I would favor moving in the longer term to a Singapore type of model, where you have to make a mandatory contribution to a personal fund through your working life, possibly supplemented by the state if you dont earn enough, which is invested on your behalf in some stable investments, possibly long term gilts, so that by the time you need it there is sufficient money for pensions and healthcare.
Can you explain how getting people to invest in gilts to provide for their pension (thereby relying on future taxpayers to cough up to pay out) is very different from having an unfunded system (which relies on future taxpayers to cough up to pay out)?
I would favor moving in the longer term to a Singapore type of model, where you have to make a mandatory contribution to a personal fund through your working life, possibly supplemented by the state if you dont earn enough, which is invested on your behalf in some stable investments, possibly long term gilts, so that by the time you need it there is sufficient money for pensions and healthcare.
Can you explain how getting people to invest in gilts to provide for their pension (thereby relying on future taxpayers to cough up to pay out) is very different from having an unfunded system (which relies on future taxpayers to cough up to pay out)?
Surely the difference is in the words "invest", they are putting money into an investment, it doesn't have to be gilts, but it does have to be something relatively bombproof, so probably not Credit Default Swaps, and then taking the money out later in life. Each person will always have money available for them then, irrespective of the future number of taxpayers.
Mr. Palmer, there are two issues that must be addressed, however, which are not party political and relate to NHS funding.
First off, we have a massive deficit. Interest on the debt is enormous. We need to rein this in. Health spending is vast, so we either include that in cuts (Labour's 2010 approach), keep it flat (the Coalition's choice) or increase it. But the latter two, especially the last, mean even harsher cuts elsewhere. Or, debt can balloon and we can pay even more in interest.
Secondly, even if the economic picture were rosy, we have a serious demographic challenge with which to grapple. Life expectancy is getting longer but instead of healthiness increasing at the same pace we're seeing Alzheimer's and the like rise rapidly. It costs a fortune, and the ageing population means we have a proportionally decreasing number of in-work taxpayers funding healthcare for people enjoying (or not) 20-30 years of retirement. It's unsustainable, and there's no easy answer (increasing the retirement age is right, but it's not enough by itself and can't work for all job types).
Need to get to work so won't engage on the economic issues this morning, but on a non-partisan point, my understanding is that healthiness IS increasing in line with age. The pattern is still that most people are more or less OK with a few manageable problems until the last few years of their lives, and that's just shifted a decade later. Alzheimer is a growing issue, but not yet a dominant one.
If that's correct, then increasing the retirement age is indeed a significant part of the answer. Obviously it's difficult for manual jobs - nobody wants a 70-year-old firefighter with arthritis - but I'd like to see encouragement for later and more flexible retirement so that people who ARE able to work longer, perhaps ;part time, feel it really pays off. since they're paying taxes, it helps with the deficit too.
I'm utterly amazed, a centrist Tory party is what the voters would like to win, whereas a right wing Tory party, is the least favoured, less favoured than centrist Lab or left wing Labour
They try to be unbiased but group think is powerful. They are natural liberals trying to do the unbiased thing and occasionally failing.
Any organisation that felt as the Today program did last week, that is was appropriate to have Lenny Henry as guest editor, who then proceeded to select only "black" correspondents, has clearly lost the plot.
Lenny Henry said:
‘news in Britain comes from one perspective. A perspective that is almost exclusively white, and predominantly male.’
Is there a particularly "black" way of seeing the news ? Isn't someone that believes that the colour of your skin determines how you act and think, usually called.. a racist ?
I would favor moving in the longer term to a Singapore type of model, where you have to make a mandatory contribution to a personal fund through your working life, possibly supplemented by the state if you dont earn enough, which is invested on your behalf in some stable investments, possibly long term gilts, so that by the time you need it there is sufficient money for pensions and healthcare.
Can you explain how getting people to invest in gilts to provide for their pension (thereby relying on future taxpayers to cough up to pay out) is very different from having an unfunded system (which relies on future taxpayers to cough up to pay out)?
Surely the difference is in the words "invest"
I fail to see it myself. If the money is invested in gilts then future generations of taxpayers will have to be shaken down to pay the coupons / redemptions (instead of paying the pensions). Indeed as there is more flexibility to a pension promise (see the switch from RPI to CPI) I would have thought it was actually a less sustainable proposition.
Mr. Eagles, that's partly because the right are rubbish at language and the left are great at it. When you manipulate the vocabulary of an argument you're halfway to winning before the first word is spoken.
And that's without the historical revisionism about the evils of Thatcherism.
Also, the gaps between those preferences are pretty small.
I would favor moving in the longer term to a Singapore type of model, where you have to make a mandatory contribution to a personal fund through your working life, possibly supplemented by the state if you dont earn enough, which is invested on your behalf in some stable investments, possibly long term gilts, so that by the time you need it there is sufficient money for pensions and healthcare.
Can you explain how getting people to invest in gilts to provide for their pension (thereby relying on future taxpayers to cough up to pay out) is very different from having an unfunded system (which relies on future taxpayers to cough up to pay out)?
Surely the difference is in the words "invest"
I fail to see it myself. If the money is invested in gilts then future generations of taxpayers will have to be shaken down to pay the coupons / redemptions (instead of paying the pensions). Indeed as there is more flexibility to a pension promise (see the switch from RPI to CPI) I would have thought it was actually a less sustainable proposition.
Those same taxpayer have had the benefit of that person's investment in their economy for the past years, it seems fair.
But if it bothers you invest in T-bills, or Los Angeles Seafront property, IBM shares, I dont care. You are nit picking. Invest in something relatively safe that means that contributions are accumulated and grow through the persons life so they can be called up when they retire without inconveniencing the current generation.
I've thought Paterson would be a major player in the next Tory leadership election for some time now.This confirms he will put his hat in the ring.The party could be so febrile as to elect him.
I would favor moving in the longer term to a Singapore type of model, where you have to make a mandatory contribution to a personal fund through your working life, possibly supplemented by the state if you dont earn enough, which is invested on your behalf in some stable investments, possibly long term gilts, so that by the time you need it there is sufficient money for pensions and healthcare.
Can you explain how getting people to invest in gilts to provide for their pension (thereby relying on future taxpayers to cough up to pay out) is very different from having an unfunded system (which relies on future taxpayers to cough up to pay out)?
