never been more than 25% likely to go UKIP imo.
Which leaves Labour with a 75% chance.
After the Euro 2014 and the scandals som ehere on PB were talking of UKIP winning in Rotherham [ and Doncaster ]. Bit of fast pedaling back. I would like UKIP to win Boston, Clacton, Thanet South, Rochester & Strood, Great Yarmouth.
Not at all... If you want to have as much as you like on labour winning rotherham, at better than the best odds available let me know
I thought Rotherham was a dead cert a couple of months ago
Crikey, what is the opposite of rose tinted specs... Rotherham (And Rother Valley) have never been more than 25% likely to go UKIP imo.
Which leaves Labour with a 75% chance.
After the Euro 2014 and the scandals som ehere on PB were talking of UKIP winning in Rotherham [ and Doncaster ]. Bit of fast pedaling back. I would like UKIP to win Boston, Clacton, Thanet South, Rochester & Strood, Great Yarmouth.
Not at all... If you want to have as much as you like on labour winning rotherham, at better than the best odds available let me know
Natalie Bennett,the Green Party leader is now saying you would be better off being poor in India than being on benefits in the UK....I don't think she has travelled much..and certainly not to the poorer areas of India.
What makes me wonder just a bit is the Indian newspapers have started commening on poverty and hunger in the UK.
Natalie Bennett,the Green Party leader is now saying you would be better off being poor in India than being on benefits in the UK....I don't think she has travelled much..and certainly not to the poorer areas of India.
It would seem that Bennett travelled all the way from Australia where she was born but missed out a lot in the middle.
''I read a lot on here about the prospects for the LD vote, the UKIP vote, the Green vote, the SNP vote and even the Labour vote but not a lot about the Conservative vote.''
Since the beginning of 2014, the conservatives poll score is a reasonable guide to who will turn out to put a cross in the blue box in a real election.
That is not true of the labour vote. The poll score always overstates the numbers who turn out for ed or his representative when push comes to shove.
Nick Palmer's chances look good on paper, but next May I reckon he'll be standing on that husting thinking to himself, 'where are all those f8ckers who said they'd vote for me...??
The idea that the Tories always get understated is not correct. ICM had them on 26% fr the Euros - they came out with 23.93%
I thought Rotherham was a dead cert a couple of months ago
Crikey, what is the opposite of rose tinted specs... Rotherham (And Rother Valley) have never been more than 25% likely to go UKIP imo.
Which leaves Labour with a 75% chance.
After the Euro 2014 and the scandals som ehere on PB were talking of UKIP winning in Rotherham [ and Doncaster ]. Bit of fast pedaling back. I would like UKIP to win Boston, Clacton, Thanet South, Rochester & Strood, Great Yarmouth.
It is more than a little optimistic for anyone to use the PCC election as an indication for a GE. Not only were they a different set of elections; they were for a role that might directly impact the scandal, and still had a massively low turnout.
Given Kevin Barron is not stepping down (I think!), then I'd expect a Labour win. His majority has been whittled down to 40% since 1997, but he must still be a massive favourite.
Let's hope so, but usually used when disease takes a serious turn.
With an admitted lack of knowledge, I'm more hopeful than that. This treatment is very new, and she's at a world-class facility. Her symptoms were caught fairly early, and it is as good a place as anywhere to see how the novel and unlicensed treatment will hold in this case.
Basically: she *may* be being treated as a guinea pig, but there are not many alternative treatments at the moment, and she's somewhere they can swap treatments if necessary.
I wish her (and the staff with her) well. The more they learn, the better.
Let's hope so, but usually used when disease takes a serious turn.
With an admitted lack of knowledge, I'm more hopeful than that. This treatment is very new, and she's at a world-class facility. Her symptoms were caught fairly early, and it is as good a place as anywhere to see how the novel and unlicensed treatment will hold in this case.
Basically: she *may* be being treated as a guinea pig, but there are not many alternative treatments at the moment, and she's somewhere they can swap treatments if necessary.
I wish her (and the staff with her) well. The more they learn, the better.
I fully concur with the above. I do know from personal experience that the Royal Free ( my own hospital ) is a good hospital.
Sturgeon said that "the SNP will never put the Tories into government". This means no coalition and no supply-and-confidence. This doesn't mean voting against every Conservative bill put before the house.
Is this the same SNP that "ruled out" supporting the Edinburgh Trams, right up until they *cough* voted for the Trams *cough* and the extra funding?
And can I just check that the first thing the SNP "We could do anything if it wasn't for those bastards in Westminster" administration did on finding Ebola was ship it to London?
If you check, it was the other parties which voted for the Trams against bitter SNP opposition (in a SNP minority government). The SNP later provided limited extra funding to get a curtailed project completed.
As for Ebola, there was presumably a UK wide agreement in place.
There is a question for Scottish independence supporters to answer: the only facility (according to the radio) that can deal with this at a high level is in London. If this had occurred in three years time, after a yes vote and Scottish independence, what would have happened?
Many people would have been not very keen to see her travel to London from an independent Scotland. You want independence: if you get your wish then you should create and pay for such facilities. *If* the UK was to take them, then it would be on our terms, and on a case-by-case basis.
Any UK-wide agreement that you presume exists would presumably become void on independence. Or are the only ones that would become void the ones the SNP want to void?
Is this yet another example of Better Together?
I happen to think that more such facilities probably should be created as a matter of common sense, whether or not Scotland was independent, anyway. It will be interesting to see how this issue develops.
How do Holland, Belgium and Denmark manage?
I wondered too. Not to mention Ireland. A little checking shows that Ireland has its own national isolation unit.
Zero. There are some existing projects being finished off, but no new money.
So - Zero money going except for the money that actually still is going?
That's cleared that up, cheers.
Well, would you actually favour walking off the job of a half-finished school? Any sensible programme in any field finishes off previously-committed projects before closing down. But it's felt that India is no longer a priority for new money compared with poorer countries.