Surely the difference is in the words "invest"
I fail to see it myself. If the money is invested in gilts then future generations of taxpayers will have to be shaken down to pay the coupons / redemptions (instead of paying the pensions). Indeed as there is more flexibility to a pension promise (see the switch from RPI to CPI) I would have thought it was actually a less sustainable proposition.
Those same taxpayer have had the benefit of that person's investment in their economy for the past years, it seems fair.
But if it bothers you invest in T-bills, or Los Angeles Seafront property, IBM shares, I dont care. You are nit picking. Invest in something relatively safe that means that contributions are accumulated and grow through the persons life so they can be called up when they retire without inconveniencing the current generation.
He's not nit-picking: Money is a rather strange abstraction, and it's confusing you. Stop thinking about money and think about the actual productive work involved: Who's doing what when to look after who.
I've looked beyond Glasgow now in a few areas, and I'm pondering whether to do a Scotland-wide version that tries to cater for the different circumstances of the Lib Dems and the Conservatives where they are serious contenders.
Given your 100% accuracy in Scotland last time, please do a Scotland wide version.
There is no way on earth I'll be 100% accurate this time. Right now I'd settle for being more right than wrong, and I'm not at all confident even of that.
They try to be unbiased but group think is powerful. They are natural liberals trying to do the unbiased thing and occasionally failing.
Any organisation that felt as the Today program did last week, that is was appropriate to have Lenny Henry as guest editor, who then proceeded to select only "black" correspondents, has clearly lost the plot.
Lenny Henry said:
‘news in Britain comes from one perspective. A perspective that is almost exclusively white, and predominantly male.’
Is there a particularly "black" way of seeing the news ? Isn't someone that believes that the colour of your skin determines how you act and think, usually called.. a racist ?
Culture? Upbringing. Always interesting to see the world as others see it. Must see if it’s on iPlayer!
Mind I was once a member of a discussion group. Various subjects each week, and one member was always brining in a gay perspective. Fair enough often but one week the topic was the Arab Israeli conflict and he said “speaking as a gay man....” I reallly can’t recall what the difference from others view was!
King Cole, I believe someone here suggested people who repeatedly start sentences with "As a mother..." should be subjected to some variety of horrible punishment.
As a morris dancing genetic engineer, I can only agree.
Hmm. Maybe I should start an Enormo-Haddock Watch, and castigate politicians and parties for dubious electoral utterances.
He's not nit-picking: Money is a rather strange abstraction, and it's confusing you. Stop thinking about money and think about the actual productive work involved: Who's doing what when to look after who.
If for the sake of argument the population replacement rate over the decade or two fell off a cliff, I dont know, perhaps a UKIP landslide and all the immigrants left ;-) whatever.
We would then have a problem that the number of working people would not be able to generate enough tax, at any acceptable tax rate that didnt cause either mass emigration or a revolution, so support the pensions we are committed to pay to the elderly.
If 30 years ago we had taken 10% percent off the salaries of all those people who are now old, and invested it sensibly in a well managed fund (for the sake of argument), with favourable tax treatment (maybe like an ISA), would they now not have a nice pot of money available to them to pay their pension, and finance their health care, irrespective of the current population of the country.
As I've posted before, if an Alien spacecraft hovered over Lancashire and obliterated Rochdale, they would have the Alien commander on the their programme to explain why it was necessary. And they might well get a more sympathetic hearing if they were transgender or an underdog on their own planet.
But what I do dislike is when hey have a scientific expert debating with a "concerned mum" and the latter gets more airtime and more credibility - but that's just my bias showing.
I've looked beyond Glasgow now in a few areas, and I'm pondering whether to do a Scotland-wide version that tries to cater for the different circumstances of the Lib Dems and the Conservatives where they are serious contenders.
Given your 100% accuracy in Scotland last time, please do a Scotland wide version.
There is no way on earth I'll be 100% accurate this time. Right now I'd settle for being more right than wrong, and I'm not at all confident even of that.
I know, I've said for some PBers Scotland could be the location for their biggest losses/winners at the General Election.
I still think you're advice to back the SNP back in the long odds seats may prove to the most profitable tip of this parliament.
They try to be unbiased but group think is powerful. They are natural liberals trying to do the unbiased thing and occasionally failing.
Any organisation that felt as the Today program did last week, that is was appropriate to have Lenny Henry as guest editor, who then proceeded to select only "black" correspondents, has clearly lost the plot.
Lenny Henry said:
‘news in Britain comes from one perspective. A perspective that is almost exclusively white, and predominantly male.’
Is there a particularly "black" way of seeing the news ? Isn't someone that believes that the colour of your skin determines how you act and think, usually called.. a racist ?
Culture? Upbringing. Always interesting to see the world as others see it. Must see if it’s on iPlayer!
Sure, but he didn't say culture or upbringing was the reason, he said skin color was the reason.
They try to be unbiased but group think is powerful. They are natural liberals trying to do the unbiased thing and occasionally failing.
Any organisation that felt as the Today program did last week, that is was appropriate to have Lenny Henry as guest editor, who then proceeded to select only "black" correspondents, has clearly lost the plot.
Lenny Henry said:
‘news in Britain comes from one perspective. A perspective that is almost exclusively white, and predominantly male.’
Is there a particularly "black" way of seeing the news ? Isn't someone that believes that the colour of your skin determines how you act and think, usually called.. a racist ?
Culture? Upbringing. Always interesting to see the world as others see it. Must see if it’s on iPlayer!
Mind I was once a member of a discussion group. Various subjects each week, and one member was always brining in a gay perspective. Fair enough often but one week the topic was the Arab Israeli conflict and he said “speaking as a gay man....” I reallly can’t recall what the difference from others view was!
adj: 2.characterized by a great deal of nervous excitement or energy:
Will be used on a daily basis to define inter alia:
...this election campaign, the Tory Party, disillusioned Labour voters, Scotland, the markets, polling, the debates, any constituency UKIP is standing, aftermath if hung parliament etc etc ad nauseum.
But what I do dislike is when hey have a scientific expert debating with a "concerned mum" and the latter gets more airtime and more credibility - but that's just my bias showing.
I agree with that one.
Or even more annoying (for me) when you know the damn stupid questions they are going to ask and what all the people they interview are going to say before they start, but they go through it anyway. A man was murdered and a suspect was caught, so they talk to the wife of the victim ("do you feel bitter","do you forgive the killer"), the mother of the killer ("what was he like as a child","was he always good to his mum"), the local police ("was it the most brutal/horrific case of its type you have ever dealt with") and possibly the local barman ("was he a regular","did he ever seem a bit odd to you")
The answers from the wife clearly should be "yes" and "no bloody chance", but she will feel pressurised to be generous by the camera in her face. The Mother will say "oh he was such a nice boy" and "yes, he never forgot my birthday". Local Plod will say it was horrific, terrible, and the worst of his career. The local barman will say "yes" and "well now that you mention is the was something about him" ;-)
They try to be unbiased but group think is powerful. They are natural liberals trying to do the unbiased thing and occasionally failing.
Any organisation that felt as the Today program did last week, that is was appropriate to have Lenny Henry as guest editor, who then proceeded to select only "black" correspondents, has clearly lost the plot.
Lenny Henry said:
‘news in Britain comes from one perspective. A perspective that is almost exclusively white, and predominantly male.’
Is there a particularly "black" way of seeing the news ? Isn't someone that believes that the colour of your skin determines how you act and think, usually called.. a racist ?
People like that think that unless there is a special interest group specifically for people like them, then the world is against them
I suppose they think all white, straight people are virtual clones who think as one.. secretly plotting to minimise "others"
*evil cackle*
Anyway the BBC aren't always pro ethnic minority in their coverage.. I wrote this blog about the difference between the ethnic make up of East London and the ethnic make up of Eastenders
TSE me too and I'm not sure I agree. Cameron isn't a figure of hate for instance. UKIP are another story but that's also to do with the young Metropolitans who mostly loathe Farage and all he stands for.
Regarding the BBC's general outlook, Jane Garvey rather spilled the beans when she said of Blair's election "I do remember… the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I’ll always remember that”
I was 'telling' at a constituency on 01st May 1997 in my blue rosette. An elderly gentleman paused and said 'aren't you ashamed?' He said it with such conviction, such hurt, that I was humbled. I'm not sure any political comment ever had more effect on me.
So it's hardly 'spilling the beans.' It's probably true of much of the country. The 1992-97 Major Gov't was a hideous political car crash, replete with back-biting, bile, nastiness, corruption, lasciviousness, sleaze, hypocrisy and with a massive economic balls-up on Black Wednesday. With hindsight we deserved everything we got and I don't blame the BBC for celebrating.
It was a sea-change, and felt possibly even more so than 1979. It was a country that had grown and come of age, that wanted not merely economic success but social conscience. That's why I bang on about the centre ground so much. Mrs T laid the foundations, but it was Blair who built the first floor. Ever since then General Election victories have been found in the heady cocktail of economic competence and social liberalism. It's where Cameron is positioned, and it's why I am convinced he will win. The voices to far right and left may be loud, but they are a vocal minority.
OT. If this is now considered to be rape it's difficult to see how anyone in a casual relationship will be able to feel safe without taking a breathalyser a lawyer and at least one witness of provan good character with them.
They try to be unbiased but group think is powerful. They are natural liberals trying to do the unbiased thing and occasionally failing.
Any organisation that felt as the Today program did last week, that is was appropriate to have Lenny Henry as guest editor, who then proceeded to select only "black" correspondents, has clearly lost the plot.
Lenny Henry said:
‘news in Britain comes from one perspective. A perspective that is almost exclusively white, and predominantly male.’
Is there a particularly "black" way of seeing the news ? Isn't someone that believes that the colour of your skin determines how you act and think, usually called.. a racist ?
Culture? Upbringing. Always interesting to see the world as others see it. Must see if it’s on iPlayer!
Mind I was once a member of a discussion group. Various subjects each week, and one member was always brining in a gay perspective. Fair enough often but one week the topic was the Arab Israeli conflict and he said “speaking as a gay man....” I reallly can’t recall what the difference from others view was!
But what I do dislike is when hey have a scientific expert debating with a "concerned mum" and the latter gets more airtime and more credibility - but that's just my bias showing.
It's not just science where the BBC get that wrong.
All kinds of ill-informed people are stood up against actual experts to provide "balance". Even worse is when they invite the public to tweet or text in with their views on some complex subject.
The funny thing is that the BBC produces shows like Down the Line and Ed Reardon's Week that mock this phenomenon, so there are people in the BBC who realise how fatuous this type of programming is, but it doesn't do anything to diminish the output of blather.
They seem to have a set script and the worst is always. "After this terrible disaster, could you tell us your innermost feelings for the benefit of the millions of viewers who'd like a good revel."
I'd like some grieving person to say "I just shrug my shoulders and say easy come, easy go."
OT. If this is now considered to be rape it's difficult to see how anyone in a casual relationship will be able to feel safe without taking a breathalyser a lawyer and at least one witness of provan good character with them.
OT. If this is now considered to be rape it's difficult to see how anyone in a casual relationship will be able to feel safe without taking a breathalyser a lawyer and at least one witness of provan good character with them.
Depending on just how drunk the woman was, I can understand how both men were guilty of rape, or how neither were. What I can't understand is how she was supposedly sober enough to consent to one but not the other.
What is particularly depressing is in the discussion about whether Evans should ever be allowed to work again, the actual situation in the case is hardly ever mentioned. Judy Finnigan was vilified for even bringing it up in the discussion. What has gone wrong with free speech in this country?
Mr. Indigo, one of my favourites from a pure comedy perspective was BBC idiot Richard Bilton reporting in Greece, when he asked a Greek firefighter whether it was a "dangerous forest fire"?
No, Bilton. It's one of those safe forest fires. You should go nearer to investigate it properly.
The same oaf, I believe, asked the mother of the very young Liverpudlian boy who was shot (Rhys something, I think), after she said the family was going to move, "It's affected you that much?"
Whoever would've guessed a mum would be dramatically affected by her son's murder.
I also dislike it when cameras get shoved into the faces of grieving families, teenagers and children after a tragedy. It's voyeuristic and intrusive.
[NB BBC isn't alone in stupid commentary. A year or so ago some clown from ITV reported that "the avalanche went downhill, powered by gravity". Thanks for that, genius. I was wondering why they didn't go uphill. Same channel had an inflation report that it was at a two year high. Less than a minute later the newsreader stated prices were rising "like never before". No, like two years ago, you bloody idiot].
Not that these things infuriate me so much that I remember them forever. (I came across pre-prepared in the Edward III biography I'm reading. I'll not lie, if I were the rating sort I'd knock a star off for that).
He's not nit-picking: Money is a rather strange abstraction, and it's confusing you. Stop thinking about money and think about the actual productive work involved: Who's doing what when to look after who.