Let's hope so, but usually used when disease takes a serious turn.
With an admitted lack of knowledge, I'm more hopeful than that. This treatment is very new, and she's at a world-class facility. Her symptoms were caught fairly early, and it is as good a place as anywhere to see how the novel and unlicensed treatment will hold in this case.
Basically: she *may* be being treated as a guinea pig, but there are not many alternative treatments at the moment, and she's somewhere they can swap treatments if necessary.
I wish her (and the staff with her) well. The more they learn, the better.
Can we PLEASE have a "like" button!
Mr JJ, I'm totally with you in wishing the brave lady all the best.
In Scotland UKIP poll regularly above the Lib Dems but without having any visible impact on the Tory vote. My feeling is that most of their vote has come from Labour and this is part of the problem Jim Murphy faces.
While the SNP are riding high at the moment their core base may be eroding in some areas. Nicola Sturgeon has set a target on Glasgow Labour but in doing so may well lose votes in the country and the East coast.
The face of the Tories in Scotland is Ruth Davidson and she is as far from Cameron as it is possible to be in background. The more devolution occurs the less relevant Cameron becomes. The SNP risk becoming obsessed with England and forgetting that they already look after education and health and need to get them right. There is no clear evidence that this is happening.
Hard to say what will happen in Scotland but if the 40 of so staff at my company are any indication then the SNP core base now supports Celtic. This is were the Labour have lost votes and will find them hard to get back. Are the SNP going to be the Sinn Fein of Scotland?
Utter tripe and just what you would expect from a rabid OL/Rangers fanatic.
Sturgeon said that "the SNP will never put the Tories into government". This means no coalition and no supply-and-confidence. This doesn't mean voting against every Conservative bill put before the house.
Is this the same SNP that "ruled out" supporting the Edinburgh Trams, right up until they *cough* voted for the Trams *cough* and the extra funding?
And can I just check that the first thing the SNP "We could do anything if it wasn't for those bastards in Westminster" administration did on finding Ebola was ship it to London?
what an absolute dumpling you are , devoid of any saving grace.
Sturgeon said that "the SNP will never put the Tories into government". This means no coalition and no supply-and-confidence. This doesn't mean voting against every Conservative bill put before the house.
Is this the same SNP that "ruled out" supporting the Edinburgh Trams, right up until they *cough* voted for the Trams *cough* and the extra funding?
And can I just check that the first thing the SNP "We could do anything if it wasn't for those bastards in Westminster" administration did on finding Ebola was ship it to London?
If you check, it was the other parties which voted for the Trams against bitter SNP opposition (in a SNP minority government). The SNP later provided limited extra funding to get a curtailed project completed.
As for Ebola, there was presumably a UK wide agreement in place.
There is a question for Scottish independence supporters to answer: the only facility (according to the radio) that can deal with this at a high level is in London. If this had occurred in three years time, after a yes vote and Scottish independence, what would have happened?
Many people would have been not very keen to see her travel to London from an independent Scotland. You want independence: if you get your wish then you should create and pay for such facilities. *If* the UK was to take them, then it would be on our terms, and on a case-by-case basis.
Any UK-wide agreement that you presume exists would presumably become void on independence. Or are the only ones that would become void the ones the SNP want to void?
Is this yet another example of Better Together?
Another example that shows "pooling and sharing" = put it in London, and force us to send very ill people 450 miles.
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
I tipped Boston and Skegness at 6s, Thurrock at 16s and S Thanet at 5/2 last year by the way, hope you are all on
Ah yes, the same person who castigated TSE as being useless on betting tips. And the same with whom I have a bet that the LibDems will win 4x as many MPs as UKIP.
I reckon my bet is looking pretty near certain so feel free to pay me early if you like.
Yes the same person.. I stand by every word and will double up on that bet if you like (it is "more than" 4 times as many by the way, I win on 4x)
Is this bet at evens? If it is I'm happy to join in the fun!
Yes feel free
I don't know where @audreyanne gets his of her feeling or near certainty from though.. on SPINs seat markets I am well ahead, on the fixed odds, I am slightly behind
OK, how about £50 evens that the LibDems will get more than 4x seats than UKIP in May 2015?
I tipped Boston and Skegness at 6s, Thurrock at 16s and S Thanet at 5/2 last year by the way, hope you are all on
Ah yes, the same person who castigated TSE as being useless on betting tips. And the same with whom I have a bet that the LibDems will win 4x as many MPs as UKIP.
I reckon my bet is looking pretty near certain so feel free to pay me early if you like.
Yes the same person.. I stand by every word and will double up on that bet if you like (it is "more than" 4 times as many by the way, I win on 4x)
Is this bet at evens? If it is I'm happy to join in the fun!
Yes feel free
I don't know where @audreyanne gets his of her feeling or near certainty from though.. on SPINs seat markets I am well ahead, on the fixed odds, I am slightly behind
OK, how about £50 evens that the LibDems will get more than 4x seats than UKIP in May 2015?
Sturgeon said that "the SNP will never put the Tories into government". This means no coalition and no supply-and-confidence. This doesn't mean voting against every Conservative bill put before the house.
Is this the same SNP that "ruled out" supporting the Edinburgh Trams, right up until they *cough* voted for the Trams *cough* and the extra funding?
And can I just check that the first thing the SNP "We could do anything if it wasn't for those bastards in Westminster" administration did on finding Ebola was ship it to London?
If you check, it was the other parties which voted for the Trams against bitter SNP opposition (in a SNP minority government). The SNP later provided limited extra funding to get a curtailed project completed.
As for Ebola, there was presumably a UK wide agreement in place.
There is a question for Scottish independence supporters to answer: the only facility (according to the radio) that can deal with this at a high level is in London. If this had occurred in three years time, after a yes vote and Scottish independence, what would have happened?