If for the sake of argument the population replacement rate over the decade or two fell off a cliff, I dont know, perhaps a UKIP landslide and all the immigrants left ;-) whatever.
We would then have a problem that the number of working people would not be able to generate enough tax, at any acceptable tax rate that didnt cause either mass emigration or a revolution, so support the pensions we are committed to pay to the elderly.
If 30 years ago we had taken 10% percent off the salaries of all those people who are now old, and invested it sensibly in a well managed fund (for the sake of argument), with favourable tax treatment (maybe like an ISA), would they now not have a nice pot of money available to them to pay their pension, and finance their health care, irrespective of the current population of the country.
Your "pot" is a metaphor, and not a very good one. Unless it's got actual, physical canned food in it, we're talking about a debt that has to be redeemed by the next generation. These debts are no more sustainable than straight-out promises: If there aren't enough people producing wealth to redeem them, they'll return less.
What Singapore are probably doing there is industrial policy. Like old Japanese policy, the point is to move money from consumption to industry. This may or may not be a good idea, but it doesn't affect the sustainability of the pension system.
I've looked beyond Glasgow now in a few areas, and I'm pondering whether to do a Scotland-wide version that tries to cater for the different circumstances of the Lib Dems and the Conservatives where they are serious contenders.
Given your 100% accuracy in Scotland last time, please do a Scotland wide version.
Who needs a proven track record of accuracy when you have SMAPS.
Good Morning. I have nothing to say except hasn't that TSE gone back to work yet and let the rest of us have the first part of the day without his presence?
He's not nit-picking: Money is a rather strange abstraction, and it's confusing you. Stop thinking about money and think about the actual productive work involved: Who's doing what when to look after who.
If for the sake of argument the population replacement rate over the decade or two fell off a cliff, I dont know, perhaps a UKIP landslide and all the immigrants left ;-) whatever.
We would then have a problem that the number of working people would not be able to generate enough tax, at any acceptable tax rate that didnt cause either mass emigration or a revolution, so support the pensions we are committed to pay to the elderly.
If 30 years ago we had taken 10% percent off the salaries of all those people who are now old, and invested it sensibly in a well managed fund (for the sake of argument), with favourable tax treatment (maybe like an ISA), would they now not have a nice pot of money available to them to pay their pension, and finance their health care, irrespective of the current population of the country.
Your "pot" is a metaphor, and not a very good one. Unless it's got actual, physical canned food in it, we're talking about a debt that has to be redeemed by the next generation. These debts are no more sustainable than straight-out promises: If there aren't enough people producing wealth to redeem them, they'll return less.
What Singapore are probably doing there is industrial policy. Like old Japanese policy, the point is to move money from consumption to industry. This may or may not be a good idea, but it doesn't affect the sustainability of the pension system.
Maybe at some point in the future when we have enough financial resources we could contemplate making public pensions something that actually contain invested money - a true pot. Ending the ponzi of pay-as-you-go would be a good thing in and of itself. Everyone would get a unique (NI number based?) account and a regular payment into it from general taxation. Upon reaching retirement age the pot is your pension.
Since we're ranting about the BBC, can I add a rant of my own? This one's about their style of writing. Here's an example, reporting on the piecce by Ed Balls a few days ago. This is how the BBC web piece starts:
The Conservative Party has "lurched to the right" and ceded the "centre ground" of politics to Labour, shadow chancellor Ed Balls has said.
Writing in the Guardian, Mr Balls said there was an "increasingly extreme and ideological approach" to Tory plans for "massively deeper spending cuts".
A Conservative Party spokesman said Labour would put the economy at risk.
Former prime minister Tony Blair said this week that Labour "succeeds best when it is in the centre ground".
I find this very irritating. Ed Balls has said something. Fine, let's hear what he has said. But (presumably because of some idiotic 'balance' rules') they can't simply tell us what he has said, and then perhaps mention reaction or other views, they instead have to interpose contradictory, and really quite irrelevant, statements from other people before you've had a chance to take in the original Ed Balls statement.
They do this all the time:
- One or two sentences about the actual subject - Then immediately two or three irrelevant paragraphs reporting someone saying the opposite - Then go back to reporting on the actual subject again
It's a ridiculous style of writing, which merely serves to obscure what the article is supposed to be about.
He's not nit-picking: Money is a rather strange abstraction, and it's confusing you. Stop thinking about money and think about the actual productive work involved: Who's doing what when to look after who.
If for the sake of argument the population replacement rate over the decade or two fell off a cliff, I dont know, perhaps a UKIP landslide and all the immigrants left ;-) whatever.
We would then have a problem that the number of working people would not be able to generate enough tax, at any acceptable tax rate that didnt cause either mass emigration or a revolution, so support the pensions we are committed to pay to the elderly.
If 30 years ago we had taken 10% percent off the salaries of all those people who are now old, and invested it sensibly in a well managed fund (for the sake of argument), with favourable tax treatment (maybe like an ISA), would they now not have a nice pot of money available to them to pay their pension, and finance their health care, irrespective of the current population of the country.
Your "pot" is a metaphor, and not a very good one. Unless it's got actual, physical canned food in it, we're talking about a debt that has to be redeemed by the next generation. These debts are no more sustainable than straight-out promises: If there aren't enough people producing wealth to redeem them, they'll return less.
What Singapore are probably doing there is industrial policy. Like old Japanese policy, the point is to move money from consumption to industry. This may or may not be a good idea, but it doesn't affect the sustainability of the pension system.
Maybe at some point in the future when we have enough financial resources we could contemplate making public pensions something that actually contain invested money - a true pot. Ending the ponzi of pay-as-you-go would be a good thing in and of itself. Everyone would get a unique (NI number based?) account and a regular payment into it from general taxation. Upon reaching retirement age the pot is your pension.
Money is debt.
A lot of Japanese people have a bunch of yen banknotes stashed under the tatami. It won't protect them from the demographics when they come to try to cash it in for the labour of a decreasing number of workers.
That polling confirms that Scrapheap's and mine's Dry but not obsessed with the gays and the EU Tory Party would win a landslide.
so since self evidently the voters don't think we have one or Cameron would be romping home, where's it going to come from ?
Personally I'd just settle for a vaguely competent one.
Unfortunately the current Tory party does appear to be obsessed with the gays and Europe.
Dave's greatest strategic blunder was to try and appease the UKIP fifth columnists.
hmmm
not quite sure that's true Mr Eagles.