Many people would have been not very keen to see her travel to London from an independent Scotland. You want independence: if you get your wish then you should create and pay for such facilities. *If* the UK was to take them, then it would be on our terms, and on a case-by-case basis.
Any UK-wide agreement that you presume exists would presumably become void on independence. Or are the only ones that would become void the ones the SNP want to void?
Is this yet another example of Better Together?
Another example that shows "pooling and sharing" = put it in London, and force us to send very ill people 450 miles.
Given the population of London is more than that of Scotland, it makes sense to have such a facility where there is most knowledge, most staff, and potentially most need.
Unless Scotland are willing to finance, build and staff (DBFO anyone?) their own facility?
I tipped Boston and Skegness at 6s, Thurrock at 16s and S Thanet at 5/2 last year by the way, hope you are all on
Ah yes, the same person who castigated TSE as being useless on betting tips. And the same with whom I have a bet that the LibDems will win 4x as many MPs as UKIP.
I reckon my bet is looking pretty near certain so feel free to pay me early if you like.
Yes the same person.. I stand by every word and will double up on that bet if you like (it is "more than" 4 times as many by the way, I win on 4x)
Is this bet at evens? If it is I'm happy to join in the fun!
Yes feel free
I don't know where @audreyanne gets his of her feeling or near certainty from though.. on SPINs seat markets I am well ahead, on the fixed odds, I am slightly behind
OK, how about £50 evens that the LibDems will get more than 4x seats than UKIP in May 2015?
Sturgeon said that "the SNP will never put the Tories into government". This means no coalition and no supply-and-confidence. This doesn't mean voting against every Conservative bill put before the house.
Is this the same SNP that "ruled out" supporting the Edinburgh Trams, right up until they *cough* voted for the Trams *cough* and the extra funding?
And can I just check that the first thing the SNP "We could do anything if it wasn't for those bastards in Westminster" administration did on finding Ebola was ship it to London?
If you check, it was the other parties which voted for the Trams against bitter SNP opposition (in a SNP minority government). The SNP later provided limited extra funding to get a curtailed project completed.
As for Ebola, there was presumably a UK wide agreement in place.
There is a question for Scottish independence supporters to answer: the only facility (according to the radio) that can deal with this at a high level is in London. If this had occurred in three years time, after a yes vote and Scottish independence, what would have happened?
Many people would have been not very keen to see her travel to London from an independent Scotland. You want independence: if you get your wish then you should create and pay for such facilities. *If* the UK was to take them, then it would be on our terms, and on a case-by-case basis.
Any UK-wide agreement that you presume exists would presumably become void on independence. Or are the only ones that would become void the ones the SNP want to void?
Is this yet another example of Better Together?
Another example that shows "pooling and sharing" = put it in London, and force us to send very ill people 450 miles.
Given the population of London is more than that of Scotland, it makes sense to have such a facility where there is most knowledge, most staff, and potentially most need.
Unless Scotland are willing to finance, build and staff (DBFO anyone?) their own facility?
No, I thought not.
Usual pompous claptrap from you. Typical unionist , full of crap with your pooling and sharing while hogging all the infrastructure and spending down south.
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
Given the population of London is more than that of Scotland, it makes sense to have such a facility where there is most knowledge, most staff, and potentially most need.
Unless Scotland are willing to finance, build and staff (DBFO anyone?) their own facility?
No, I thought not.
Nothing stopping the Scots from having one, like Ireland, except for the SNP giving council tenants spare rooms is a higher priority than the NHS
Zero. There are some existing projects being finished off, but no new money.
So - Zero money going except for the money that actually still is going?
That's cleared that up, cheers.
Well, would you actually favour walking off the job of a half-finished school? Any sensible programme in any field finishes off previously-committed projects before closing down. But it's felt that India is no longer a priority for new money compared with poorer countries.
That's perfectly reasonable and common sense as far as the projects are concerned, of course.
I was actually responding to your politician's answer and not about the aid itself. You started off with a complete untruth ("zero") as a debating trick to disorient the questioner - followed by a complete contradiction that included the actual answer. Tut tut.
Sturgeon said that "the SNP will never put the Tories into government". This means no coalition and no supply-and-confidence. This doesn't mean voting against every Conservative bill put before the house.
Is this the same SNP that "ruled out" supporting the Edinburgh Trams, right up until they *cough* voted for the Trams *cough* and the extra funding?
And can I just check that the first thing the SNP "We could do anything if it wasn't for those bastards in Westminster" administration did on finding Ebola was ship it to London?
If you check, it was the other parties which voted for the Trams against bitter SNP opposition (in a SNP minority government). The SNP later provided limited extra funding to get a curtailed project completed.
As for Ebola, there was presumably a UK wide agreement in place.
There is a question for Scottish independence supporters to answer: the only facility (according to the radio) that can deal with this at a high level is in London. If this had occurred in three years time, after a yes vote and Scottish independence, what would have happened?
Many people would have been not very keen to see her travel to London from an independent Scotland. You want independence: if you get your wish then you should create and pay for such facilities. *If* the UK was to take them, then it would be on our terms, and on a case-by-case basis.
Any UK-wide agreement that you presume exists would presumably become void on independence. Or are the only ones that would become void the ones the SNP want to void?
Is this yet another example of Better Together?
Another example that shows "pooling and sharing" = put it in London, and force us to send very ill people 450 miles.
I understood that she flew into Heathrow, complained of feeling ill within an hour of arrival and that the authorities have now suggested that it may have been a mistake to allow her to fly to Glasgow.
At any event, let us hope that she recovers.
Public health is far too important to be the subject of silly political spats.
Sturgeon said that "the SNP will never put the Tories into government". This means no coalition and no supply-and-confidence. This doesn't mean voting against every Conservative bill put before the house.
Is this the same SNP that "ruled out" supporting the Edinburgh Trams, right up until they *cough* voted for the Trams *cough* and the extra funding?
And can I just check that the first thing the SNP "We could do anything if it wasn't for those bastards in Westminster" administration did on finding Ebola was ship it to London?