Mr Cameron's faux pas have more to do with ignoring the bread and butter issues. If you're a gay banker in London this is a great government, unfortunately there are enough of them to win an election.
If Cameron had had his detox by keeping the 50p tax reduction til the next parlt and kicked the crap out of some of the banks he'd be in much better shape. He'd have detoxed on the side of ordinary people rather than his own social circle.
That polling confirms that Scrapheap's and mine's Dry but not obsessed with the gays and the EU Tory Party would win a landslide.
so since self evidently the voters don't think we have one or Cameron would be romping home, where's it going to come from ?
Personally I'd just settle for a vaguely competent one.
Unfortunately the current Tory party does appear to be obsessed with the gays and Europe.
Dave's greatest strategic blunder was to try and appease the UKIP fifth columnists.
hmmm
not quite sure that's true Mr Eagles.
Mr Cameron's faux pas have more to do with ignoring the bread and butter issues. If you're a gay banker in London this is a great government, unfortunately there are enough of them to win an election.
If Cameron had had his detox by keeping the 50p tax reduction til the next parlt and kicked the crap out of some of the banks he'd be in much better shape. He'd have detoxed on the side of ordinary people rather than his own social circle.
So your criticism of Dave is he didn't go down the easy PR route, but did the right thing, in terms of boosting the economy and raising tax revenues, as cutting the 50p tax rate has increased tax revenues.
But what I do dislike is when hey have a scientific expert debating with a "concerned mum" and the latter gets more airtime and more credibility - but that's just my bias showing.
It's not just science where the BBC get that wrong.
All kinds of ill-informed people are stood up against actual experts to provide "balance". Even worse is when they invite the public to tweet or text in with their views on some complex subject.
The funny thing is that the BBC produces shows like Down the Line and Ed Reardon's Week that mock this phenomenon, so there are people in the BBC who realise how fatuous this type of programming is, but it doesn't do anything to diminish the output of blather.
Anyway the BBC aren't always pro ethnic minority in their coverage.. I wrote this blog about the difference between the ethnic make up of East London and the ethnic make up of Eastenders
But what I do dislike is when hey have a scientific expert debating with a "concerned mum" and the latter gets more airtime and more credibility - but that's just my bias showing.
It's not just science where the BBC get that wrong.
All kinds of ill-informed people are stood up against actual experts to provide "balance". Even worse is when they invite the public to tweet or text in with their views on some complex subject.
The funny thing is that the BBC produces shows like Down the Line and Ed Reardon's Week that mock this phenomenon, so there are people in the BBC who realise how fatuous this type of programming is, but it doesn't do anything to diminish the output of blather.
Anyway the BBC aren't always pro ethnic minority in their coverage.. I wrote this blog about the difference between the ethnic make up of East London and the ethnic make up of Eastenders
A lot of Japanese people have a bunch of yen banknotes stashed under the tatami. It won't protect them from the demographics when they come to try to cash it in for the labour of a decreasing number of workers.
Actually money is gold - currencies are merely a way of measuring it. My proposal is to pay in reguarly to approved pension pots for all individuals but to allow the individuals absolute freedom on how this should be invested. I'd recommend a good mix of asset types, currencies, etc. Putting all into a Sterling 'money' account is, I agree, not the way to go.
(Japan's utter unwillingness to accept immigrants or to procreate are Japanese problems - not UK ones - and all the money in the world may not be much use to them if there is nobody physically there to care for the elderly. No wonder they are big on healthcare robot research!).
Anyway the BBC aren't always pro ethnic minority in their coverage.. I wrote this blog about the difference between the ethnic make up of East London and the ethnic make up of Eastenders
Because if Eastenders accurately represented the current demographics of the East End, people wouldn't believe it.
isams analysis is interesting.
But I suspect that it is not just the ethnic demographics of soaps that are out of kilter. There are fewer old people or children. No one goes to the loo, surfs the internet for hours or watches soaps on television! There are far too many affairs/divorces and sudden deaths. Such is the stuff of soaps.
Maybe the ethnic inhabitants of Walford are happily married, at home, watching Bollywood on sattelite, and going to Walford Mosque rather than the Queen Vic?
If Cameron had had his detox by keeping the 50p tax reduction til the next parlt and kicked the crap out of some of the banks he'd be in much better shape. He'd have detoxed on the side of ordinary people rather than his own social circle.
When POGWAS had a go at banks in the last government, one of the major banks (I forgot which one) moved its trading floor from London to HongKong. It was suggested at the time that included the movement of 30+ people each of whom earned over £2m per year.
30 people paying tax at 45% on effectively all of their £2m income is £27m
The average taxpayer in 2010 earned £19,600 and paid £2,625 in Income Tax
We therefore needed to find approximately 10,000 people earning an average amount to replace the tax we lost from bashing those bankers - bashing bankers (hedge funds etc) is idiotic, keep driving them away and soon there won't be anyone to pay for the NHS.
Maybe the ethnic inhabitants of Walford are happily married, at home, watching Bollywood on sattelite, and going to Walford Mosque rather than the Queen Vic?
The same could be said about the ethnic inhabitants of Midsomer, but that didn't stop Brian True-May getting suspended, its still double standards.
Actually money is gold - currencies are merely a way of measuring it. My proposal is to pay in reguarly to approved pension pots for all individuals but to allow the individuals absolute freedom on how this should be invested. I'd recommend a good mix of asset types, currencies, etc. Putting all into a Sterling 'money' account is, I agree, not the way to go.
This is pretty much what I was suggesting, and EiT was telling me would not work. It sounds similar in practise to me to the CPF in Singapore.
In the case of the Japanese with the bank notes under the mat, presumably they will be better off in the future than those without bank notes under the mat. Whatever the new labour rates are in their world of scarce labour, those will money should be better off than those without one would expect.
Anyway the BBC aren't always pro ethnic minority in their coverage.. I wrote this blog about the difference between the ethnic make up of East London and the ethnic make up of Eastenders
Because if Eastenders accurately represented the current demographics of the East End, people wouldn't believe it.
isams analysis is interesting.
But I suspect that it is not just the ethnic demographics of soaps that are out of kilter. There are fewer old people or children. No one goes to the loo, surfs the internet for hours or watches soaps on television! There are far too many affairs/divorces and sudden deaths. Such is the stuff of soaps.