If you check, it was the other parties which voted for the Trams against bitter SNP opposition (in a SNP minority government). The SNP later provided limited extra funding to get a curtailed project completed.
As for Ebola, there was presumably a UK wide agreement in place.
There is a question for Scottish independence supporters to answer: the only facility (according to the radio) that can deal with this at a high level is in London. If this had occurred in three years time, after a yes vote and Scottish independence, what would have happened?
Many people would have been not very keen to see her travel to London from an independent Scotland. You want independence: if you get your wish then you should create and pay for such facilities. *If* the UK was to take them, then it would be on our terms, and on a case-by-case basis.
Any UK-wide agreement that you presume exists would presumably become void on independence. Or are the only ones that would become void the ones the SNP want to void?
Is this yet another example of Better Together?
Another example that shows "pooling and sharing" = put it in London, and force us to send very ill people 450 miles.
Given the population of London is more than that of Scotland, it makes sense to have such a facility where there is most knowledge, most staff, and potentially most need.
Unless Scotland are willing to finance, build and staff (DBFO anyone?) their own facility?
No, I thought not.
Usual pompous claptrap from you. Typical unionist , full of crap with your pooling and sharing while hogging all the infrastructure and spending down south.
Given Scotland's superb scenery and great hospitality, I think 'down south' is due some compensation!
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
You think it 'very likely' that Carswell will be Ukips only mp after the GE?
I would like to point out that Alexis Tsipras has been doing the rounds of the IMF, the ECB, and major holders of Greek debt making it clear that there will be no "day one default". The view that he expresses is that such a unilateral default would only happen if there were not a negotiated compromise with private bond holders and the troika.
As I've pointed out many times before, what will almost certainly happen is an "extend and pretend", where the maturity on debt is increased to 50 years (or so), and the interest rate is slashed to 1.5% (or so). In this way, the debt burden goes from 6-7% of GDP (clearly unsustainable) to perhaps 2.5% (clearly sustainable). Of course, if you're sitting on 10 year Greek paper with a 6% coupon this is a massive haircut - but the market is already pricing this in.
SYRIZA will claim victory because they will say Greece's interest bill has been cut by 60% and there's no money to pay back in most voters' lifetimes.
The IMF, the ECB and the EU will claim victory because: (a) the interest rate will be higher than what the EU pays on its ESM fund debt, and therefore they are making a 'profit' on it; and (b) Greece has clearly recognised it owes all the money and this ensures the money is paid back (blah, blah, blah).
Sturgeon said that "the SNP will never put the Tories into government". This means no coalition and no supply-and-confidence. This doesn't mean voting against every Conservative bill put before the house.
Is this the same SNP that "ruled out" supporting the Edinburgh Trams, right up until they *cough* voted for the Trams *cough* and the extra funding?
And can I just check that the first thing the SNP "We could do anything if it wasn't for those bastards in Westminster" administration did on finding Ebola was ship it to London?
If you check, it was the other parties which voted for the Trams against bitter SNP opposition (in a SNP minority government). The SNP later provided limited extra funding to get a curtailed project completed.
As for Ebola, there was presumably a UK wide agreement in place.
Any UK-wide agreement that you presume exists would presumably become void on independence. Or are the only ones that would become void the ones the SNP want to void?
Is this yet another example of Better Together?
Another example that shows "pooling and sharing" = put it in London, and force us to send very ill people 450 miles.
I understood that she flew into Heathrow, complained of feeling ill within an hour of arrival and that the authorities have now suggested that it may have been a mistake to allow her to fly to Glasgow.
At any event, let us hope that she recovers.
Public health is far too important to be the subject of silly political spats.
Have to agree, it seems incredible that healthworkers returning are not isolated etc for a period probably before leaving to ensure they are not carrying the disease. It does not inspire confidence that they have a clue what they are doing and all the protestations that the chance of catching it is infinitesimal sounds like rubbish if people with training and all the safety gear etc are catching it. Glad to see someone who does not want to try and use it to score cheap jibes at Scotland. Jessop is a pompous ass who is sanctimonious regarding any imagined slight on his immigrant wife but happy to spread manure at will against other people, an odious character indeed.
Sturgeon said that "the SNP will never put the Tories into government". This means no coalition and no supply-and-confidence. This doesn't mean voting against every Conservative bill put before the house.
Is this the same SNP that "ruled out" supporting the Edinburgh Trams, right up until they *cough* voted for the Trams *cough* and the extra funding?
And can I just check that the first thing the SNP "We could do anything if it wasn't for those bastards in Westminster" administration did on finding Ebola was ship it to London?
If you check, it was the other parties which voted for the Trams against bitter SNP opposition (in a SNP minority government). The SNP later provided limited extra funding to get a curtailed project completed.
As for Ebola, there was presumably a UK wide agreement in place.
There is a question for Scottish independence supporters to answer: the only facility (according to the radio) that can deal with this at a high level is in London. If this had occurred in three years time, after a yes vote and Scottish independence, what would have happened?
Many people would have been not very keen to see her travel to London from an independent Scotland. You want independence: if you get your wish then you should create and pay for such facilities. *If* the UK was to take them, then it would be on our terms, and on a case-by-case basis.
Any UK-wide agreement that you presume exists would presumably become void on independence. Or are the only ones that would become void the ones the SNP want to void?
Is this yet another example of Better Together?
Another example that shows "pooling and sharing" = put it in London, and force us to send very ill people 450 miles.
Given the population of London is more than that of Scotland, it makes sense to have such a facility where there is most knowledge, most staff, and potentially most need.
Unless Scotland are willing to finance, build and staff (DBFO anyone?) their own facility?
No, I thought not.
Usual pompous claptrap from you. Typical unionist , full of crap with your pooling and sharing while hogging all the infrastructure and spending down south.
Given Scotland's superb scenery and great hospitality, I think 'down south' is due some compensation!
we see little evidence on here other than cheap jibes
Usual pompous claptrap from you. Typical unionist , full of crap with your pooling and sharing while hogging all the infrastructure and spending down south.
I don't fancy the Ebola viruses chances on the streets of Glasgow. I don't think it will last very long against this lot, they are a pretty tough bunch :-)
Have you any realisation of how unpleasant it is to try and use a personal tragedy as a health worker infected with Ebola to make a spurious political point.
As it happens, you are probably not aware that the Scottish health service pays for this treatment just as another European state would pay for similar treatment and indeed the English health service boards pay for various specialist treatments in Scotland.
All of this co-operation does not mean that the two independent health services have to be merged just sensible arrangements, a touch of commonsense and a trace of humanity.
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
Come off it, as Mike pointed out in June, getting one seat would be very hard work. Getting five from zero in 2010 would be an incredible achievement under FPTP . "Just" 5 seats lol.
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
Come off it, as Mike pointed out in June, getting one seat would be very hard work. Getting five from zero in 2010 would be an incredible achievement under FPTP . "Just" 5 seats lol.
Their two seats feel Pyhrric, both being incumbent defection by-elections. Let's see if UKIP can win a seat outright properly at the General Election.
Nevertheless I applaud your lowered expectations. There have been those on here full of hyperbole speaking of 'earthquakes,' 'tipping points,' and politics 'never being the same again.' The reality, which may or may not lead to a handful of seats, is a minor party on the fringe of politics. Loud, to be sure, but currently ineffectual.
I tipped Boston and Skegness at 6s, Thurrock at 16s and S Thanet at 5/2 last year by the way, hope you are all on
Ah yes, the same person who castigated TSE as being useless on betting tips. And the same with whom I have a bet that the LibDems will win 4x as many MPs as UKIP.
I reckon my bet is looking pretty near certain so feel free to pay me early if you like.
Yes the same person.. I stand by every word and will double up on that bet if you like (it is "more than" 4 times as many by the way, I win on 4x)
Is this bet at evens? If it is I'm happy to join in the fun!
Yes feel free
I don't know where @audreyanne gets his of her feeling or near certainty from though.. on SPINs seat markets I am well ahead, on the fixed odds, I am slightly behind
OK, how about £50 evens that the LibDems will get more than 4x seats than UKIP in May 2015?
Gutted.... so we won't ever see him at the Lane again then.... not unless Real M ever fall in to the Europa League!!! We used to applaud him just for jogging over to take a corner kick....
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
You think it 'very likely' that Carswell will be Ukips only mp after the GE?
Want to bet?
IMO William hills "1 or 2 UKIP MP's" @5/1 is a reasonable bet. If you want to lay me at 9/1, i'll take it
Have you any realisation of how unpleasant it is to try and use a personal tragedy as a health worker infected with Ebola to make a spurious political point.
As it happens, you are probably not aware that the Scottish health service pays for this treatment just as another European state would pay for similar treatment and indeed the English health service boards pay for various specialist treatments in Scotland.
All of this co-operation does not mean that the two independent health services have to be merged just sensible arrangements, a touch of commonsense and a trace of humanity.
Any political point is at the back of my mind: my major thought is with the patient and her recovery, as mentioned below.
Having said that, there are questions for proponents of Scottish independence to answer. Yes, the Scottish NHS may pay for the treatment. But if Scotland was independent, there would be no reason for the English NHS to automatically take Scottish patients. Would we expect France to automatically take English Ebola patients without good reason? If so, how many?
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
Miss Anne, they aren't Pyrrhic, as a Pyrrhic victory costs more (strategically) to the victor than the loser. UKIP won both, comfortably. The only potential Pyrrhic aspect would be future ructions in the upper echelons.
we see little evidence on here other than cheap jibes
Then you do not read much, or have a poor memory. I have expressed my love of Scotland and of the Scottish people many, many times on here. I love Edinburgh, I fell in love in Scotland, and the people, from the biggest cities to Aberdeenshire fishing hamlets, welcoming.
Now, can you say the same about English and in particular London?
Gutted.... so we won't ever see him at the Lane again then.... not unless Real M ever fall in to the Europa League!!! We used to applaud him just for jogging over to take a corner kick....
antifrank did very well in his 2014 predictions - he is too hard on himself in his review of how they turned out. He was right on 2, 4, 5, and half-right on 3 and 6. Only prediction 1 looks wrong, but it's one in which he was in good company!
Edit: I see I posted this in response to antifrank's predictions:
I broadly agree with his take, but I wonder about prediction 5 (Alex Salmond). In the event of a No, emphasis will switch on to DevoMax; will Salmond really be able to pull himself away from this and from the increased power which the First Minister is likely to gain from it?
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
You think it 'very likely' that Carswell will be Ukips only mp after the GE?
Want to bet?
IMO William hills "1 or 2 UKIP MP's" @5/1 is a reasonable bet. If you want to lay me at 9/1, i'll take it
I don't want to but I think 3-4 is much better bet at bigger odds.. We have had this haven't we? Evs and void if not in range?
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
what will almost certainly happen is an "extend and pretend", where the maturity on debt is increased to 50 years (or so), and the interest rate is slashed to 1.5% (or so). In this way, the debt burden goes from 6-7% of GDP (clearly unsustainable) to perhaps 2.5% (clearly sustainable). Of course, if you're sitting on 10 year Greek paper with a 6% coupon this is a massive haircut - but the market is already pricing this in.
Does the ECB mark to market?
Or are they going to claim they will HTM and therefore don't need to write down?
Why would I? I am in line to win money on almost all my bets ( only one Im behind in is Rochester) for one & even if I lost them all why would I?
You are the crazy one if you think you are almost certain to win our bet, if it were based on the midpoint of the spreads right I am well ahead
I post under my own name w my own pic unlike you so who is more likely to disappear I wonder?
if she ever gets on the wrong end an argument
Know you of such a contingency?