Maybe the ethnic inhabitants of Walford are happily married, at home, watching Bollywood on sattelite, and going to Walford Mosque rather than the Queen Vic?
Even at the start, Eastenders was basically about a single extended family, and Den & Angie in the Vic.
Part of the increase was caused by people delaying taking income whilst the 50p rate was in afffect as they were confident a Conservative government was going to come in and drop it. If they had left the 50p rate intact then people would have eventually had to have taken income.
That's not a report about the cut in the 50p rate raising billions. That's a report about an idiot claiming that it has raised billions.
Scholarship to Oxford. PhD. Fellow of All Souls. Visiting Professor at Middlesex. Director of Rothschilds.
Some idiot.
and someone who personally benefited from the 50p tax rate cut
Yes, because of course you are bound to falsify calculations and conclusions on a publically accessible document where all your peers can check your figures, and you would become an unemployable laughing stock in minutes if you were found out... or maybe not.
Part of the increase was caused by people delaying taking income whilst the 50p rate was in afffect as they were confident a Conservative government was going to come in and drop it. If they had left the 50p rate intact then people would have eventually had to have taken income.
Conversely high earners held off from emigrating or setting up complicated tax mitigation structures that would have reduced their tax bill substantially for exactly the same reasons.
Yes and labour still harking back to referendum and saying we would be skint as oil price has dropped, they really are as thick as they sound.
Murphy is messaging "vote SNP, get the Tories". The Tories are messaging "vote SNP, get Labour/SNP Coalition". I don't think the LibDems have got a message. The SNP look poised to eat them all for breakfast.
In terms of Scotland's economy and the oil price, no one is listening.
In terms of Scotland's economy and the oil price, no one is listening.
Ofcourse not. Nationalism is a "gut" issue, most people that believe in independence would vote for it even if it made them worse off. Its the same as kippers and Europe, accusing them off wanting to be worse off outside the EU doesn't go very far, being outside the EU overrides all other considerations, in the same way as being outside the UK does for the SNP.
A lot of Japanese people have a bunch of yen banknotes stashed under the tatami. It won't protect them from the demographics when they come to try to cash it in for the labour of a decreasing number of workers.
Actually money is gold - currencies are merely a way of measuring it. My proposal is to pay in reguarly to approved pension pots for all individuals but to allow the individuals absolute freedom on how this should be invested. I'd recommend a good mix of asset types, currencies, etc. Putting all into a Sterling 'money' account is, I agree, not the way to go.
(Japan's utter unwillingness to accept immigrants or to procreate are Japanese problems - not UK ones - and all the money in the world may not be much use to them if there is nobody physically there to care for the elderly. No wonder they are big on healthcare robot research!).
Money isn't gold, and to the extent that gold is money it's debt.
Scotland is going to be a good example of the difficulties of tactical voting. Let's take just one constituency: Edinburgh West. In 2010, the result was as follows:
Liberal Democrats 35.9% Labour 27.7% Conservative 23.2% SNP 13.2%
How might this change in 2015? As advertised below, I've been thinking about how the referendum may change voting patterns. Now, unusually, this is a constituency where we have data from the referendum: it was a resounding No, 65.5% to 34.5%.
I've made the following rough and ready assumptions. All 2010 Conservative voters voted No. All 2010 SNP voters voted Yes. 40% of 2010 Lib Dem voters voted Yes and the rest voted No. New voters divided 40:60 between Yes and No. 2010 Labour voters made up the balance (which as it happens was 21.3% Yes and 78.7% No).
I then made the following further assumptions. 80% of all previous Labour and Lib Dem voters who voted Yes will now vote for the SNP. 20% of the remaining Lib Dem voters will defect to Labour, but the rest will remain loyal (reflecting Mike Crockart's incumbency). Half of the new voters in the referendum will vote again in May and will divide as follows: 30% Lib Dem, 20% Labour, 40% SNP, 10% Others.
That would give the following result:
SNP 30.1% Labour 28.8% Conservatives 21% Lib Dems 19% Others 0.9%
In other words, a photo finish between Labour and the SNP that could be changed depending on the amount of tactical voting or Get Out The Vote campaign by the SNP.
All of this is of course highly dependent on my assumptions and I'm sure that every reader of this post will take issue with several of them (I'm not too happy with all of them myself). It would not take too much jiggery pokery with them to get the Lib Dems moving from fourth to first. Or to get Labour to win the seat with some comfort.
This is in a seat where we have a lot of data, and a would-be tactical voter is going to be seriously confused.
That's not a report about the cut in the 50p rate raising billions. That's a report about an idiot claiming that it has raised billions.
Scholarship to Oxford. PhD. Fellow of All Souls. Visiting Professor at Middlesex. Director of Rothschilds.
Some idiot.
It takes all sorts, Richard!
He's also Maggie's Head of No10 Policy Unit.
He's a very smart guy.
A real pity the Tory party didn't elect him leader in 1995.
He would have thrashed Blair in 1997.
You are having a laugh, are you not? No-one, especially Redwood, would have halted the Blair landslide.
He's a swivel-eyed loon with bonkers views who would've been guaranteed to terrify 9/10ths of the electorate and send parents with young children scurrying for cover. A much less telegenic British politician it would be hard to find since 1945. And I even include Miliband in that.
Comments
If that's correct, then increasing the retirement age is indeed a significant part of the answer. Obviously it's difficult for manual jobs - nobody wants a 70-year-old firefighter with arthritis - but I'd like to see encouragement for later and more flexible retirement so that people who ARE able to work longer, perhaps ;part time, feel it really pays off. since they're paying taxes, it helps with the deficit too.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/redbox/topic/yougov-polling-for-red-box#leftwing-labour-favoured-over-rightwing-conservative
Lenny Henry said: Is there a particularly "black" way of seeing the news ? Isn't someone that believes that the colour of your skin determines how you act and think, usually called.. a racist ?
And that's without the historical revisionism about the evils of Thatcherism.
Also, the gaps between those preferences are pretty small.
Russell Brand calls Labour's Ed Balls a 'clicky-wristed snidey c***'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2896125/Russell-Brand-calls-Labour-s-Ed-Balls-clicky-wristed-snidey-c-foul-mouthed-rant-Channel-4.html
But if it bothers you invest in T-bills, or Los Angeles Seafront property, IBM shares, I dont care. You are nit picking. Invest in something relatively safe that means that contributions are accumulated and grow through the persons life so they can be called up when they retire without inconveniencing the current generation.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/01/owen-paterson-mp-why-ukip-is-wrong-about-immigration.html
Personally I'd just settle for a vaguely competent one.