Isam, you have sprayed bets around as readily as posts today, and all are based on something that has almost no precedence: UKIP as national pretenders in a General Election. Maybe you should offer to lodge some liquidity with one of the pb leadership trustees?
It will be a fun spring. I'm not expecting politics to settle until mid February. We have the 5 weeks-before-payday month to encounter, as well as a host of other factors.
I tipped Boston and Skegness at 6s, Thurrock at 16s and S Thanet at 5/2 last year by the way, hope you are all on
Ah yes, the same person who castigated TSE as being useless on betting tips. And the same with whom I have a bet that the LibDems will win 4x as many MPs as UKIP.
I reckon my bet is looking pretty near certain so feel free to pay me early if you like.
Yes the same person.. I stand by every word and will double up on that bet if you like (it is "more than" 4 times as many by the way, I win on 4x)
Is this bet at evens? If it is I'm happy to join in the fun!
Yes feel free
I don't know where @audreyanne gets his of her feeling or near certainty from though.. on SPINs seat markets I am well ahead, on the fixed odds, I am slightly behind
OK, how about £50 evens that the LibDems will get more than 4x seats than UKIP in May 2015?
Have you any realisation of how unpleasant it is to try and use a personal tragedy as a health worker infected with Ebola to make a spurious political point.
As it happens, you are probably not aware that the Scottish health service pays for this treatment just as another European state would pay for similar treatment and indeed the English health service boards pay for various specialist treatments in Scotland.
All of this co-operation does not mean that the two independent health services have to be merged just sensible arrangements, a touch of commonsense and a trace of humanity.
Any political point is at the back of my mind: my major thought is with the patient and her recovery, as mentioned below.
Having said that, there are questions for proponents of Scottish independence to answer. Yes, the Scottish NHS may pay for the treatment. But if Scotland was independent, there would be no reason for the English NHS to automatically take Scottish patients. Would we expect France to automatically take English Ebola patients without good reason? If so, how many?
JJ - this is now and that (independence) would be then. Somehow the two have got confused. Independence would take about 2-3 years from a Yes, giving the Scots a chance to build a service that if they built one now would only lead to accusations of extravagance, however much (in my opinion) it is needed even now. You're in danger of falling into the old Unionist trap of assuming that what doesn't exist now wouldn't exist in an independent Scotland. You're normally much more sensible than that.*
In any case, specialist medical care is already routinely bought across the national border: I know a person in Northumberland who had heart ops in the Borders General and Edinburgh.
*BTW, have you seen Peter Lewis's book on Dickens and the Staplehurst derailment? I can't see a copy for sale anywhere and wonder if it is worth putting a request on Abebooks, after liking his other work e.g. on the Tay Bridge.
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Talk about taking a sentence out of its context - that media have been salivating over Ukip's earthquake-like role in politics, and that their actual impact is very small, with very likely gains versus 2010 limited to one MP whose introduction to the electorate was heavily subsidised by the Conservative Party.
You think […] Want to bet?
Oh dear. Timothy resurrectus.
Troll
Well thanks for that Isam. I suggest that your frankly infantile response to anyone with whom you don't agree 'nah nah betcha' is reminiscent of someone who was banned from pb.com and your response is to accuse me of trolling. As I've said before, if you paused before posting you could be a very useful contributor to this site. 1 out of 10 posts is often thought-provoking and intelligent.
Miss Anne, they aren't Pyrrhic, as a Pyrrhic victory costs more (strategically) to the victor than the loser. UKIP won both, comfortably. The only potential Pyrrhic aspect would be future ructions in the upper echelons.
Ah you're right. I was thinking more on the lines of their ephemerality and therefore in the sense of them being, perhaps, hollow victories. Time will tell. Certainly in terms of Mark Reckless that smug self-satisfied smile may be wiped from his face 'ere long.
I would like to point out that Alexis Tsipras has been doing the rounds of the IMF, the ECB, and major holders of Greek debt making it clear that there will be no "day one default". The view that he expresses is that such a unilateral default would only happen if there were not a negotiated compromise with private bond holders and the troika.
As I've pointed out many times before, what will almost certainly happen is an "extend and pretend", where the maturity on debt is increased to 50 years (or so), and the interest rate is slashed to 1.5% (or so). In this way, the debt burden goes from 6-7% of GDP (clearly unsustainable) to perhaps 2.5% (clearly sustainable). Of course, if you're sitting on 10 year Greek paper with a 6% coupon this is a massive haircut - but the market is already pricing this in.
SYRIZA will claim victory because they will say Greece's interest bill has been cut by 60% and there's no money to pay back in most voters' lifetimes.
The IMF, the ECB and the EU will claim victory because: (a) the interest rate will be higher than what the EU pays on its ESM fund debt, and therefore they are making a 'profit' on it; and (b) Greece has clearly recognised it owes all the money and this ensures the money is paid back (blah, blah, blah).
The difficulty with slashing the interest rates on Greek bonds is that the capital values will also fall, thus bankrupting the Greek banks who are big holders of Greek bonds.
From the point of view of the Greek economy, it is probably better for the Greek government to go bust than the Greek banks.
I tipped Boston and Skegness at 6s, Thurrock at 16s and S Thanet at 5/2 last year by the way, hope you are all on
Ah yes, the same person who castigated TSE as being useless on betting tips. And the same with whom I have a bet that the LibDems will win 4x as many MPs as UKIP.
I reckon my bet is looking pretty near certain so feel free to pay me early if you like.
Yes the same person.. I stand by every word and will double up on that bet if you like (it is "more than" 4 times as many by the way, I win on 4x)
Is this bet at evens? If it is I'm happy to join in the fun!
Yes feel free
I don't know where @audreyanne gets his of her feeling or near certainty from though.. on SPINs seat markets I am well ahead, on the fixed odds, I am slightly behind
OK, how about £50 evens that the LibDems will get more than 4x seats than UKIP in May 2015?
Yeah ok
You up for another £50 on the same bet?
ok
You up for any more? Up to £50 good for me.
Ok £50
Thanks:
just to confirm (may have missed nuances as only scanning):
I win if the LibDems have >4x as many seats as UKIP after GE2015
(i.e. you win at UKIP 5, LibDem 20; I win at UKIP 5, LibDem 21. Evens. £50.)
The difficulty with slashing the interest rates on Greek bonds is that the capital values will also fall, thus bankrupting the Greek banks who are big holders of Greek bonds.
From the point of view of the Greek economy, it is probably better for the Greek government to go bust than the Greek banks.
But if the Greek government goes bust then, following your first point, so will the Greek banks.
"comes as something of a surprise to observe" that UKIP are "Favourites in "just" five seats, Mike?
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
Right now UKIP benefits from the Coalition, and Miliband, as well as a swell of anti-Establishment opinion. They need to establish (ahem) themselves as a credible, lasting party before the anti-Establishment tide recedes.
what will almost certainly happen is an "extend and pretend", where the maturity on debt is increased to 50 years (or so), and the interest rate is slashed to 1.5% (or so). In this way, the debt burden goes from 6-7% of GDP (clearly unsustainable) to perhaps 2.5% (clearly sustainable). Of course, if you're sitting on 10 year Greek paper with a 6% coupon this is a massive haircut - but the market is already pricing this in.
Does the ECB mark to market?
Or are they going to claim they will HTM and therefore don't need to write down?
Of course they will claim they're "hold to maturity"! That's the whole point of "extend and pretend" - a method of giving debt relief while pretending not to, that's been used by the IMF, the US and other for about 70 years.
what will almost certainly happen is an "extend and pretend", where the maturity on debt is increased to 50 years (or so), and the interest rate is slashed to 1.5% (or so). In this way, the debt burden goes from 6-7% of GDP (clearly unsustainable) to perhaps 2.5% (clearly sustainable). Of course, if you're sitting on 10 year Greek paper with a 6% coupon this is a massive haircut - but the market is already pricing this in.
Does the ECB mark to market?
Or are they going to claim they will HTM and therefore don't need to write down?
Of course they will claim they're "hold to maturity"! That's the whole point of "extend and pretend" - a method of giving debt relief while pretending not to, that's been used by the IMF, the US and other for about 70 years.
I was more thinking about the accounting - I don't know if the IMF can use the HTM exemption on MTM.
I would like to point out that Alexis Tsipras has been doing the rounds of the IMF, the ECB, and major holders of Greek debt making it clear that there will be no "day one default". The view that he expresses is that such a unilateral default would only happen if there were not a negotiated compromise with private bond holders and the troika.
As I've pointed out many times before, what will almost certainly happen is an "extend and pretend", where the maturity on debt is increased to 50 years (or so), and the interest rate is slashed to 1.5% (or so). In this way, the debt burden goes from 6-7% of GDP (clearly unsustainable) to perhaps 2.5% (clearly sustainable). Of course, if you're sitting on 10 year Greek paper with a 6% coupon this is a massive haircut - but the market is already pricing this in.
SYRIZA will claim victory because they will say Greece's interest bill has been cut by 60% and there's no money to pay back in most voters' lifetimes.
The IMF, the ECB and the EU will claim victory because: (a) the interest rate will be higher than what the EU pays on its ESM fund debt, and therefore they are making a 'profit' on it; and (b) Greece has clearly recognised it owes all the money and this ensures the money is paid back (blah, blah, blah).
The difficulty with slashing the interest rates on Greek bonds is that the capital values will also fall, thus bankrupting the Greek banks who are big holders of Greek bonds.
From the point of view of the Greek economy, it is probably better for the Greek government to go bust than the Greek banks.
Not true.
If the Greek government "goes bust" then it has unilaterally defaulted on all its debts, and the Greek banks (who own around half the privately held Greek government debt) are also bust.
Of course, the Greek government could default on all bonds not held by local banks - but as those debts roll over (and they do every few months) they will find it impossible to refinance them.
what will almost certainly happen is an "extend and pretend", where the maturity on debt is increased to 50 years (or so), and the interest rate is slashed to 1.5% (or so). In this way, the debt burden goes from 6-7% of GDP (clearly unsustainable) to perhaps 2.5% (clearly sustainable). Of course, if you're sitting on 10 year Greek paper with a 6% coupon this is a massive haircut - but the market is already pricing this in.
Does the ECB mark to market?
Or are they going to claim they will HTM and therefore don't need to write down?
Of course they will claim they're "hold to maturity"! That's the whole point of "extend and pretend" - a method of giving debt relief while pretending not to, that's been used by the IMF, the US and other for about 70 years.
I was more thinking about the accounting - I don't know if the IMF can use the HTM exemption on MTM.
They have done in the past on several occasions, IIRC.
Right now UKIP benefits from the Coalition, and Miliband, as well as a swell of anti-Establishment opinion. They need to establish (ahem) themselves as a credible, lasting party before the anti-Establishment tide recedes.
Gutted.... so we won't ever see him at the Lane again then.... not unless Real M ever fall in to the Europa League!!! We used to applaud him just for jogging over to take a corner kick....
Comments
Based on the above , what sort of swing leads to the odds described above ?
The same could be said about THurrock !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30637199?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
She has the ebola virus, and they are offering her treatment?
Would it look better for her if they offered her an aspirin and a hot toddy?
Given Kevin Barron is not stepping down (I think!), then I'd expect a Labour win. His majority has been whittled down to 40% since 1997, but he must still be a massive favourite.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/26-september-2014/en/
https://beestonia.wordpress.com/2014/12/30/side-splitting-the-story-of-an-unusual-christmas/#comment-5174 Zero. There are some existing projects being finished off, but no new money.
People seem confident, I'm here waiting...