Culture? Upbringing. Always interesting to see the world as others see it. Must see if it’s on iPlayer!
Mind I was once a member of a discussion group. Various subjects each week, and one member was always brining in a gay perspective. Fair enough often but one week the topic was the Arab Israeli conflict and he said “speaking as a gay man....”
I reallly can’t recall what the difference from others view was!
As a morris dancing genetic engineer, I can only agree.
Hmm. Maybe I should start an Enormo-Haddock Watch, and castigate politicians and parties for dubious electoral utterances.
Dave's greatest strategic blunder was to try and appease the UKIP fifth columnists.
We would then have a problem that the number of working people would not be able to generate enough tax, at any acceptable tax rate that didnt cause either mass emigration or a revolution, so support the pensions we are committed to pay to the elderly.
If 30 years ago we had taken 10% percent off the salaries of all those people who are now old, and invested it sensibly in a well managed fund (for the sake of argument), with favourable tax treatment (maybe like an ISA), would they now not have a nice pot of money available to them to pay their pension, and finance their health care, irrespective of the current population of the country.
What am I missing and should someone tell Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Provident_Fund) ?
As I've posted before, if an Alien spacecraft hovered over Lancashire and obliterated Rochdale, they would have the Alien commander on the their programme to explain why it was necessary. And they might well get a more sympathetic hearing if they were transgender or an underdog on their own planet.
But what I do dislike is when hey have a scientific expert debating with a "concerned mum" and the latter gets more airtime and more credibility - but that's just my bias showing.
I still think you're advice to back the SNP back in the long odds seats may prove to the most profitable tip of this parliament.
Sure, but he didn't say culture or upbringing was the reason, he said skin color was the reason.
Mind I was once a member of a discussion group. Various subjects each week, and one member was always brining in a gay perspective. Fair enough often but one week the topic was the Arab Israeli conflict and he said “speaking as a gay man....”
I reallly can’t recall what the difference from others view was!
A neat reversal of this familiar idea:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Yes-But-Good-Jews-Beginners/dp/1596912057
(I expect that his perspective was that Israel is very gay-friendly and Arab countries are generally emphatically not.)
adj: 2.characterized by a great deal of nervous excitement or energy:
Will be used on a daily basis to define inter alia:
...this election campaign, the Tory Party, disillusioned Labour voters, Scotland, the markets, polling, the debates, any constituency UKIP is standing, aftermath if hung parliament etc etc ad nauseum.
Or even more annoying (for me) when you know the damn stupid questions they are going to ask and what all the people they interview are going to say before they start, but they go through it anyway. A man was murdered and a suspect was caught, so they talk to the wife of the victim ("do you feel bitter","do you forgive the killer"), the mother of the killer ("what was he like as a child","was he always good to his mum"), the local police ("was it the most brutal/horrific case of its type you have ever dealt with") and possibly the local barman ("was he a regular","did he ever seem a bit odd to you")
The answers from the wife clearly should be "yes" and "no bloody chance", but she will feel pressurised to be generous by the camera in her face. The Mother will say "oh he was such a nice boy" and "yes, he never forgot my birthday". Local Plod will say it was horrific, terrible, and the worst of his career. The local barman will say "yes" and "well now that you mention is the was something about him" ;-)
People like that think that unless there is a special interest group specifically for people like them, then the world is against them
I suppose they think all white, straight people are virtual clones who think as one.. secretly plotting to minimise "others"
*evil cackle*
Anyway the BBC aren't always pro ethnic minority in their coverage.. I wrote this blog about the difference between the ethnic make up of East London and the ethnic make up of Eastenders
Why would they be so inaccurate?
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/
So it's hardly 'spilling the beans.' It's probably true of much of the country. The 1992-97 Major Gov't was a hideous political car crash, replete with back-biting, bile, nastiness, corruption, lasciviousness, sleaze, hypocrisy and with a massive economic balls-up on Black Wednesday. With hindsight we deserved everything we got and I don't blame the BBC for celebrating.
It was a sea-change, and felt possibly even more so than 1979. It was a country that had grown and come of age, that wanted not merely economic success but social conscience. That's why I bang on about the centre ground so much. Mrs T laid the foundations, but it was Blair who built the first floor. Ever since then General Election victories have been found in the heady cocktail of economic competence and social liberalism. It's where Cameron is positioned, and it's why I am convinced he will win. The voices to far right and left may be loud, but they are a vocal minority.
OT. If this is now considered to be rape it's difficult to see how anyone in a casual relationship will be able to feel safe without taking a breathalyser a lawyer and at least one witness of provan good character with them.
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Yes-But-Good-Jews-Beginners/dp/1596912057
(I expect that his perspective was that Israel is very gay-friendly and Arab countries are generally emphatically not.)
TBH, while I don’t recall, I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the thrust of his argument. I’d have listened more carefully if it had been.
All kinds of ill-informed people are stood up against actual experts to provide "balance". Even worse is when they invite the public to tweet or text in with their views on some complex subject.
The funny thing is that the BBC produces shows like Down the Line and Ed Reardon's Week that mock this phenomenon, so there are people in the BBC who realise how fatuous this type of programming is, but it doesn't do anything to diminish the output of blather.
Yes, it's the banality of it all.
They seem to have a set script and the worst is always. "After this terrible disaster, could you tell us your innermost feelings for the benefit of the millions of viewers who'd like a good revel."
I'd like some grieving person to say "I just shrug my shoulders and say easy come, easy go."
What is particularly depressing is in the discussion about whether Evans should ever be allowed to work again, the actual situation in the case is hardly ever mentioned. Judy Finnigan was vilified for even bringing it up in the discussion. What has gone wrong with free speech in this country?
https://www.facebook.com/notes/scottish-national-party-snp/are-you-ready/913914311953196
Theresa May is the Home Secretary
*So I am told.
No, Bilton. It's one of those safe forest fires. You should go nearer to investigate it properly.
The same oaf, I believe, asked the mother of the very young Liverpudlian boy who was shot (Rhys something, I think), after she said the family was going to move, "It's affected you that much?"
Whoever would've guessed a mum would be dramatically affected by her son's murder.
I also dislike it when cameras get shoved into the faces of grieving families, teenagers and children after a tragedy. It's voyeuristic and intrusive.