Basically: she *may* be being treated as a guinea pig, but there are not many alternative treatments at the moment, and she's somewhere they can swap treatments if necessary.
I wish her (and the staff with her) well. The more they learn, the better.
That's cleared that up, cheers.
Lads 1/4 I'll give you 2/7
I don't attack everything you write. Sometimes I just roll my eyes and laugh.
Mr JJ, I'm totally with you in wishing the brave lady all the best.
From the perspective of Labour HQ, this could potentially be a winnable seat in May if they decide to fight it.
Seriously Mike, when was the last comment I made on one of your posts?
You seem to have a persecution complex. ;-)
Could this be the same Mike Smithson, who wrote on this very site on 9th June 2014, just six months ago "Getting even a single MP might be beyond the purples"...."We’ve been over this many times but it is hard ask for Farage’s team to get enough votes in at least one of the 650 seats that puts them over the line"
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/06/09/the-big-challenge-now-for-ukip-securing-enough-votes-in-single-seats-well-in-excess-of-anything-its-achieved-before/
Just five seats Mike, Just?
Link if it hasn't appeared yet on this thread:
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/my-predictions-for-2014-retrospective.html
Unless Scotland are willing to finance, build and staff (DBFO anyone?) their own facility?
No, I thought not.
I was actually responding to your politician's answer and not about the aid itself. You started off with a complete untruth ("zero") as a debating trick to disorient the questioner - followed by a complete contradiction that included the actual answer. Tut tut.
At any event, let us hope that she recovers.
Public health is far too important to be the subject of silly political spats.
Want to bet?
I would like to point out that Alexis Tsipras has been doing the rounds of the IMF, the ECB, and major holders of Greek debt making it clear that there will be no "day one default". The view that he expresses is that such a unilateral default would only happen if there were not a negotiated compromise with private bond holders and the troika.
As I've pointed out many times before, what will almost certainly happen is an "extend and pretend", where the maturity on debt is increased to 50 years (or so), and the interest rate is slashed to 1.5% (or so). In this way, the debt burden goes from 6-7% of GDP (clearly unsustainable) to perhaps 2.5% (clearly sustainable). Of course, if you're sitting on 10 year Greek paper with a 6% coupon this is a massive haircut - but the market is already pricing this in.
SYRIZA will claim victory because they will say Greece's interest bill has been cut by 60% and there's no money to pay back in most voters' lifetimes.
The IMF, the ECB and the EU will claim victory because: (a) the interest rate will be higher than what the EU pays on its ESM fund debt, and therefore they are making a 'profit' on it; and (b) Greece has clearly recognised it owes all the money and this ensures the money is paid back (blah, blah, blah).
Glad to see someone who does not want to try and use it to score cheap jibes at Scotland.
Jessop is a pompous ass who is sanctimonious regarding any imagined slight on his immigrant wife but happy to spread manure at will against other people, an odious character indeed.
Have you any realisation of how unpleasant it is to try and use a personal tragedy as a health worker infected with Ebola to make a spurious political point.
As it happens, you are probably not aware that the Scottish health service pays for this treatment just as another European state would pay for similar treatment and indeed the English health service boards pay for various specialist treatments in Scotland.
All of this co-operation does not mean that the two independent health services have to be merged just sensible arrangements, a touch of commonsense and a trace of humanity.
Nevertheless I applaud your lowered expectations. There have been those on here full of hyperbole speaking of 'earthquakes,' 'tipping points,' and politics 'never being the same again.' The reality, which may or may not lead to a handful of seats, is a minor party on the fringe of politics. Loud, to be sure, but currently ineffectual.
Gareth Bale: Real Madrid forward will never leave - Florentino Perez
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30636380
Having said that, there are questions for proponents of Scottish independence to answer. Yes, the Scottish NHS may pay for the treatment. But if Scotland was independent, there would be no reason for the English NHS to automatically take Scottish patients. Would we expect France to automatically take English Ebola patients without good reason? If so, how many?
Oh dear. Timothy resurrectus.
Now, can you say the same about English and in particular London?
Edit: I see I posted this in response to antifrank's predictions:
I broadly agree with his take, but I wonder about prediction 5 (Alex Salmond). In the event of a No, emphasis will switch on to DevoMax; will Salmond really be able to pull himself away from this and from the increased power which the First Minister is likely to gain from it?
Not too shabby as a half-right prediction!
Or are they going to claim they will HTM and therefore don't need to write down?
Isam, you have sprayed bets around as readily as posts today, and all are based on something that has almost no precedence: UKIP as national pretenders in a General Election. Maybe you should offer to lodge some liquidity with one of the pb leadership trustees?
It will be a fun spring. I'm not expecting politics to settle until mid February. We have the 5 weeks-before-payday month to encounter, as well as a host of other factors.
In any case, specialist medical care is already routinely bought across the national border: I know a person in Northumberland who had heart ops in the Borders General and Edinburgh.
*BTW, have you seen Peter Lewis's book on Dickens and the Staplehurst derailment? I can't see a copy for sale anywhere and wonder if it is worth putting a request on Abebooks, after liking his other work e.g. on the Tay Bridge.
From the point of view of the Greek economy, it is probably better for the Greek government to go bust than the Greek banks.
just to confirm (may have missed nuances as only scanning):
I win if the LibDems have >4x as many seats as UKIP after GE2015
(i.e. you win at UKIP 5, LibDem 20; I win at UKIP 5, LibDem 21. Evens. £50.)
Right now UKIP benefits from the Coalition, and Miliband, as well as a swell of anti-Establishment opinion. They need to establish (ahem) themselves as a credible, lasting party before the anti-Establishment tide recedes.
If the Greek government "goes bust" then it has unilaterally defaulted on all its debts, and the Greek banks (who own around half the privately held Greek government debt) are also bust.
Of course, the Greek government could default on all bonds not held by local banks - but as those debts roll over (and they do every few months) they will find it impossible to refinance them.