[NB BBC isn't alone in stupid commentary. A year or so ago some clown from ITV reported that "the avalanche went downhill, powered by gravity". Thanks for that, genius. I was wondering why they didn't go uphill. Same channel had an inflation report that it was at a two year high. Less than a minute later the newsreader stated prices were rising "like never before". No, like two years ago, you bloody idiot].
Not that these things infuriate me so much that I remember them forever. (I came across pre-prepared in the Edward III biography I'm reading. I'll not lie, if I were the rating sort I'd knock a star off for that).
What Singapore are probably doing there is industrial policy. Like old Japanese policy, the point is to move money from consumption to industry. This may or may not be a good idea, but it doesn't affect the sustainability of the pension system.
Your comment will invariably contain a grammar/spelling/language mistake.
Step forward UKIP MEP Bill Etheridge on some in the NHS whose command of English isn't good.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6hjEOzIYAEidDJ.jpg:large
The Conservative Party has "lurched to the right" and ceded the "centre ground" of politics to Labour, shadow chancellor Ed Balls has said.
Writing in the Guardian, Mr Balls said there was an "increasingly extreme and ideological approach" to Tory plans for "massively deeper spending cuts".
A Conservative Party spokesman said Labour would put the economy at risk.
Former prime minister Tony Blair said this week that Labour "succeeds best when it is in the centre ground".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30653845
I find this very irritating. Ed Balls has said something. Fine, let's hear what he has said. But (presumably because of some idiotic 'balance' rules') they can't simply tell us what he has said, and then perhaps mention reaction or other views, they instead have to interpose contradictory, and really quite irrelevant, statements from other people before you've had a chance to take in the original Ed Balls statement.
They do this all the time:
- One or two sentences about the actual subject
- Then immediately two or three irrelevant paragraphs reporting someone saying the opposite
- Then go back to reporting on the actual subject again
It's a ridiculous style of writing, which merely serves to obscure what the article is supposed to be about.
A lot of Japanese people have a bunch of yen banknotes stashed under the tatami. It won't protect them from the demographics when they come to try to cash it in for the labour of a decreasing number of workers.
Also, how do you see the General Election going north of the border?
not quite sure that's true Mr Eagles.
Mr Cameron's faux pas have more to do with ignoring the bread and butter issues. If you're a gay banker in London this is a great government, unfortunately there are enough of them to win an election.
If Cameron had had his detox by keeping the 50p tax reduction til the next parlt and kicked the crap out of some of the banks he'd be in much better shape. He'd have detoxed on the side of ordinary people rather than his own social circle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595611/Cut-tax-rate-sees-revenue-climb-9billion-Amount-paid-wealthiest-soared-50p-rate-reduced.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277472/Income_Tax_Liabilities_Statistics_-_February_2014.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26875420
(Japan's utter unwillingness to accept immigrants or to procreate are Japanese problems - not UK ones - and all the money in the world may not be much use to them if there is nobody physically there to care for the elderly. No wonder they are big on healthcare robot research!).
But I suspect that it is not just the ethnic demographics of soaps that are out of kilter. There are fewer old people or children. No one goes to the loo, surfs the internet for hours or watches soaps on television! There are far too many affairs/divorces and sudden deaths. Such is the stuff of soaps.
Maybe the ethnic inhabitants of Walford are happily married, at home, watching Bollywood on sattelite, and going to Walford Mosque rather than the Queen Vic?
30 people paying tax at 45% on effectively all of their £2m income is £27m
The average taxpayer in 2010 earned £19,600 and paid £2,625 in Income Tax
We therefore needed to find approximately 10,000 people earning an average amount to replace the tax we lost from bashing those bankers - bashing bankers (hedge funds etc) is idiotic, keep driving them away and soon there won't be anyone to pay for the NHS.
Some idiot.
He's a very smart guy.
A real pity the Tory party didn't elect him leader in 1995.
He would have thrashed Blair in 1997.
In the case of the Japanese with the bank notes under the mat, presumably they will be better off in the future than those without bank notes under the mat. Whatever the new labour rates are in their world of scarce labour, those will money should be better off than those without one would expect.
(Depending on response rates)
http://anmblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c565553ef0192aba25169970d-pi
In terms of Scotland's economy and the oil price, no one is listening.
(Japan's utter unwillingness to accept immigrants or to procreate are Japanese problems - not UK ones - and all the money in the world may not be much use to them if there is nobody physically there to care for the elderly. No wonder they are big on healthcare robot research!).
Money isn't gold, and to the extent that gold is money it's debt.
Liberal Democrats 35.9%
Labour 27.7%
Conservative 23.2%
SNP 13.2%
How might this change in 2015? As advertised below, I've been thinking about how the referendum may change voting patterns. Now, unusually, this is a constituency where we have data from the referendum: it was a resounding No, 65.5% to 34.5%.
I've made the following rough and ready assumptions. All 2010 Conservative voters voted No. All 2010 SNP voters voted Yes. 40% of 2010 Lib Dem voters voted Yes and the rest voted No. New voters divided 40:60 between Yes and No. 2010 Labour voters made up the balance (which as it happens was 21.3% Yes and 78.7% No).
I then made the following further assumptions. 80% of all previous Labour and Lib Dem voters who voted Yes will now vote for the SNP. 20% of the remaining Lib Dem voters will defect to Labour, but the rest will remain loyal (reflecting Mike Crockart's incumbency). Half of the new voters in the referendum will vote again in May and will divide as follows: 30% Lib Dem, 20% Labour, 40% SNP, 10% Others.
That would give the following result:
SNP 30.1%
Labour 28.8%
Conservatives 21%
Lib Dems 19%
Others 0.9%
In other words, a photo finish between Labour and the SNP that could be changed depending on the amount of tactical voting or Get Out The Vote campaign by the SNP.
All of this is of course highly dependent on my assumptions and I'm sure that every reader of this post will take issue with several of them (I'm not too happy with all of them myself). It would not take too much jiggery pokery with them to get the Lib Dems moving from fourth to first. Or to get Labour to win the seat with some comfort.
This is in a seat where we have a lot of data, and a would-be tactical voter is going to be seriously confused.
He's a swivel-eyed loon with bonkers views who would've been guaranteed to terrify 9/10ths of the electorate and send parents with young children scurrying for cover. A much less telegenic British politician it would be hard to find since 1945. And I even include Miliband in that.
And anyway, sinking, sinking, sunk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIwBvjoLyZc
Unionism = Italian military prowess.